# RSPCA is forming links...



## Revobuzz (Nov 8, 2011)

So this is extract from RSPCA review 2013.

Please do not turn this into an RSPCA bashing thread. If you want to post rumours/myths or generally moan about the RSPCA please start another thread.

Does anyone have any information on what the RSPCA is doing to "investigate the trade" and what organisations they are forming links with? 

Facts only please. No prizes for saying "I bet it's the APA" etc.


----------



## stevenrudge (Sep 3, 2009)

*reply*

A good post,hope you get the responsible responses your asking for,if past posts are any guide then some will just ignore you and post nonsensical replys,this is one to watch
Steven


----------



## Khonsu (May 20, 2009)

Presumably as a "responsible" organisation if you ask them & they have nothing to hide they should tell you ?


----------



## tomboa01 (Nov 9, 2012)

is this a good thing? i hope so cuz i really respect the rspca


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

tomboa01 said:


> is this a good thing? i hope so cuz i really respect the rspca



it means; one group of 'people' who know nothing about exotics pets and don't want people keeping them, are (probably) getting help and advice off another group of 'people' who know nothing about exotics pets and don't want people keeping them.

Probably a bit like Kim Jong-un asking Hitler for advice on how to house Jews.


----------



## stevenrudge (Sep 3, 2009)

Khonsu said:


> Presumably as a "responsible" organisation if you ask them & they have nothing to hide they should tell you ?


spent the last 15 months asking another (responsible organisation)much the same question,got nowhere,but like you say if they have nothing to hide why still hide?unless they have-thats the only answer that makes any sense,so thans for your imput,l'm glade that we agree


----------



## Revobuzz (Nov 8, 2011)

Khonsu said:


> Presumably as a "responsible" organisation if you ask them & they have nothing to hide they should tell you ?


Done. I will post any reply I get.

On the bright side they do also say they are enhancing exotic training for inspectors. So at least they are addressing that need.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

Revobuzz said:


> On the bright side they do also say they are enhancing exotic training for inspectors. So at least they are addressing that need.


that's debatable though.

The issue isn't so much if they're enhancing the training, but whether they're giving them the correct training in the first place. A lot of RSPCA v's exotics, complaints, is that they don't (always) know themselves what care they need. So it's only going to be a bright side, if they work with the right people to get the right information to give to the inspectors.


----------



## Revobuzz (Nov 8, 2011)

Meko said:


> that's debatable though.
> 
> The issue isn't so much if they're enhancing the training, but whether they're giving them the correct training in the first place. A lot of RSPCA v's exotics, complaints, is that they don't (always) know themselves what care they need. So it's only going to be a bright side, if they work with the right people to get the right information to give to the inspectors.


Fair point.


----------



## Khonsu (May 20, 2009)

Revobuzz said:


> On the bright side they do also say they are enhancing exotic training for inspectors. So at least they are addressing that need.


Only coomet here is by enhancing will it actually be sufficent when its done plus if your're starting with a negative or anti view & you "enhance" thier training does it actually end up with some one who has a fare understanding or somebody is more opposed than they were before ?


----------



## stevenrudge (Sep 3, 2009)

*reply*

Theres always going to be some tension between any animal welfare group or organisation and pet hobbyists and any trading in a living commodity.
As were all involved with various aspects with live animal care but from different fields these sometimes can conflict.
Trading has to be as free as possible 
Pet enthusiasts have a right of ownership and privacy
Animal welfare groups are charged to placing animal duty of care above all else
Squaring these three can at times course tension between us


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Revobuzz said:


> So this is extract from RSPCA review 2013.
> 
> Please do not turn this into an RSPCA bashing thread. If you want to post rumours/myths or generally moan about the RSPCA please start another thread.
> 
> ...


I don’t want to go into details at this moment in time, but yes I can confirm that “significant dialogue” is currently in hand. It is no secret that I have been (and remain) a stern critic of the RSPCA, something for which I make no apology. That said things change, the RSPCA state that they look at the evidence, the science, so let’s take them at their word? Perhaps (emphasis on _perhap_s) we will see a change of stance in respect of so called “exotics” (reptiles) in the near future, time will tell….!!


----------



## MCEE (Aug 8, 2011)

Meko said:


> that's debatable though.
> 
> The issue isn't so much if they're enhancing the training, but whether they're giving them the correct training in the first place. A lot of RSPCA v's exotics, complaints, is that they don't (always) know themselves what care they need. So it's only going to be a bright side, if they work with the right people to get the right information to give to the inspectors.


I do not care what information the RSPCA give their "inspectors" (note the quotes), not one "inspector" will ever get to set foot past my threshold.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

That's great.. really great; but they'll no doubt be setting foot in other peoples property


----------



## MCEE (Aug 8, 2011)

Meko said:


> That's great.. really great; but they'll no doubt be setting foot in other peoples property


Not if you don't let them.


----------



## mitsi (Feb 1, 2012)

MCEE said:


> Not if you don't let them.


personally i think this way of thinking just causes more problems, its up to us whether we let them in or not, but if we dont then this just raises suspicion and then they can come back in a way where you have no choice and have to let them in. Best way imo is to keep our animals as spot on as we possibly can, then they will have no reason to come back should you let them in.


----------



## Chance (Jun 14, 2008)

A lot of our 'problems' with the RSPCA stem from us (us being reptile keepers in general) believing that the RSPCA don't know anything about 'exotics' and therefore we don't like them and see them as the enemy.

The only real way they can source first hand experience and information is by asking us and we won't help them. So its a double edged sword really as we don't like them cos they don't know anything and they don't know anything because we won't help them.

I am on the contact list at my local RSPCA vet centre and all the inspectors in this area have my e-mail address and telephone number (they don't have my address) and I get at least one or two calls a week asking for basic advice on a reptile they have picked up. I see nothing wrong with working alongside them. They respect my privacy and if they ever have a reptile that they want identifying etc they will e-mail me a photograph as I told them I don't want them coming to my house.

I have nothing to hide and they are more than welcome to come and 'inspect' my property if they so wish but seeing as I never have any visitors they aren't the top of my invites list. 

They get a lot of flack for putting animals to sleep etc but if there weren't so many moronic idiots abusing animals then the RSPCA wouldn't be over run with animals they don't have space for.

: victory:


----------



## MCEE (Aug 8, 2011)

mitsi said:


> personally i think this way of thinking just causes more problems, its up to us whether we let them in or not, but if we dont then this just raises suspicion and then they can come back in a way where you have no choice and have to let them in. Best way imo is to keep our animals as spot on as we possibly can, then they will have no reason to come back should you let them in.


RSPCA "inspectors" (a made up name given to make them seem more important than they are) are nothing more than charity employees who wear a uniform. Their job title and uniform are designed to intimidate. They have no legal powers whatsoever and you have no obligation to even engage them in conversation, should they turn up at your door. 

Even if they turn up with police in tow, you do not have to let them in. The only people that are allowed in your premises are police officers armed with a search warrant. Even then the RSPCA have no right to accompany a police officer into your home and must wait outside.

Even if you let them in, thinking you have nothing to hide, they could pick you up on the slightest of errors and and this could lead to you losing your animals. If you refuse to have anything to do with them, and politely close the door on them, there is not the slightest thing they can do about it. If they keep returning they can be reported for harassment.

The bottom line is that you should never, ever, invite an RSPCA into your home. If they enter without your permission they are tresspassing and you have a legal right to physically remove them should they refuse your requests for them to leave.


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

Chance said:


> I am on the contact list at my local RSPCA vet centre and all the inspectors in this area have my e-mail address and telephone number (they don't have my address) and *I get at least one or two calls a week asking for basic advice on a reptile they have picked up.*


I think this beautifully sums up the problem. They should have been taught and trained before picking the animals up.

The main problem IMHO however is the demarcation of the RSPCA inspectors and the RSPCA governing body who decide on their campaigns. They are worlds apart and it will be the governing body that will be having the meetings, not the inspectors on the streets.


----------



## blood and guts (May 30, 2007)

i used to be all for a good ole fight with the antis and rspca and still happy to stand up against there lies and bullcrap however the reptile world has failed to keep its house in order and we give them fare to much ammo every day to hit us with!


----------



## MCEE (Aug 8, 2011)

blood and guts said:


> ... the reptile world has failed to keep its house in order and we give them fare to much ammo every day to hit us with!


How so?

OK, so there may be one or two bad apples within the reptile keeping community but how you can justify your assumption that the whole "reptile world" is unable to keep it's house in order?

The reptile keeping hobby, as a whole, is no worse than any other where livestock and pets are concerned. The only reason that exotic pets are picked on more than anything else in the animal keeping community is because they are just that...exotic or not "normal". Throughout history the ignorant have always attacked those in society whom they do not, or refuse to, understand. This is exactly what is happening when we look at the attacks on our hobby from the animal rights lobby. It has nothing to do with the "reptile world" not having their house in order but has everything to do with our attackers having little or no understanding of what they attack. I think they call it "fear of the unknown".

So, it would be nice if you could be a bit more detailed with your conclusions so that we can understand where on earth you are coming from.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

mitsi said:


> personally i think this way of thinking just causes more problems, its up to us whether we let them in or not, but if we dont then this just raises suspicion and then they can come back in a way where you have no choice and have to let them in. Best way imo is to keep our animals as spot on as we possibly can, then they will have no reason to come back should you let them in.


The problem with this is historically people who were keeping animals (reptiles) perfectly acceptably have had there animals sized and been prosecuted, and in many cases ban from keeping animals for life by RSPCA for know other reason than the RSPCA’s political objection to people keeping exotics. 

There are three fundamental problems with the RSPCA, there are of course other issues, but I see these two as the fundamental problem:

First and foremost, is they prioritise political campaigning above animal welfare. In other words they look for keepers to prosecute to highlight why certain activities should be banned.

Secondly to be an RSPCA Inspector you are not required to have any knowledge off or interest in animals, what they prize is what they call “interpersonal skills” i.e. how good are you at bullying people…..!!

Thirdly accountability, or rather lack off the! The RSPCA are not accountable for their actions to any formal regulatory body, yes they are accountable to the Charity Commission, but that is in relation to very specific matters (i.e. how they spend their money) The philosophy of the RSPCA is laws only apply to others not us!

These are the three key issues that need to be addressed to reform the RSPCA into the organisation it needs to be, in my view.

Now back to your point, if the RSPCA knocked on my door would I let them in to inspect my animals………. emphatically no!


----------



## blood and guts (May 30, 2007)

MCEE said:


> How so?
> 
> OK, so there may be one or two bad apples within the reptile keeping community but how you can justify your assumption that the whole "reptile world" is unable to keep it's house in order?
> 
> So, it would be nice if you could be a bit more detailed with your conclusions so that we can understand where on earth you are coming from.


Ive been around the reptile world for 25 years and seen way way to much bad stuff, yes theres been a lot of good and theres a lot of dam good keepers out there no question on that one!

But some of my points are simple and this forum is a glowing example of it,

peoples feelings and egos coming befor the welfare of the animals,

stamp collecting attitudes and treating of animals more as a comodity then a living creature,

continued breeding of morphs known to have major issues such as enigma leopard geckos and a good few royal morphs,

standards of care getting more basic and cage sizing smaller,

and i could go on but you sould get a idea of where im coming from with that alone.


----------



## MCEE (Aug 8, 2011)

blood and guts said:


> Ive been around the reptile world for 25 years and seen way way to much bad stuff, yes theres been a lot of good and theres a lot of dam good keepers out there no question on that one!
> 
> But some of my points are simple and this forum is a glowing example of it,
> 
> ...


But the points you raise can be associated with any form of animal keeping. They cannot not necessarily be attributed to reptiles alone. Keepers of reptiles are no better or worse than keepers of any other type of animal. Also, just because a few people argue or debate on a forum or that there is the odd bad apple in the hobby does not mean that that particular sector of animal keeping has not got its house in order.

What you are doing is trying to tar the entire reptile community with a tiny, tiny brush.


----------



## blood and guts (May 30, 2007)

MCEE said:


> But the points you raise can be associated with any form of animal keeping. They cannot not necessarily be attributed to reptiles alone. Keepers of reptiles are no better or worse than keepers of any other type of animal. Also, just because a few people argue or debate on a forum or that there is the odd bad apple in the hobby does not mean that that particular sector of animal keeping has not got its house in order.
> 
> What you are doing is trying to tar the entire reptile community with a tiny, tiny brush.


I wouldent say its a tiny area and yes theres problems in all areas of animal keeping, look at the mess in some dog breeds for instance or the damage the marine fish trade has caused in some areas. 
But this is a reptile forum and some problems are much bigger then you and others like to admit and thats part of the problem! to few willing to stand up and say whats wrong! look at royals and the stamp collecting attitude with them now, look at the likes of spider wobbles, kinked caramels and so on and you say its a small problem?


----------



## 1b3 (Aug 17, 2011)

The majority of reptile keeping is undertaken responsibly though. There must be tens of thousands of people keeping reptiles in the UK.
Whatever dog, cat, bird or fish keepers and breeders do to maintain positive attitudes is ultimately similar to the methods we should be starting to use. Including T.V or radio adverts for products and services before reptile keeping becomes much more mainstream.
The point will soon be reached where, like bird keeping and fish keeping and horsey stuff, reptile keeping will no longer be a minority undertaking. 

So say it once and say it loud, there's an albino crocodile in the garden and I'm proud.


----------



## MCEE (Aug 8, 2011)

blood and guts said:


> ...and you say its a small problem?


In the whole scheme of things it does not mean the entire hobby is to blame, only irresponsible individuals, as it is in any walk of life. Just because there is a burglar living at no. 32 does not mean the entire street is full of criminals and the whole area is a crime hot spot.

What you are alluding to is the "potential" for the hobby to be brought into disripute. However, being potential does not mean it is and because there are so few idiots in the hobby in relation to how many reptile keepers there are in total, there really is no reason to assume the hobby has not got its house in order. The massive majority of sensible keepers will ensure that that would never happen.


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

*Money is the root of all dialogue?*

Like all others in the charities sector, the RSPCA is no doubt feeling the pinch as the economics of the nation pull on its purse strings too.

There are as many pet reptiles as there are pet cats and pet dogs in the UK, and way more than there are pet horses and donkeys.

People who like fluffy pussy cats and cute adorable bouncy puppies throw money at the RSPCA, and yet those who keep reptiles have hitherto been alienated by them.

Anyone examining the RSPCA's accounts with a view to financial planning over the coming years must have spotted this untapped and potentially huge revenue stream. 

There is obvious potential for the hobby to be milked since it supports a huge number of small rescue centres up and down the country (despite the FBH's best attempts to ignore we exist). Admittedly most are supported by the people who run in them and work with them, and the local hobby related businesses round about, but even ours manages to raise about 20% of it's annual budget from direct cash donations - that's money I have no doubt the RSPCA would rather was being chucked in their direction than ours.

I do have to add that I am kind of dismayed reading Chris' post above. I'd always believed that if we kept on doing the work we were doing, and kept on knocking on the door, that the FBH would eventually recognise our part in this hobby, that we could work towards affiliating the good rescues (which would happily also have provided a de-facto method of ostracising the bad) instead your turning our fortunes over to the wannabe-animal-Gestapo.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

alecwood said:


> Like all others in the charities sector, the RSPCA is no doubt feeling the pinch as the economics of the nation pull on its purse strings too.
> 
> There are as many pet reptiles as there are pet cats and pet dogs in the UK, and way more than there are pet horses and donkeys.
> 
> ...


The FBH most certainly does not ignore the existence of “reptile rescue centres” that is an entirely disingenuous statement to make…..!! We acknowledge and indeed support responsible rescue/rehoming centres, our position is that we believe that the current situation whereby they are unregulated is not acceptable. 

Which part of my comments regards to the RSPCA dismayed you?


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

I suppose right from the words "significant dialogue" is where I started to get somewhat dismayed. 

Anyway, I don't want to hijack someone else's thread so I'll leave my opinions of the FBH's attitude to rescues for another thread at another time. I'll send you a PM and elaborate how I, as a trustee of such a centre, feel.

I just really wanted to make the point that what's in it for the RSPCA is money, and that as they expand into this field they will do so at a cost to some in that they will hoover up what little support there is for the small rescue centres that have served the hobby well over a long period.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

alecwood said:


> I suppose right from the words "significant dialogue" is where I started to get somewhat dismayed.
> 
> Anyway, I don't want to hijack someone else's thread so I'll leave my opinions of the FBH's attitude to rescues for another thread at another time. I'll send you a PM and elaborate how I, as a trustee of such a centre, feel.
> 
> I just really wanted to make the point that what's in it for the RSPCA is money, and that as they expand into this field they will do so at a cost to some in that they will hoover up what little support there is for the small rescue centres that have served the hobby well over a long period.


The reality, weather we like it or not, is the RSPCA is politically a very influential organisation (business), as such we (the FBH) who by our own position, i.e. a political organisation that represents the interests of keepers, interact with the RSPCA on many governmental and non-governmental committees/working groups. I regularly accuse them of being out of date, out of touch in relation to the reptile industry/hobby. I firmly believe there understanding of reptiles is thirty years out of date. Now, we can reside in our respective trenches and simply lob bricks at each other, enjoyable but ultimately unproductive. Or we can have dialogue to collaborate in promoting animal (reptilian) welfare. Last time the RSPCA walked away from the table, my view is we (FBH) should never walk away from decisions with _any_ organisation that is genuinely interested in improving welfare of reptiles! Is this latest dialogue financially motivated, undoubtedly. Notwithstanding should we decline then we loose the moral high ground, this does not mean we cannot exercise cynicism and caution……!! 

The FBH position on rescue, re-homing and sanctuaries is we support and encourage responsible operations emphatically. Our reservation is due to the fact they are entirely unregulated it is extremely difficult to differentiate between good and bad, we believe light touch regulation is essential. Feel free to contact me at any time as this is an issue that we are currently looking at.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

alecwood said:


> I suppose right from the words "significant dialogue" is where I started to get somewhat dismayed.
> 
> Anyway, I don't want to hijack someone else's thread so I'll leave my opinions of the FBH's attitude to rescues for another thread at another time. I'll send you a PM and elaborate how I, as a trustee of such a centre, feel.
> 
> I just really wanted to make the point that what's in it for the RSPCA is money, and that as they expand into this field they will do so at a cost to some in that they will hoover up what little support there is for the small rescue centres that have served the hobby well over a long period.


This might be relevant to the discussions:


*Briefing document *


*The Tortoise Garden*​

*Preamble* 

In the UK today 125,000,000 animals are kept as pets (or companion animals) and it is inevitable that some will require re-homing for a whole multitude of reasons. Many causes are quite legitimate, and indeed unavoidable, none more so than the death of the owner and studies have shown that over 100,000 pets need re-homing each year because the owner died without making provision for them. Dog and cats are exempt from any regulations in terms of re-homing or the operation of a sanctuary to provide for their needs but other species may be hindered legislative issues. 

*The Tortoise Garden*

The situation in which the Tortoise Garden finds its self is not unique as such situations are becoming increasingly common. Difficulties arise in two areas of legislation, namely the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, and the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997. The latter (known as COTES) underpins The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) 1975, enshrined in EU Wildlife Trade Regulations 338/97. Species commonly kept as pets may be affected by the aforementioned legislative issues and the problem is particularly prevalent with tortoises and parrots.

Permanent relief could be sanctioned under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, although this would require secondary legislation. Secondary legislation on Pet Vending and Sanctuaries was committed to by the last government on the passing of the Animal Welfare Bill, but subsequently abandoned. In lieu of secondary legislation substantial relief could be achieved by issuance of formal guidance from DEFRA.

*Zoo Licensing Act 1981* [ZLA] The Act falls under the remit of Animal Health, Bristol but the day-to-day administration of the Act falls on the relevant Local Authority [LA]. The ZLA is a very broad brush under which a zoo is defined as: 

_An establishment where wild animals (animals not normally domesticated in Great Britain) are kept for exhibition to the public with or without charge for seven or more days a year. _


Government issues some guidance on further defining if an establishment falls under the jurisdiction of the ZLA, but the final decision falls to the LA. Broadly speaking the LA needs to consider two primary issues:

Are the animals “domesticated?
Is the primary reason they are kept for “exhibition to the public”? 
*Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997* [COTES] COTES is extremely Draconian, with a reverse burden of proof and punitive punishment. In recent years several reviews of COTES have been started and subsequently abandoned and it is likely the Act is not compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998. An offence is committed under COTES when an Annex A species which does not have a valid Article 10 Certificate, is used for so-called commercial purposes, where commercial is defined as:

_Buying, offering to buy, obtaining for commercial purposes, keeping for sale, offering for sale, transporting for sale and exchange, using for commercial breeding, commercial display and actual sale are all considered commercial activities. _

*Recommendations *

Ideally Secondary Legislation would be forthcoming but in the current climate this is exceedingly unlikely in the foreseeable future so alternative measure need to be pursued. With long lived species, such as tortoises, it is inevitable a significant number of animals will need to be re-homed (or offered sanctuary) each year. The difficulties experienced by the Tortoise Garden emphasise the need for an urgent review. 

Ø The CITES Article 10 issue could be resolved by defining guidance in respect of the term ‘commercial’. Despite protestation to the contrary, Article 10 Certificates are not a conservation tool but a purely bureaucratic requirement so guidance on enforcing the legislation could be drafted. I am of the understanding that Customs & Revenue regard ‘fixed fee donations’ as sales and VAT is applied but unspecified donations are exempted. Similar guidance could surely be applied to Article 10 Certificates, thus removing the burden on sanctuaries such as the Tortoise Garden. 

Ø Issues under the Zoo Licensing Act could be relieved by more detailed and prescriptive guidance from government. Fairly recently such guidance has been issued by the Zoos Forum in respect of llamas and alpacas which has resulted in exempting them from requirements. Tortoises have been kept in the UK as pets since 1625 so surely could now also be defined as domesticated pets, removing unnecessary pressures on tortoise re-homing. 

*Conclusions*

Animal welfare is obviously a high priority and much of the legislation aimed at improving standards now actually has a negative impact. In the UK today over 50% of all households own pets, many of these being so-called exotic or non-domesticated species. Such species are fast overtaking more traditional pets in popularity, with as many reptiles kept in the UK as dogs. Statistically keepers of exotic species, such as reptiles, levy a significantly lower financial burden on government than dog owners. 

The Animal Welfare Act has been a significant step forward, although the lack of Secondary Legislation is disappointing. Re-homing Centres and Sanctuaries are largely unregulated as the law stands, which clearly raises issues. For example, more dogs which enter re-homing establishments today originated from other re-homing centres than from pet shops, yet pet shops are regulated whilst re-homing centres are not. 

The crucial issue in this case would seem to be whether the Tortoise Garden is keeping the animals primarily for exhibition to the public. The tortoises are in hibernation for a significant proportion of the year and visitor throughput through the remainder of the year is low. Some visitors also retain ownership of animals on site which they can no longer look after due to ill health or unsuitable accommodation (largely moving into residential care) and could not, therefore, reasonably be categorised as member of the public. The primary purpose is clearly to offer a place of sanctuary for the animals, not to be a public exhibit. Tortoises are likely be longer lived than their human owners and in this respect pose a unique rehoming problem as most will eventually need a place of sanctuary and centres such as the Tortoise Garden provide a very necessary and valuable service, without which animals welfare would be compromised.

The second point of consideration is that tortoises must surely now be considered domesticated pets, especially as such creatures as llamas and alpacas now meet the criteria. Bearing in mind some of the tortoises at the Tortoise Garden have been with their owners for the best part of one hundred years, they must surely qualify.

To conclude, the Tortoise Garden offers sanctuary to pets when owners can no longer look after them, largely due to reasons of ill-health, infirmity or death. The sanctuary keeps the tortoises for the rest of their natural life, allowing surviving owners of family members to visit much-loved pets, with a very high standard of care and welfare. Removing beaurocratic burden would allow the Tortoise garden to carry on with this vital work and allow owners peace of mind in their twilight years. 

Prepared by Chris Newman 07/03/2011


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

Chris Newman said:


> The reality, weather we like it or not, is the RSPCA


Yeah man, I understand where you're at. A bit of time away from the keyboard helps me see beyond my own worries. 

That said, you'll understand I have to worry about my own corner, but that doesn't mean I don't see the bigger picture


----------



## Khonsu (May 20, 2009)

As a number of others have said above I too would not permit any member of the RSPCA purporting to be an inspector into my property, a qualified vet is a different matter but a charity worker in a uniform, I think not. 

I may as well ask the binman to come & inspect my reptiles or the bloke walking his dog past the house, thier opinion, as far as I'm concerned, would count for just as much as the RSPCA goon. 

What others do is a matter for them to decide, its personnal & emotive subject, but the RSPCA arn't on my Christmas card list.


----------



## emmabee (Oct 29, 2010)

MCEE said:


> But the points you raise can be associated with any form of animal keeping. They cannot not necessarily be attributed to reptiles alone. Keepers of reptiles are no better or worse than keepers of any other type of animal. Also, just because a few people argue or debate on a forum or that there is the odd bad apple in the hobby does not mean that that particular sector of animal keeping has not got its house in order.
> 
> What you are doing is trying to tar the entire reptile community with a tiny, tiny brush.


We do need to get our house in order. Yes there are plenty of other problems in other animals and keepers but they are no our concern.

We do need to take accountability of what certain "bad apples" do for us and the rest of us need to be beyond reproach.
We are (wether we like it or not) under the spotlight from AR groups.

Forums are monitored by them and the endless "can I keep this snake in a RUB" " do I need a vet" " royal wont eat" or the even worse "ive lost my snake" threads that occur daily do not look good at all.
The simple "search" function gives these answers but people can't be arsed looking. Is this showing us in a good light?
We tar ourselves.

If your dog is ill you would get a vet, why do people think reptiles are different.




As for resuce centres, yes we need them and we need to support them but how do we weed out the legit from the freebee hunters?

Work is being done on these things just not everything is shouted about until more facts are known.

This post isn't particularly aimed at anyone so please don't think I'm singling you out.

The hobby has many issues and inconsistencies that need and are being addressed and I believe a more united, positive time will be coming.

Chris Newman does a lot and whilst I understand some people's frustrations that not all he does is visible he is doing things for us.
Maybe more people should be willing to help out, after all he is only one man!


----------



## Revobuzz (Nov 8, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> I don’t want to go into details at this moment in time, but yes I can confirm that “significant dialogue” is currently in hand. It is no secret that I have been (and remain) a stern critic of the RSPCA, something for which I make no apology. That said things change, the RSPCA state that they look at the evidence, the science, so let’s take them at their word? Perhaps (emphasis on _perhap_s) we will see a change of stance in respect of so called “exotics” (reptiles) in the near future, time will tell….!!


Happy to hear that Chris. At the end of the day most problems in the world would be less if the parties involved talked more.

At a basic level are all interested in the same thing - animal welfare. 

We are all just coming at it from different directions.

(If RFUK has an award for understatement I would like to submit the above sentence for consideration- Thank You.)


----------

