# Exchanging of animals in the car park at shows



## Chris Newman

As I am sure you are aware there have been significant “issues” with breeders meetings being held due to the activities of those who oppose us keeping and breeding the animals that we do! Whilst there have been many, many issues raised one of them is they facilitate “illegal” trade, implying that such meetings facilitate the trade in smuggled [illegal] animals, which of course is completely untrue. 

However, people handing over bags containing snakes, or other reptiles from the boot of the car is a gift to our opponents as it perpetuates this myth! This is why no shows permit the transfer of ownership outside the premises; there are also other potential legal implications. 

I fully appreciate that people meeting and exchanging animals at such events can be very convenient, however, under the circumstances that we find ourselves today it is simple not acceptable. It is unfair and unacceptable to jeopardise shows simply because someone did not want to book a table and would rather hand over the animals outside to save a few pounds!

The grounds will be patrolled by show organisers, Local and National Authorities, anyone caught will be removed from the premises and risk being prosecuted. I would therefore ask people not to be selfish and irresponsible and comply with the rules of the show. 

Chris Newman
Chair - Federation of British Herpetologists


----------



## Wolflore

There's a big Tesco round the corner from the show. Also various other places that couriers could drop off animals at. You could also speak to one of the many people with a table and see if they would mind assisting with the transfer.


----------



## mariex4

people can take numbers and meet up , anywere from the donny show. so whats it saying if ya cought doing a deal outside the show, ya gonna get done.?


----------



## MCEE

Chris Newman said:


> As I am sure you are aware there have been significant “issues” with breeders meetings being held due to the activities of those who oppose us keeping and breeding the animals that we do! Whilst there have been many, many issues raised one of them is they facilitate “illegal” trade, implying that such meetings facilitate the trade in smuggled [illegal] animals, which of course is completely untrue.
> 
> However, people handing over bags containing snakes, or other reptiles from the boot of the car is a gift to our opponents as it perpetuates this myth! This is why no shows permit the transfer of ownership outside the premises; there are also other potential legal implications.
> 
> I fully appreciate that people meeting and exchanging animals at such events can be very convenient, however, under the circumstances that we find ourselves today it is simple not acceptable. It is unfair and unacceptable to jeopardise shows simply because someone did not want to book a table and would rather hand over the animals outside to save a few pounds!
> 
> The grounds will be patrolled by show organisers, Local and National Authorities, anyone caught will be removed from the premises and risk being prosecuted. I would therefore ask people not to be selfish and irresponsible and comply with the rules of the show.
> 
> Chris Newman
> Chair - Federation of British Herpetologists


If the animal has already been paid for, before the exchange (Paypal or whatever), or the exchange is a "gift" then no offence will have taken place. If the organisers do not want these exchanges at the venues then that is their perogative but these exchanges will only move to a supermarket or town centre carpark.

Your best bet is to have the facilities to do this at the venue, at least it can then be policed.

I can understand not allowing a van pulling up loaded with livestock and selling from the vehicle but for the exchange of the odd animal or two I see no problem and you can only make sure of this if it's policed.

Everything needs to be done out in the open. Do not drive any of it underground, which is what you are going to do here.


----------



## Purple_D

The shows are breeders meetings, not free for all dirty dealing spots(as the antis would see it)
Chris has said on the other thread he will help out at kempton.
Maybe at the next show a table regulated by the IHS for swaps etc, just pay a fiver for the privilege:2thumb:


----------



## Jimmyjayz

Purple_D said:


> Maybe at the next show a table regulated by the IHS for swaps etc, just pay a fiver for the privilege:2thumb:


nice idea i hope the reality it would be possible, anything we can do to pump a few $$ at them would be good


----------



## LizardFTI

Purple_D said:


> The shows are breeders meetings, not free for all dirty dealing spots(as the antis would see it)
> Chris has said on the other thread he will help out at kempton.
> Maybe at the next show a table regulated by the IHS for swaps etc, just pay a fiver for the privilege:2thumb:


The table for drop-offs pickups is a fantastic idea, but couldnt the creche be used this way? Ie. put the animal in, give token to other person, they pick up animal?


----------



## Row'n'Bud

Responses on threads like this just help to show where the AR groups are getting some of their ammo against us.......Chris, on behalf of the show organisers, requests quite firmly that no trading be done outside the venue to protect it from attack by antis and automatically folk appear to question the requeat or to offer alternative ways of tranferring these animals.....
Every time a show is banned we all go mental for about a week ready to start a revolution yet the minute a genuine request is laid out and full reasons given to protect the future of these events this happens !!!
Catch a grip folks and understand this is for eveyone's good in the future and if you dont want to comply as handing over animals outside is free, convenient, less hassle, whatever reason, simples.....don't go near these organised and scrutinised events 

rant over !!


----------



## MCEE

Row'n'Bud said:


> Responses on threads like this just help to show where the AR groups are getting some of their ammo against us.......


Poppycock. What ammo have they got from these posts. Exchanging animals, already bought, at a convenient location is no different than collecting them at the place they were purchased or being delivered to their new home.



> Chris, on behalf of the show organisers, requests quite firmly that no trading be done outside the venue to protect it from attack by antis and automatically folk appear to question the requeat or to offer alternative ways of tranferring these animals.....


And I say better at the venue than some supermarket carpark somewhere.



> Every time a show is banned we all go mental for about a week ready to start a revolution yet the minute a genuine request is laid out and full reasons given to protect the future of these events this happens !!!
> Catch a grip folks and understand this is for eveyone's good in the future and if you dont want to comply as handing over animals outside is free, convenient, less hassle, whatever reason, simples.....don't go near these organised and scrutinised events
> 
> rant over !!


Stop blowing it out of all proportion. Meeting at a convenient point to hand over animals already bought is not the same as selling from the boot of a car.


----------



## StaneyWid

MCEE said:


> Poppycock. What ammo have they got from these posts. Exchanging animals, already bought, at a convenient location is no different than collecting them at the place they were purchased or being delivered to their new home.
> 
> Seriously ? Starting a sentence of with the word "Poppycock" is never a gd idea :whistling2:


----------



## Wolflore

MCEE said:


> Poppycock. What ammo have they got from these posts. Exchanging animals, already bought, at a convenient location is no different than collecting them at the place they were purchased or being delivered to their new home.
> 
> And I say better at the venue than some supermarket carpark somewhere.
> 
> Stop blowing it out of all proportion. Meeting at a convenient point to hand over animals already bought is not the same as selling from the boot of a car.


Did *you* read the first post? It's not what it is, it's what it could be twisted to look like that matters!


----------



## MCEE

StaneyWid said:


> Seriously ? Starting a sentence of with the word "Poppycock" is never a gd idea :whistling2:



It is when the sentence it refers to is poppycock.


----------



## MCEE

Wolflore said:


> Did *you* read the first post? It's not what it is, it's what it could be twisted to look like that matters!



Yes, I read it.

Anything done by us hobbyists can be twisted to suit, regardless of what it is. If we all started running scared "just in case" some crackpot animal rights campaigner calls an apple a plum, because they both refer to fruit, then we may as well not bother with the hobby at all.

This is why everything must be done in the open, up front. Show we have nothing to hide. If we start doing stuff under a cloak then guilt of wrongdoing will always be presumed.


----------



## stevenrudge

ok if you have pre-paid for the animal then you own it by Law,its not a trade its a transfer of goods,but buying and paying would be wrong,just remember that a car park wither its on a pub or supermarket car park its still private property, both sides of this debate are right,whoever organises the show should make arrangements for this,or just meet up somewhere discrete away from the (show)


----------



## PhillyDee

MCEE said:


> Yes, I read it.
> 
> Anything done by us hobbyists can be twisted to suit, regardless of what it is. If we all started running scared "just in case" some crackpot animal rights campaigner calls an apple a plum, because they both refer to fruit, then we may as well not bother with the hobby at all.
> 
> This is why everything must be done in the open, up front. Show we have nothing to hide. If we start doing stuff under a cloak then guilt of wrongdoing will always be presumed.


While both parts are correct, the second part "in the open by exchanging animals in a car park" is just not what you are saying. In a car park is seen as a clandestine exchange where there is a large event doing the same in open view. While it is innocuous, it does not seem like that. Especially since they can easily get you on camera doing this in a large event. 

Why even give them an easy ride and easy ammunition. 

Don't forget, they have the money, and simple people donating constantly to get all animal keeping banned. How can you fight nutters? They are deluded and deranged individuals who happen to have a lot of money. Never a good combination!


----------



## Caz

MCEE said:


> Yes, I read it.
> 
> Anything done by us hobbyists can be twisted to suit, regardless of what it is. If we all started running scared "just in case" some crackpot animal rights campaigner calls an apple a plum, because they both refer to fruit, then we may as well not bother with the hobby at all.
> 
> This is why everything must be done in the open, up front. Show we have nothing to hide. If we start doing stuff under a cloak then guilt of wrongdoing will always be presumed.


 
All you ever do in the show forum is moan, whine and come up with daft suggestions
How about moving away from your keyboard, joining a local reptile club - ERAC springs to mind given your location -and actually doing something real. Perhaps then the clubs would have enough people to help run a show and would benefit from your obvious organisational expertise.


----------



## MCEE

Caz said:


> All you ever do in the show forum is moan, whine and come up with daft suggestions
> How about moving away from your keyboard, joining a local reptile club - ERAC springs to mind given your location -and actually doing something real. Perhaps then the clubs would have enough people to help run a show and would benefit from your obvious organisational expertise.



How is putting a accross a point of view, moaning. You really have a strange idea of how contributrions to forums work.

Just because I "disagree" with something does not make my point of view invalid. At least it is a point of view valid to the subject matter and not that of someone who dislikes the way another contributor uses the forum. By criticising the reasons I use the forum (albeit confusing moaning with debate) your contribution has not added to the substance of this thread and maybe it is you who needs to move away from your keyboard, seeing as you see that trying to put someone down is more important than contributing to the argument.


----------



## MCEE

PhillyDee said:


> While both parts are correct, the second part "in the open by exchanging animals in a car park" is just not what you are saying. In a car park is seen as a clandestine exchange where there is a large event doing the same in open view. While it is innocuous, it does not seem like that. Especially since they can easily get you on camera doing this in a large event.
> 
> Why even give them an easy ride and easy ammunition.
> 
> Don't forget, they have the money, and simple people donating constantly to get all animal keeping banned. How can you fight nutters? They are deluded and deranged individuals who happen to have a lot of money. Never a good combination!


Just because they have money (although I understand it is not exactly a huge amount) to spend on lunacy propaganda, does not mean we should hide our activities if they are legitimate. Doing so is the first step to making the hobby seem more sordid that they already think is. Any legitimate part of the hobby they drive underground is another feather in their cap and more propaganda food.

It does not matter what we do in the hobby, it will always be twisted by animal rights to suit their agenda. For this very reason, there is nothing lost by us hobbyists carrying on with our legitimate activities in a full, open, observable arena. Why should we hide away like scared cockraoches everytime we hear the mention of animal rights. We should be strutting around like proud peacocks, not act like we are ashamed of what we do.


----------



## Caz

MCEE said:


> How is putting a accross a point of view, moaning. *You really have a strange idea of how contributrions to forums work.*
> 
> Just because I "disagree" with something does not make my point of view invalid. At least it is a point of view valid to the subject matter and not that of someone who dislikes the way another contributor uses the forum. By criticising the reasons I use the forum (albeit confusing moaning with debate) your contribution has not added to the substance of this thread and maybe it is you who needs to move away from your keyboard, seeing as you see that trying to put someone down is more important than contributing to the argument.


Just my point. Try contributing to real life then your 'points of view' will actually be valid.
As you have no real life experience in holding a Reptile Show or offering hands on help to those that do, your disagreeable views are not valid and therefore cannot be argued.

(Lets put it like this: I can have a view on a Boeing 747 forum about how they should be landed.
However, I've never landed a Boeing 747; I have no real life experience of landing a Boeing 747. Therefore while i'm free on the forum to express my view or opinion on landing a 747 I would avoid doing so, as my opinion is invalid and i'll look like a prat.)


----------



## MCEE

Caz said:


> Just my point. Try contributing to real life then your 'points of view' will actually be valid.
> As you have no real life experience in holding a Reptile Show or offering hands on help to those that do, your disagreeable views are not valid and therefore cannot be argued.


What? So unless I agree will the OP I cannot post my opinion. How ridiculous.

Besides, what on earth has all this got to do with the subject of this thread. All you are doing is pouring scourn over how a member contributes to a forum. A bit hypercritical, especially after what you just said, don't you think?


----------



## Big_Rich

And....we're back to fighting each other:bash:


----------



## MCEE

Big_Rich said:


> And....we're back to fighting each other:bash:


No really a fight, Caz did their best though. 

Seriously, though, it was not I who decided to troll the thread with irrelevant postings.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

Poppycock.....I like it, normally prefer balderdash myself though which seems to be a lot of what a certain member is posting here,
Rules is rules, laws are laws....like them or lump them either live by them or get them changed to suit your needs !!

This was a simple request reminding people of the situation caused by someone seeing a few "dodgey" deals, no matter how legitimate they actually are, outside a venue hosting a show....doesn't look too good for us and woe betide any money is seen changing hands as then this is a whole new ball game.

As usual this has to be automatically questioned as if by an impetuous spoilt little child who will do what they want when they want, especially if asked or told not to do it.......just think about the damage such acts can cause and if one does it then why shouldn't the others til more trade goes on outside the event than inside and the only benificiaries will then be those hell bent in closing these events once and for all and perhaps even a few court cases against these street side dealers for good measure


----------



## MCEE

Row'n'Bud said:


> Poppycock.....I like it, normally prefer balderdash myself though which seems to be a lot of what a certain member is posting here,
> Rules is rules, laws are laws....like them or lump them either live by them or get them changed to suit your needs !!
> 
> This was a simple request reminding people of the situation caused by someone seeing a few "dodgey" deals, no matter how legitimate they actually are, outside a venue hosting a show....doesn't look too good for us and woe betide any money is seen changing hands as then this is a whole new ball game.


This is exactly my whole point. These "dodgy deals" will always happen, whatever rules are set. However, rather than push legitimate exchanges away to the dark corners of supermarket carparks, amongst these "dodgy dealers", would it not be better to invite them to take place at the venues where they can be in full view by anyone who wants to scruitinise these handovers.


> As usual this has to be automatically questioned as if by an impetuous spoilt little child who will do what they want when they want, especially if asked or told not to do it.......just think about the damage such acts can cause and if one does it then why shouldn't the others til more trade goes on outside the event than inside and the only benificiaries will then be those hell bent in closing these events once and for all and perhaps even a few court cases against these street side dealers for good measure


And this is exactly the way we are heading. If organisers of these events think that by not allowing these exchanges to happen at the venue, they will not happen at all, then they are sorley mistaken. This is clearly a case of "out of sight, out of mind".

Ok, so I know we must all watch our backs but letting the enemy see our knees tremble at the mere mention of their name makes us look like we fear them when it should be quite the opposite. We need to show that a well organised hobby has nothing to hide and should stand proud and show it off, not try and conceal parts of it because of a few idiots who will not play by the rules.


----------



## colinm

Well perhaps we are better with no shows at all and then have to have private sales like the old days?

Thats what will happen if people trade,exchange ,buy,sell or whatever in venue carparks.Its not illegal but its not allowed for good reasons.I dont know why are trying to defend it.Our hobby has had some serious knocks in the last few months.Why give more ammunition to the people who want shows stopped?


----------



## Austin Allegro

Must as one who regularly runs a modest one table and pays for the privilege, and is an affiliated club member I do find the issue in this thread rather irritating and one that brings the hobby into disrepute. As Caz said join a club and you will probably be able to use the club table to carry out exchanges. Our club membership is £10 per year. Also it costs £20-25 to book a table whereupon you can get 3 people in with you thus saving circa 15 quid in admission. Plus you get early entry and the opportunity to view what is up for sale before Joe Public. It's a no brainer.

Public perception of how the hobby operates in the current climate is all important and I for one would welcome more patrolling of venue car parks at future shows. Given that most shows allow 3 people per table I am sure there must be some spare people available to help organisers do this.


----------



## weeal

*Exchange of animals in car parks*

:2thumb:As a courier I was wondering if it is possible for recognised couriers to be allowed into shows early ( have a free courier table) where customers etc could meet( courier still willing to pay entrance) so they could pick up animal from breeders etc. This would aleviate the problems of exchanges in the car parks etc and let people know that they are dealing with bona fida defra registered couriers. Also if couriers can pick up animals early they can then quickly leave and start their deliverys this would shorten the time animals are in transit ect. Have thought about contacting organisers but noticed this thread and would like feedback if its worth pursuing. Oh was at Doncaster and Kemton and did notice some issues thats why I`m trying to work out some type of solution


----------



## MCEE

colinm said:


> Well perhaps we are better with no shows at all and then have to have private sales like the old days?
> 
> Thats what will happen if people trade,exchange ,buy,sell or whatever in venue carparks.Its not illegal but its not allowed for good reasons.I dont know why are trying to defend it.Our hobby has had some serious knocks in the last few months.Why give more ammunition to the people who want shows stopped?


We are not talking about trade, buying selling or whatever. We are merely talking about using a halfway point to hand over animals already boiught and paid for. A convenience so that either party does not have to travel great distances to hand over said animal. What is wrong with that? I see no good reason to disallow it at show venues and I would rather see it happen there than in a back alley or supermarket carpark.


----------



## MCEE

Austin Allegro said:


> Must as one who regularly runs a modest one table and pays for the privilege, and is an affiliated club member I do find the issue in this thread rather irritating and one that brings the hobby into disrepute. As Caz said join a club and you will probably be able to use the club table to carry out exchanges. Our club membership is £10 per year. Also it costs £20-25 to book a table whereupon you can get 3 people in with you thus saving circa 15 quid in admission. Plus you get early entry and the opportunity to view what is up for sale before Joe Public. It's a no brainer.


Scenario

Someone in Lowestoft sells a reptile to someone in Portsmouth. Too far for the person in Lowestoft to travel to deliver reptile to Portsmouth and too far for the person in Portsmouth to pick up from Lowestoft. A courier is too expensive. Hey, hang on minute, both people will be attending the Kempton Park Expo. What better place to hand over said reptile than the venue of said Expo, regardless of the arrangements to do so.

Not everybody wants to join a club. By saying that you must join a club to be able to hand over animals is creating a closed shop hobby. By all means have a "handover" table or area run by members of affiliated clubs but don't make those who wish to take part in animal handovers have to join a club to do so. Besides I thought a major argument of handing over animals (as per OP) was not because of animal rights nutters but that other stall holders and breeders were miffed that they were having to pay for a table to sell animals when private sales were creating the facility to do it for nothing.


----------



## MCEE

weeal said:


> :2thumb:As a courier I was wondering if it is possible for recognised couriers to be allowed into shows early ( have a free courier table) where customers etc could meet( courier still willing to pay entrance) so they could pick up animal from breeders etc. This would aleviate the problems of exchanges in the car parks etc and let people know that they are dealing with bona fida defra registered couriers. Also if couriers can pick up animals early they can then quickly leave and start their deliverys this would shorten the time animals are in transit ect. Have thought about contacting organisers but noticed this thread and would like feedback if its worth pursuing. Oh was at Doncaster and Kemton and did notice some issues thats why I`m trying to work out some type of solution



The problem with this it will still cost the seller or buy extra courier fees. See my reply to *Austin Allegro* regarding the type of scenario this issue is at odds with*.*


----------



## Tarron

I think the big issue here is with perception.

We, as hobbyists, are well aware of the law and where the line is drawn. But the general public is not.

the says that selling animals in public, a la market, is illegal. all the Animal Rights/Antis need to do is capture a few photos of a handover (whether money was paid before or not) taking place and give it to an unscrupulous journalist (ie the Sun) and you;ve suddenly got a headline

"Illegal Reptile Markets held in Car Parks"

It may not be true, and the paper may even have to withdraw the article or apologise, but it doesnt matter, the damage is done.

Joe public see the trade as one that does dirty deals in car parks, with no car for welfare etc.

The odd random exchange at a service station will not attract any attention, but the Breeders Meetings will have APA Spies, etc all over the place, waiting for someone to drop a box (illegal wild release) or perform an exchange.
It might well be pandering, but I would much prefer they wern't given the potential ammo.

I like the idea of a swap table, if deals are done before the show. The reptile could be left with certain details that only the seller/buyer know, so the seller drops it off with a unique identifier, the buyer arrives with some paperwork to take it off thier hands. An admin fee could be charged to draw a bit of revenue for the club and everyone is happy.

At the end of the day, the decision as to what happens comes down to the organisers and the venue. If neither wants the exchanges to take place, no one can argue. And the IHS guys, along with Chris and other FBH reps are only doing this in the interests of the hobby, they have no ulterior motives. Its for the best.


----------



## Caz

Austin Allegro said:


> Must as one who regularly runs a modest one table and pays for the privilege, and is an affiliated club member I do find the issue in this thread rather irritating and one that brings the hobby into disrepute. As Caz said join a club and you will probably be able to use the club table to carry out exchanges. Our club membership is £10 per year. Also it costs £20-25 to book a table whereupon you can get 3 people in with you thus saving circa 15 quid in admission. Plus you get early entry and the opportunity to view what is up for sale before Joe Public. It's a no brainer.
> 
> Public perception of how the hobby operates in the current climate is all important and I for one would welcome more patrolling of venue car parks at future shows. Given that most shows allow 3 people per table I am sure there must be some spare people available to help organisers do this.





MCEE said:


> We are not talking about trade, buying selling or whatever. We are merely talking about using a halfway point to hand over animals already boiught and paid for. A convenience so that either party does not have to travel great distances to hand over said animal. *What is wrong with that?* I see no good reason to disallow it at show venues and I would rather see it happen there than in a back alley or supermarket carpark.





MCEE said:


> Scenario
> 
> Someone in Lowestoft sells a reptile to someone in Portsmouth. Too far for the person in Lowestoft to travel to deliver reptile to Portsmouth and too far for the person in Portsmouth to pick up from Lowestoft. A courier is too expensive. Hey, hang on minute, both people will be attending the Kempton Park Expo. What better place to hand over said reptile than the venue of said Expo, regardless of the arrangements to do so.
> 
> *Not everybody wants to join a club*. *By saying that you must join a club to be able to hand over animals is creating a closed shop* hobby. By all means have a "handover" table or area run by members of affiliated clubs but don't make those who wish to take part in animal handovers have to join a club to do so. Besides I thought a major argument of handing over animals (as per OP) was not because of animal rights nutters but that other stall holders and breeders were miffed that they were having to pay for a table to sell animals when private sales were creating the facility to do it for nothing.


For the moment lets forget miffed table holders, animal rights persons, hot weather, public perceptions and the fact you have no place replying in threads on which you have no first hand experience..

Clubs pay for the show venue. Shows are policed by club members. As noted some clubs hardly have enough members to run a show let alone patrol cars parks etc to ensure 'handovers' are done in a manner that befits the animal or club.
If people don't want or can't be bothered to join a club, then why should the club or it's members provide a free meeting place, permit or police such handovers?


----------



## MCEE

Caz said:


> For the moment lets forget ... the fact you have no place replying in threads on which you have no first hand experience..


How dare you suggest I have no right to contribute to any thread in a public forum. I have every right to express an opinion on whatever subject matter I like and neither you or anyone else can tell me otherwise. It is you who are now posting things you know nothing about. You know nothing about me yet you feel you have right to tell ME what I can or cannot post. It seems you are now trolling the thread.



> Clubs pay for the show venue. Shows are policed by club members. As noted some clubs hardly have enough members to run a show let alone patrol cars parks etc to ensure 'handovers' are done in a manner that befits the animal or club.
> If people don't want or can't be bothered to join a club, then why should the club or it's members provide a free meeting place, permit or police such handovers?


That is fine. But then the hobby should not be surprised if sellers and buyers find their own methods to do these handovers. I was always under the impression that the hobby wanted to regulate itself. If their are aspects of the hobby they cannot stop (animal handover on 3rd party property) then at least the hobby should provide a safe and open place to do so and, thus, be able to keep tabs on it. The hobby cannot have it both ways.


----------



## MCEE

Tarron said:


> I think the big issue here is with perception.
> 
> We, as hobbyists, are well aware of the law and where the line is drawn. But the general public is not.
> 
> the says that selling animals in public, a la market, is illegal. all the Animal Rights/Antis need to do is capture a few photos of a handover (whether money was paid before or not) taking place and give it to an unscrupulous journalist (ie the Sun) and you;ve suddenly got a headline
> 
> "Illegal Reptile Markets held in Car Parks"
> 
> It may not be true, and the paper may even have to withdraw the article or apologise, but it doesnt matter, the damage is done.
> 
> Joe public see the trade as one that does dirty deals in car parks, with no car for welfare etc.
> 
> The odd random exchange at a service station will not attract any attention, but the Breeders Meetings will have APA Spies, etc all over the place, waiting for someone to drop a box (illegal wild release) or perform an exchange.
> It might well be pandering, but I would much prefer they wern't given the potential ammo.
> 
> I like the idea of a swap table, if deals are done before the show. The reptile could be left with certain details that only the seller/buyer know, so the seller drops it off with a unique identifier, the buyer arrives with some paperwork to take it off thier hands. An admin fee could be charged to draw a bit of revenue for the club and everyone is happy.
> 
> At the end of the day, the decision as to what happens comes down to the organisers and the venue. If neither wants the exchanges to take place, no one can argue. And the IHS guys, along with Chris and other FBH reps are only doing this in the interests of the hobby, they have no ulterior motives. Its for the best.


Trouble is there will always be handovers at carparks, after all there are many weeks of the year when there are no shows. Nothing will ever stop that. However, at least it will be seen by the public that the hobby is trying to keep an eye on what the hobbyists/breeders/buyers/sellers get up by providing facilities in the regulated environment of the Reptile Show venue.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

if people want to meet in carparks, lay byes, even in the bushes at any other time of the year this is their decision and choice but is it too much to ask for any club who has went to the effort and expense to arrange such a show, breeders meeting , etc to offer them the respect not to do it on that particular date, at that particular event or near the premises being used ???....

A simple case of decency , manners and common courtesy come into play here if nothing else....

As for the clubs offering the opportunity for these passing over of pre paid animals at their event.....the OP even offered this facility in his first post so why is this still even being suggested as the way forward when already having been offered from the start ???

Edit: apologies for final statement as this offer was made on another forum....my bad !!


----------



## Row'n'Bud

All this talk of carpark dealings may just sprout a new culture.......

forget doggers.......

welcome to the weird and wonderful world of HERPERS !!:notworthy::notworthy:

This craze of carpark HERPING has been attempted to be kept under control by official reptile bodies in shame and secret but now the truth of this new perversion is hitting the masses !!:gasp::gasp:


----------



## MCEE

Row'n'Bud said:


> As for the clubs offering the opportunity for these passing over of pre paid animals at their event.....the OP even offered this facility in his first post so why is this still even being suggested as the way forward when already having been offered from the start ???
> 
> Edit: apologies for final statement as this offer was made on another forum....my bad !!


This is true but only as a one-off though.


----------



## Austin Allegro

MCEE said:


> Scenario
> 
> Someone in Lowestoft sells a reptile to someone in Portsmouth. Too far for the person in Lowestoft to travel to deliver reptile to Portsmouth and too far for the person in Portsmouth to pick up from Lowestoft. A courier is too expensive. Hey, hang on minute, both people will be attending the Kempton Park Expo. What better place to hand over said reptile than the venue of said Expo, regardless of the arrangements to do so.
> 
> Not everybody wants to join a club. By saying that you must join a club to be able to hand over animals is creating a closed shop hobby. By all means have a "handover" table or area run by members of affiliated clubs but don't make those who wish to take part in animal handovers have to join a club to do so. Besides I thought a major argument of handing over animals (as per OP) was not because of animal rights nutters but that other stall holders and breeders were miffed that they were having to pay for a table to sell animals when private sales were creating the facility to do it for nothing.


Somebody in Portsmouth buys a reptile off somebody like me in Lowestoft when I book and pay for a table at the PRAS show. If anybody in my locality be they a FBH affiliated club member needs an animal taking to a show to be picked up I will willingly help them out with that for free as I have done in the past from Hamm, Houten and UK shows. The qualification being it is picked up from my table.


----------



## Austin Allegro

weeal said:


> :2thumb:As a courier I was wondering if it is possible for recognised couriers to be allowed into shows early ( have a free courier table) where customers etc could meet( courier still willing to pay entrance) so they could pick up animal from breeders etc. This would aleviate the problems of exchanges in the car parks etc and let people know that they are dealing with bona fida defra registered couriers. Also if couriers can pick up animals early they can then quickly leave and start their deliverys this would shorten the time animals are in transit ect. Have thought about contacting organisers but noticed this thread and would like feedback if its worth pursuing. Oh was at Doncaster and Kemton and did notice some issues thats why I`m trying to work out some type of solution


:2thumb:As a Breeder I was wondering if it is possible for recognised breeders to be allowed into shows early ( have a free breeder table) where customers etc could meet( breeder still willing to pay entrance) so they could pick up animal from breeders etc. This would aleviate the problems of exchanges in the car parks etc and let people know that they are dealing with bona fida breeders. Have thought about contacting organisers but noticed this thread and would like feedback if its worth pursuing. Oh was at Doncaster and Kemton and did notice some issues thats why I`m trying to work out some type of solution.


----------



## colinm

In my opinion this is why F.B.H. affiliated shows should only be open to members of F.B.H. affiliated clubs.

If you want the benefits of a show join a club and in turn help the F.B.H.,


----------



## Caz

MCEE said:


> How dare you suggest I have no right to contribute to any thread in a public forum. *I have every right to express an opinion on whatever subject matter I like and neither you or anyone else can tell me otherwise. It is you who are now posting things you know nothing about. You know nothing about me* yet you feel you have right to tell ME what I can or cannot post. It seems you are now trolling the thread.
> 
> That is fine. But then the hobby should not be surprised if sellers and buyers find their own methods to do these handovers. I was always under the impression that the hobby wanted to regulate itself. If their are aspects of the hobby they cannot stop (animal handover on 3rd party property) *then at least the hobby should provide a safe and open place to do so *and, thus, be able to keep tabs on it. The hobby cannot have it both ways.


I'll refer you to my analogy on page 2 re the subject matter and don't assume that I know nothing about who you are..: victory:

Rather than Trolling I'm a member of a Club and have been for over 20 years - I'm just putting forward points for discussion in a thread that involves Clubs.

Sellers and buyers will always find meeting points to exchange animals.
You say 'at least the HOBBY should provide a safe and open place to do so,' How about you and others in the 'Hobby' that can't be bothered to join a club or help at shows opening your home to facilitate an exchange?

You're also forgetting that most venues are private property and have restrictions on car park activity - often due to Health and Safety.

If people want to exchange animals at shows then perhaps if space allows there can be an area set up within the show for them to do so. However they would have to pay for entry, the animals would have to comply with show rules and someone would have to be made available to police the exchanges.

What really annoys me, is the implication that it is every keepers 'right' to be able to use the show facilities along with the time given for free, to sell their animals and make themselves some money.


----------



## Revobuzz

As it is obvious exchanges are going to take place by people without tables then it would appear better to have some control i.e an exchange table rather than banning from premises.

As for the poppycock vs balderdash debate I'm still not sure, but leaning towards balderdash as my preference.


----------



## MCEE

Austin Allegro said:


> Somebody in Portsmouth buys a reptile off somebody like me in Lowestoft when I book and pay for a table at the PRAS show. If anybody in my locality be they a FBH affiliated club member needs an animal taking to a show to be picked up I will willingly help them out with that for free as I have done in the past from Hamm, Houten and UK shows. The qualification being it is picked up from my table.



Are you going to book a table at any show for the sole basis to hand over one reptile? Of course you are not because we are not talking breeders here, who would normally have tables to sell multiple animals, we are talking one-off private sales that need a convenient location to hand over animals already paid for.


----------



## colinm

Well take it to his house or arrange to meet halfway,not at a show.


----------



## MCEE

Caz said:


> I'll refer you to my analogy on page 2 re the subject matter and don't assume that I know nothing about who you are..: victory:
> 
> Rather than Trolling I'm a member of a Club and have been for over 20 years - I'm just putting forward points for discussion in a thread that involves Clubs.


You *are* trolling this thread by telling me what I can or cannot post. I also believe this is because you you did not like my critical review of your EHS show last month?



> Sellers and buyers will always find meeting points to exchange animals.


Correct. However, better it be at an organised event than in a dark alleyway.


> You say 'at least the HOBBY should provide a safe and open place to do so,' How about you and others in the 'Hobby' that can't be bothered to join a club or help at shows opening your home to facilitate an exchange?


Am I not a memeber of any organisation or club???
Besides, why should everybody have to join a club just so they partake in the hobby. It is not a closed shop.



> You're also forgetting that most venues are private property and have restrictions on car park activity - often due to Health and Safety.


As do supermarket or pub carparks.



> If people want to exchange animals at shows then perhaps if space allows there can be an area set up within the show for them to do so. However they would have to pay for entry, the animals would have to comply with show rules and someone would have to be made available to police the exchanges.


See, I knew you would get there in the end.



> What really annoys me, is the implication that it is every keepers 'right' to be able to use the show facilities along with the time given for free, to sell their animals and make themselves some money.


Nobody is asking to "sell" animals or free. This is not about the selling of animals. However, it would be in the best interest of the hobby to allow the exchange of animals *already sold* at a venue that can be policed, rather than pretend these exchanges will not happen else where like the supermarket carpark or a traffic layby somewhere.


----------



## Khaos

It's not the responsibility of the legislated, official arm of the 'hobby' to provide facilities or approval for the unofficial side.

It is, however, the responsibility of those choosing to trade and sell reptiles privately to not balls it up for everyone else and get the shows and trade banned through being too lazy or selfish to make their own arrangements.

We're all grown ups. Take responsibility for your own actions and theri consequences, rather than wailing 'but they should do this for us' - because they're busy fighting for the very life of the hobby. I'd rather they spend their time and money on that, than making it easier for someone to hand over a corn morph in a bloody car park.


----------



## MCEE

Khaos said:


> It's not the responsibility of the legislated, official arm of the 'hobby' to provide facilities or approval for the unofficial side.


However, if the "official" arm of the hobby has taken upon itself to try and oversee some regulation to safeguard the hobby then they need to take some responsibility either side of the fence, not on it.



> It is, however, the responsibility of those choosing to trade and sell reptiles privately to not balls it up for everyone else and get the shows and trade banned through being too lazy or selfish to make their own arrangements.


But they are making their own arrangements, though. However, is seems their initiative of using these show venues for "open" exchange is being rewarded by being pushed away into some less desirable place.


> We're all grown ups. Take responsibility for your own actions and theri consequences, rather than wailing 'but they should do this for us' - because they're busy fighting for the very life of the hobby. I'd rather they spend their time and money on that, than making it easier for someone to hand over a corn morph in a bloody car park.


Nobody is asking for anything. All hobbyists want is to be left alone to enjoy the hobby in the most open and honest way as can be possible.


----------



## stevemet

I can admit to being one of these "bad" people that have exchanged animals in ASDA carpark at Doncaster. I had arranged, through RFUK, to swap some stick insects with a young lad and his family. At the time I thought it was a disgrace that this was not allowed in the Dome. I said this in the inverts section and a moderator informed me that it was due to animal rights activity and was also unfair on those who paid to have a table.
I was not convinced on either score, but over the last few weeks I have started to see his point. It does look dodgy handing stuff over in car parks, especially if you are also keeping an eye out for security staff. However, if it is to be the done thing, not to unofficially exchange animals at these shows, should the classified section of this forum prevent adds saying " can bring to xyz show" if the seller has no table booked ? A more preferable solution would be an official exchange area where for a small consideration pre-ordered animals could safely change hands.


----------



## Tarron

MCEE said:


> However, if the "official" arm of the hobby has taken upon itself to try and oversee some regulation to safeguard the hobby then they need to take some responsibility either side of the fence, not on it.
> 
> But they are making their own arrangements, though. However, is seems their initiative of using these show venues for "open" exchange is being rewarded by being pushed away into some less desirable place.
> Nobody is asking for anything. All hobbyists want is to be left alone to enjoy the hobby in the most open and honest way as can be possible.


Nobody is saying dont trade animals, they are just asking that, for the time of the show, no animals are traded in car parks or the street, to prevent the slight possiblity that someone will see it and report it, besmudging the good name of the reptile industry.

We already have an uphill battle against the public perception of our industry. By making 'seemingly' dodgy deals in car parks (regardless of the true legalities), public perception will only get worse.

As mentioned, the idea of a trade table is good, so long as its not a freebie. the breeders work hard and pay thier way to be able to get tables at the shows, so there should be a nominal fee to trade at a 'trader table'.


----------



## Austin Allegro

stevemet said:


> I can admit to being one of these "bad" people that have exchanged animals in ASDA carpark at Doncaster. I had arranged, through RFUK, to swap some stick insects with a young lad and his family. At the time I thought it was a disgrace that this was not allowed in the Dome. I said this in the inverts section and a moderator informed me that it was due to animal rights activity and was also unfair on those who paid to have a table.
> I was not convinced on either score, but over the last few weeks I have started to see his point. It does look dodgy handing stuff over in car parks, especially if you are also keeping an eye out for security staff. However, if it is to be the done thing, not to unofficially exchange animals at these shows, should the classified section of this forum prevent adds saying " can bring to xyz show" if the seller has no table booked ? A more preferable solution would be an official exchange area where for a small consideration pre-ordered animals could safely change hands.


Well at least you had the commonsense to do the exchange away from the venue premises.


----------



## badger13

There are several issues on this subject Security do you want complete strangers turning up at your property? Cost of transport due to great distances between buyer and seller. Trust are you getting what you paid for.
Is the snake as described. As there are crèches at shows could these not be used for a small charge Just reflecting


----------



## MCEE

Tarron said:


> As mentioned, the idea of a trade table is good, so long as its not a freebie. the breeders work hard and pay thier way to be able to get tables at the shows, so there should be a nominal fee to trade at a 'trader table'.



Why do these breeders feel so threatened when someone comes along to hand over a solitary animal which has *already been sold* through the classifieds et al? It is hardly their livelyhood being threatened (or at least it shouldn't be if they have a table at shows). Will they be asking for a ban on classified adds so that people can only buy from the breeders at shows? Of course not because that is absurd. So why are they moaning when someone has a one-off handover to make. These breeders pay their £25 for the privilege to sell their *multiple* animals yet they begrudge someone handing over a one-off, private exchange. I really do think their is some over-reaction going on.

Besides, I thought everyone was in it together, for the fun of it all. Not to try and out-do one another in sales (unless you are a retail business of course).


----------



## Khaos

Here's the problem. As the hobby is desperately fighting for its future and trying to prove that everything is above board, accountable and perfectly respectable, all their hard work can be undone by a few people naively making their lives a little easier.

Breeders selling excess stock, with paperwork, in a licenced venue? To a layman that appears absolutely fine, there's nothing untoward going on there, clearly. They're letting everyone know what goes on.

Two people handing over a box in a car park outside an event? Well something dodgy, illegal or immoral must be going on there, or else why wouldn't they be registered inside and filling out a form?

Forget the law, we're battling something much harder to change: public opinion. Even though reptiles now outnumber cats and dogs in the UK, very few people own them. We desperately need to bring the general public onboard and have them respect our hobby. Because if any future legislation is suggested, it's going to be decided by their apathy or disinterest. 

And for those saying the hobby ought to provide somewhere for people to hand over animals because 'it'll happen anyway', that's utterly naive and unfair. If you're not willing to be part of the 'regulated arm', and pay for a table to sell, then at least have the decency to go somewhere else and do your trade. 

Why? Because if it's done at the shows, approved by the organiser/venue supplier, then they are legally at risk from any untoward consequences. Somebody brings something venemous and someone gets bitten? They can be sued. Somebody thinks they got ripped off? They can be sued. The animals gets hurt? They can be sued. You don't even have to sanction it to be legally accountable - merely not trying to prevent it is involvement enough.

There is no room for middle ground, it's black and white. Either you be a part of the official show, or you do your deals somewhere else. The grey area hurts everybody, damages the hobbby, upsets the venue owners, gives additional ammunition to any anti-exotics activists, causes the public to mis-trust us, sets back the work done by the FBH and other pro-exotic campaigners and risks the entire hobby itself.

But, hey, if it saves you driving ten minutes up the road, it's worth it, right?


----------



## peterf

Very, very well said and for those arguing to the contrary, please take a few moments to read, take on board and think before you reply.


Khaos said:


> Here's the problem. As the hobby is desperately fighting for its future and trying to prove that everything is above board, accountable and perfectly respectable, all their hard work can be undone by a few people naively making their lives a little easier.
> 
> Breeders selling excess stock, with paperwork, in a licenced venue? To a layman that appears absolutely fine, there's nothing untoward going on there, clearly. They're letting everyone know what goes on.
> 
> Two people handing over a box in a car park outside an event? Well something dodgy, illegal or immoral must be going on there, or else why wouldn't they be registered inside and filling out a form?
> 
> Forget the law, we're battling something much harder to change: public opinion. Even though reptiles now outnumber cats and dogs in the UK, very few people own them. We desperately need to bring the general public onboard and have them respect our hobby. Because if any future legislation is suggested, it's going to be decided by their apathy or disinterest.
> 
> And for those saying the hobby ought to provide somewhere for people to hand over animals because 'it'll happen anyway', that's utterly naive and unfair. If you're not willing to be part of the 'regulated arm', and pay for a table to sell, then at least have the decency to go somewhere else and do your trade.
> 
> Why? Because if it's done at the shows, approved by the organiser/venue supplier, then they are legally at risk from any untoward consequences. Somebody brings something venemous and someone gets bitten? They can be sued. Somebody thinks they got ripped off? They can be sued. The animals gets hurt? They can be sued. You don't even have to sanction it to be legally accountable - merely not trying to prevent it is involvement enough.
> 
> There is no room for middle ground, it's black and white. Either you be a part of the official show, or you do your deals somewhere else. The grey area hurts everybody, damages the hobbby, upsets the venue owners, gives additional ammunition to any anti-exotics activists, causes the public to mis-trust us, sets back the work done by the FBH and other pro-exotic campaigners and risks the entire hobby itself.
> 
> But, hey, if it saves you driving ten minutes up the road, it's worth it, right?


----------



## Revobuzz

Ok but people will still want to meet at shows because it's convenient as both parties will be there. This is just a simple fact.

People who are only exchanging one snake won't pay for a table. That's another fact.

If you ban from the car park to improve image and all you get is people exchanging in another car park in the same town which it isn't much better from an image point of view.

So to my mind in there was some way of allowing the exchanges to take place alongside the event that is the best solution in terms of image. 

Whether there is a way of doing this in reality I've not a clue! 

It's not fair that some people pay for a table and others get to exchange for free, but if you add even a nominal charge some numpty will say stuff that and off they go to find a dark alley somewhere. 

I'd also not thought about what liability the organisors/venue may have which is a good point that would need resolving.

Is there a possibility of someone sponsoring an exchange table, could that be a solution?


----------



## Row'n'Bud

Can't believe this is still going.....a simple polite request was made, that surely shouldn't even need to be made anymore, and ofcourse the dummies get spat out and the toys start flying.


----------



## MCEE

Row'n'Bud said:


> Can't believe this is still going.....a simple polite request was made, that surely shouldn't even need to be made anymore, and ofcourse the dummies get spat out and the toys start flying.


It was rather more of an order than a request, with threats of prosecution thrown in. Indeed, it is up to the OP whichever way they want to word their post but the last paragraph was a tad confrontational and, therefore, as per the spirit of public forums, a reply was made. Even you, yourself, contributed to this thread and the fact that it is still going means there are still people wanting to have their say on the subject. Nothing wrong with that. If you are fed up with this debate you could always ignore it. There are no dummies or toys in this thread, just adult debate (with a little trolling thrown in by those who do not like someone elses POV).


----------



## Row'n'Bud

And just what role in the AR groups do you hold at present....apart from agent provocateur ??
Cause as much unrest internally as possible to keep them busy in fighting is an old tactic and this is starting to look this way with your persistant demands for something that no non member of the club/society running these events is in any way obliged to provide......
this is no longer debate...simply arguing back against everyone simply for the sake of exercising your fingers is not a debate, just acting like a spoilt child more like that doesn't like to be told no

ps...were you even intending to drop off any animals or is this just good fun??


----------



## Caz

You know, I started to reply and can't be bothered. However disagreeing with a misguided point of view is not Trolling..

Khaos summed it up well from a 'hobby' point of view.
MCEE summed it up from a selfish point of view.
And to sum it up from a Club point of view - why should we provide a free 'exchange point' for people who just want to exchange animals (that they have sold for a profit,) when they make no attempt to contribute actively to the Hobby.

My vote lies with Khaos.


----------



## MCEE

Caz said:


> You know, I started to reply and can't be bothered. However disagreeing with a misguided point of view is not Trolling..


It is when you do not counter the argument but resort to telling someone what they can or cannot post


> MCEE summed it up from a selfish point of view.


OK, I'll bite. Why was it selfish? Because my POV does not suit your own? Because you do not agree with me? Why was it selfish? I'm waiting.



> And to sum it up from a Club point of view - why should we provide a free 'exchange point' for people who just want to exchange animals (that they have sold for a profit,) when they make no attempt to contribute actively to the Hobby.


Again, you assume that to partake in a hobby, you must belong to some society, group, organisation or club. Why is this?
Is not attending a reptile show contributing to the hobby. Is not buying reptile food from your local reptile outlet contributing to the hobby. What must hobbyists do to contribute to the hobby outside joining one of these organisaions or clubs, or agreeing with everything you say?

I still think you are miffed because I gave a harsh critique of the EHS show.:naughty:


----------



## MCEE

Row'n'Bud said:


> And just what role in the AR groups do you hold at present....apart from agent provocateur ??


What is your understanding of "agent provocateur" because I do not think you quite understand quite what it means, to use it in this context.


> Cause as much unrest internally as possible to keep them busy in fighting is an old tactic and this is starting to look this way with your persistant demands for something that no non member of the club/society running these events is in any way obliged to provide......
> this is no longer debate...simply arguing back against everyone simply for the sake of exercising your fingers is not a debate, just acting like a spoilt child more like that doesn't like to be told no


I do not think you understand what a debate is either:

*Debate*, _to engage in argument or discussion_.

I think that is what we have here, as long as it remains on topic.


> ps...were you even intending to drop off any animals or is this just good fun??


Oh good. Back on topic (sort of).

I never have dropped of an animal but I may need to in the future, who knows. If I did I would rather do it in the confines of an organised show rather than at the back of Tescos.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

Well if you started this all off to make yourself look like an arguementative self centered spoilt little brat........

Congratulations...you've suceeded : victory:

If not........

OOPS!!!!!!!


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> Why do these breeders feel so threatened when someone comes along to hand over a solitary animal which has *already been sold* through the classifieds et al? It is hardly their livelyhood being threatened (or at least it shouldn't be if they have a table at shows). Will they be asking for a ban on classified adds so that people can only buy from the breeders at shows? Of course not because that is absurd. So why are they moaning when someone has a one-off handover to make. These breeders pay their £25 for the privilege to sell their *multiple* animals yet they begrudge someone handing over a one-off, private exchange. I really do think their is some over-reaction going on.
> 
> Besides, I thought everyone was in it together, for the fun of it all. Not to try and out-do one another in sales (unless you are a retail business of course).


You say we're all in it together, yet you're advocating doing something which potentially risks getting the shows closed down for everyone, just because it's a bit easier for you? 

On your other point, where's the cut off? Is it okay for a breeder to drop off one paid for animal for free, but three or more isn't? Where's your line in the sand? 

The show organisers' line is very clear: none. Because this is the ONLY number that is certain that 1) it won't get them closed down, 2) stops you being at risk of prosecution and 3) doesn't risk the entire hobby which, as you so eloquently put it, 'we're all in together'...

It's entirely within the realms of possibility that one single sale, caught on tape by the police or an animal rights activist, is enough to get the entire Kempton Park Expo shut down, for good. The venue owners might decide that the organisers aren't protecting them and letting people do whatever they want, so they revoke permission to hold the show. One single person could, in fact, ruin the show for thousands of breeders and keepers. Gone. Forever.

Over reaction? Not at all. It's what must be done by those who want to protect the hobby against those who want it ended... and those who'd risk it for their own convenience.


----------



## MCEE

Row'n'Bud said:


> Well if you started this all off to make yourself look like an arguementative self centered spoilt little brat........
> 
> Congratulations...you've suceeded : victory:


Ah, so we have resorted to name calling have we (the sign of someone who has no argument or unable to debate)?

With this in mind I shall not bother you again and any my conversation with you has now ended.


----------



## MCEE

Khaos said:


> You say we're all in it together, yet you're advocating doing something which potentially risks getting the shows closed down for everyone, just because it's a bit easier for you?


I am not advocating anything, just saying that it is better to do this in the confines of an organised show rather than in the manner that can be concieved as slightly more dodgy.



Don't get me wrong, there have been some interesting points raised these should be debated further. However, to put a balnket ban on these drop-offs can be seen as a little negative.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

Oh dear god................................................:banghead::banghead:


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> I am not advocating anything, just saying that it is better to do this in the confines of an organised show rather than in the manner that can be concieved as slightly more dodgy.


No, it's not, as it gives nothing to the show yet leaves it open to a world of litigation and lawsuits.




MCEE said:


> Don't get me wrong, there have been some interesting points raised these should be debated further. However, to put a balnket ban on these drop-offs can be seen as a little negative.


No, it's not, it's the only thing they can do to stop them and the people doing it potentially being prosecuted and the show closed.


----------



## MCEE

Khaos said:


> No, it's not, as it gives nothing to the show yet leaves it open to a world of litigation and lawsuits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not, it's the only thing they can do to stop them and the people doing it potentially being prosecuted and the show closed.


Prosecuted for what?


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> Prosecuted for what?


For being in breach of the Pet Animals Act 1951 (amended in 1983) which makes it illegal to trade animals in the street, from a stall or barrow.


----------



## Tarron

MCEE said:


> I am not advocating anything, just saying that it is better to do this in the confines of an organised show rather than in the manner that can be concieved as slightly more dodgy.


So you agree that doing a handover in the carpark outside the show is 'dodgy'.
If that is 'dodgy' to you, then what is it to the public or animal rights groups, if anything other than akin to drug dealing? Because that is how it will look.

Yes, a drop off/pick up stall at the shows would be nice idea, but the organisers dont OWE it to anyone. they run thier shows in the manner of Book a table, pay a fee, do your business. If they choose to do a drop off table, brilliant, it might help everyone out, but the dont owe it to a community of people who arent interested in being in thier club/society.


----------



## Frosty2532

Tarron said:


> So you agree that doing a handover in the carpark outside the show is 'dodgy'.
> If that is 'dodgy' to you, then what is it to the public or animal rights groups, if anything other than akin to drug dealing? Because that is how it will look.
> 
> Yes, a drop off/pick up stall at the shows would be nice idea, but the organisers dont OWE it to anyone. they run thier shows in the manner of Book a table, pay a fee, do your business. If they choose to do a drop off table, brilliant, it might help everyone out, but the dont owe it to a community of people who arent interested in being in thier club/society.



I have read what this thread is about, and I see the damage that can be done, but I have to say that while the clubs/society's don't owe it to a community of people who aren't interested in being in their club/society, I feel they should organise an exchange table at the shows to encourage people to use this for exchanges as this would be a damage limitation exercise for the club/society. Otherwise, exchanges will be made, either outside the show or at a local supermarket or service area or other place, local to the show.


----------



## MCEE

Tarron said:


> So you agree that doing a handover in the carpark outside the show is 'dodgy'.



I have not said anything of the sort. Outside the show means outside the confines of the venue grounds or anywhere under the remit of the show organisers.


----------



## MCEE

Khaos said:


> For being in breach of the Pet Animals Act 1951 (amended in 1983) which makes it illegal to trade animals in the street, from a stall or barrow.


Oh, come on. What on earth have we been arguing about for that last few days? We have not been arguing about trading animals (well not me anyway). All the "trading" has already taken place, from the comfort of ones armchair. What we are arguing about is the transfer of the animal from one person to the other.


----------



## stevemet

Tarron said:


> So you agree that doing a handover in the carpark outside the show is 'dodgy'.
> If that is 'dodgy' to you, then what is it to the public or animal rights groups, if anything other than akin to drug dealing? Because that is how it will look.
> 
> *Yes, a drop off/pick up stall at the shows would be nice idea, but the organisers dont OWE it to anyone. they run thier shows in the manner of Book a table, pay a fee, do your business. If they choose to do a drop off table, brilliant, it might help everyone out, but the dont owe it to a community of people who arent interested in being in thier club/society.*




So why not charge a couple of quid per exchange at a designated table. This would cost the buyer and the seller £1 each. You only need 13 transactions and the table has paid for itself, the rest is money for the organisation/club running the show. The charge could be made on the door in addition to admission charge.


----------



## Tarron

I think this thread is getting a little circular, and confusing now.

It seems everyone would be in favour of the 'Exchange Table' idea, if the organisers were to agree to it.

My point is that if they are asking people not to do exchanges in the car park, that request should be honoured and respected by all parties, as its in the best interest of the hobbys image at that moment in time.

Some of you clearly want to argue that you have a right to do the exchange, if no money passes hands there and then. Whilst technically legal, it doesnt help the publics impression of the hobby, which is the main point (i think) that Chris et al were trying to get at.

the organisers have a right to request it doesnt happen, and the venue has a right to remove anyone that doesnt want to comply to that request.

If the IHS/FBH whoever, choose to add an 'exchange table' thats all well and good, if they dont, please respect that as thier choice, and arrange another method of transferring private sales to other people (keeping it to yourself for the privacy of all involved)


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> Oh, come on. What on earth have we been arguing about for that last few days? We have not been arguing about trading animals (well not me anyway). All the "trading" has already taken place, from the comfort of ones armchair. What we are arguing about is the transfer of the animal from one person to the other.


Whether you like it or not, undertaking a partial or complete sale of an animal, in public, is illegal. 

There's a lot of people here angry at the wrong parties and throwing their toys out of the pram.


----------



## Khaos

I'm gonna take my argument a step further.

There are a lot of people sitting around and effectively saying 'oh, the hobby/show organisers/the FBH should arrange for an exchange table for us to use at their own effort and expense'. Why should they do anything for you? All you do for them is ignore their polite requests and risk getting them shut down.

Are you a member of the FBH/IBH? Have you donated to their fighting fund, the one which they dug into and went to court, for you and I, to ensure the Donny show was allowed to go ahead, and to safeguard the future of all the shows? Have you thanked them, online or in person, for what they do for us all?

Have you, those people who are saying it's unfair for them to simply ask you to not break the law outside their shows, lifted a single finger to help out the people who, without thanks, without asking a penny from you, fight your corner day in and day out? 

Or have you just asked them to do yet more for you, so your life can be a bit easier?

I'm going to get off my soapbox now.


----------



## MCEE

Khaos said:


> Whether you like it or not, undertaking a partial or complete sale of an animal, in public, is illegal.


Sale has already taken place, in private, so please site the section of the Pet Animals Act 1951 (amended in 1983) law where it states that handing over and animal from one person to another is illegal. Also, what if the animal was a gift?

No court in the land is going to convict someone for handing a box from person A to person B based on the act in question without proof that the animal was actively for sale on a public street and that money was exchanged for that animal on a public street.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

:2wallbang:.................................


----------



## MCEE

Khaos said:


> Have you, those people who are saying it's unfair for them to simply ask you to not break the law outside their shows...


Again, and please be clear about this, they cannot tell you not to break a law that does not exist. There is no law to prohibit the transfer of any animal from one person to the other, in a public place, where an animal has not actively been on sale in a public place or money exchanged for said animal in a public place.
Remember, there will be other reasons animals will be transferred from one person to another and they do not all involve buyers and sellers.


----------



## Stu MBM

Idiots, Chris has asked people not to do something as it does not help the cause he is fighting for. If you want to sell or trade animals. Book a table like the rest of us. 

The hobby is being killed by stupid, blind people. Just stick to the rules or dont go. :2wallbang:


----------



## MCEE

Stu MBM said:


> Idiots, Chris has asked people not to do something as it does not help the cause he is fighting for. If you want to sell or trade animals. Book a table like the rest of us.
> 
> The hobby is being killed by stupid, blind people. Just stick to the rules or dont go.


Have you read the entire thread? If so you would realise (allthough some others seem to have lost this point) that *nobody* is supporting the sale or trade of animals outside the confines of the show hall. However, some people feel they need somewhere to transfer animals that have already been sold privately or are gifts, on breeding loan etc... and feel that the most sensible place to do that is at the show venue rather than some backstreet somehwere.

The argument really was that simple before some peole started missing the point.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

No need for any arguement, debate, whatever you want to call it in the first place........Chris made a simple and obvious request that most reasonable people found simple to understand but a few as usual feel it is their deserved right to question his request and offer their own alternatives instead.....not needed and totally pointless on this post in the first place and if anything, simply just downright rude!!


----------



## Chris Newman

MCEE said:


> Sale has already taken place, in private, so please site the section of the Pet Animals Act 1951 (amended in 1983) law where it states that handing over and animal from one person to another is illegal. Also, what if the animal was a gift?
> 
> No court in the land is going to convict someone for handing a box from person A to person B based on the act in question without proof that the animal was actively for sale on a public street and that money was exchanged for that animal on a public street.


Regrettably that is not an entirely accurate statement, dependent upon the legislation concerned the emphasis is not always for the prosecutor to prove guilt, it may be for the aquesed to prove innocence, and that may be an imposable burden? For example I suspect not a single keeper of _Python regus_, could prove their animals were acquired lawful!!! Many, many people have been convicted of animal related offences for which they are not guilty! So why give our opponents an opening?


----------



## MCEE

Chris Newman said:


> Regrettably that is not an entirely accurate statement, dependent upon the legislation concerned the emphasis is not always for the prosecutor to prove guilt, it may be for the aquesed to prove innocence, and that may be an imposable burden?


Even so, the prosecution must still have evidence to substantiate bringing the case to court. This evidence would have to show that the animal was for sale in the public place and that money exchanged hands. If this evidence was forthcoming then, yes, the defendant would have to prove otherwise. However, without this evidence, the case would never get to court in the first place. Mere belief or hearsay is not evidence enough.


> For example I suspect not a single keeper of _Python regus_, could prove their animals were acquired lawful!!! Many, many people have been convicted of animal related offences for which they are not guilty! So why give our opponents an opening?


Again, the prosecution must still produce evidence to support their belief the animal was illegally sought and obtained. Possession of a particular animal is not envidence to show illegal acquisition.


----------



## colinm

You are trying to argue that whether it is a sale ,an exchange or trade.This is immaterial because we have been asked by the organisers not to do it,why do you find it so difficult to comprehend? 

All it needs is for some photos of people swapping boxes or bags outside a show for the antis to have good ammunition against the reptile hobby.Photographs can be twisted and made to look bad.Then the s:censor: will hit the fan.Thats why people were told not to do it.


----------



## Stu MBM

MCEE said:


> Have you read the entire thread? If so you would realise (allthough some others seem to have lost this point) that *nobody* is supporting the sale or trade of animals outside the confines of the show hall. However, some people feel they need somewhere to transfer animals that have already been sold privately or are gifts, on breeding loan etc... and feel that the most sensible place to do that is at the show venue rather than some backstreet somehwere.
> 
> The argument really was that simple before some peole started missing the point.


Read my post again. Tool. 
It's really not that hard. If you want to exchange an animal at a show then BOOK A TABLE!!!!!

'some people feel they need somewhere to transfer animals that have already been sold privately or are gifts, on breeding loan etc...'

Now this is a really hard one to get around, let me help you with some suggestions.

Drive to a persons house and deliver the animal. 
Get someone with a car to deliver it.
Breeding loans??? With someone you feel the need to meet at a public event and not in private??? are you for real???

Just stick to the rules set out or go and organise your own event. The rules are in place for the good of the hobby and if you cant see this or feel the need to debate the finer details of the law then I think you may need to look in the mirror and say, why am I really debating these issues? Do I really have a clue what I'm talking about? Or, How are the points I have raised going to help my hobby?

I shall finish my rant with my opening statement.

TOOL!!!


----------



## George_Millett

MCEE said:


> Again, the prosecution must still produce evidence to support their belief the animal was illegally sought and obtained. Possession of a particular animal is not envidence to show illegal acquisition.



Before you post again to spew your ignorance about the forum might I suggest you do a bit more research. Start with this thread. Then move on to the Dangerous Dogs Act. 

There are plenty of places where the presumption that a crime has been committed and the onus is on the accused to prove that they have not committed a crime.


----------



## Revobuzz

Should an event organiser do whatever is necessary to control the activities of their members and visitors in the building? 100% yes - nothing to debate.

Should an event organiser do whatever is necessary to control the activities of their members and visitors in the car park and general demise of the property? 100% yes - nothing to debate.

Are the event organisors responsible for activites of visitors outside of the demise -100% no - nothing to debate.

Is it fair that members pay for a table, and others could just turn up and not pay? 100% no - nothing to debate. 

Would it be better for the wider reptile community if some time was put to considering whether there is some reasonable step that could be taken to influence the activities of visitors outside of the demise on the day of the event. IMO yes.

If the APA record an activity outside of the demise that helps their cause it is no good for us if our answer "They are not a member of our organisation"

I don't like it. It would be better if everyone behaved, but we live in the real world, and unfortunately the real world has more than it's fair share of idiots.

For the record this thread has never been about critisism of the IHS/FBH or about what Chris was asking for in his post. It was a perfectly sensible post. The man deserves a knighthood for the work he's done (or maybe canonized!) 

However this is a forum, and the post lead to a discussion, albeit a bit of a heated one, that's what forums are for.


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> Even so, the prosecution must still have evidence to substantiate bringing the case to court. This evidence would have to show that the animal was for sale in the public place and that money exchanged hands. If this evidence was forthcoming then, yes, the defendant would have to prove otherwise. However, without this evidence, the case would never get to court in the first place. Mere belief or hearsay is not evidence enough.
> 
> 
> Again, the prosecution must still produce evidence to support their belief the animal was illegally sought and obtained. Possession of a particular animal is not envidence to show illegal acquisition.


I'm sorry but you're dead wrong.

In legal terms, a sale is any exchange of good for money or trade of objects of value. The fact that it was agreed elsewhere is no defence, nor even that the payment may have been made already. If any part of the transefer happens outside, it is open to prosecution.

And possession without proof of legal acquisiton could be classed as illegal. The onus is on the buyer and seller to prove their legitimacy, not for the Crown to prove the lack of.

We are not saying that all of this is going to happen; that SWAT teams are going to descent from ropes and pin you to the ground for handing over two corn snakes in a car park... but the point is you are opening yourselves and the shows up to unnecessary risk, purely for your own convenience, despite being firmly and politely asked not to.

The entitlement of people doing so is staggering. The world doesn't owe you anything, especially if all you're doing is taking.


----------



## Revobuzz

Revobuzz said:


> For the record this thread has never been about critisism of the IHS/FBH or about what Chris was asking for in his post. It was a perfectly sensible post. The man deserves a knighthood for the work he's done (or maybe canonized!)


I think you may have to be dead before you can be canonized? Sorry Chris! May not have been the best compliment after all.


----------



## Khaos

Revobuzz said:


> I think you may have to be dead before you can be canonized? Sorry Chris! May not have been the best compliment after all.


He may not be dead, but he certainly works miracles!


----------



## Chris Newman

MCEE said:


> Even so, the prosecution must still have evidence to substantiate bringing the case to court. This evidence would have to show that the animal was for sale in the public place and that money exchanged hands. If this evidence was forthcoming then, yes, the defendant would have to prove otherwise. However, without this evidence, the case would never get to court in the first place. Mere belief or hearsay is not evidence enough.
> Again, the prosecution must still produce evidence to support their belief the animal was illegally sought and obtained. Possession of a particular animal is not envidence to show illegal acquisition.


 
I am sorry but I am really struggling to understand your train of thought or why you are so persistent in arguing your point, which as I understand it is that trading in the car park is acceptable and or legal – it is neither full stop! It is certainly not acceptable, at least to responsible individuals. As to the legality personally I would not like to test your theory in a Court of law, not least of all because it would be exceedingly unhelpful to the future of shows in the UK! Shows are under immense pressure from our opponents, partly on the grounds of ‘illegal trade’ do you really think people handing over animals out of the boot of a car help us? It is about perception as much as anything else!

The bottom-line to this debate is quite simple; the solution unfortunately is not quite so straight forward. The issue is people travelling from different parts of the country to attend a show may wish to meet and exchange animals at a show, perfectly reasonable. Of course that is what shows are for, hobbyists attend to dispose of surplus stock by paying for space to display there animals. Now if the show is funded by keepers paying for space is it fair others should take advantage of this by doing so for free? 

We simply cannot afford for these transactions to take place in the ‘car park’, which is why I made the request that I did. A solution needs to be found and I will have something in place for Doncaster, it is simply getting a balance, which actually is not as easy as you may think. 

Your perpetuation of the argument is simply unhelpful, transactions in the car park or surrounding area at a show is simple not acceptable and will not be tolerated.


----------



## MCEE

Stu MBM said:


> Read my post again. Tool.


Oh dear!.



> I shall finish my rant with my opening statement.
> 
> TOOL!!!


Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Ho hum.


----------



## MCEE

colinm said:


> You are trying to argue that whether it is a sale ,an exchange or trade.This is immaterial because we have been asked by the organisers not to do it,why do you find it so difficult to comprehend?


I am not disagreeing with organisers right to disallow any sort of handover of animals not on sale withing the exhibition hall. All I am saying is, would it not be sensible to allow handovers of animals already sold, gifted or on loan in the controlled environment of a show venue rather than some backstreet somewhere. Why do you find *that* so difficult to comprehend?


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> I am not disagreeing with organisers right to disallow any sort of handover of animals not on sale withing the exhibition hall. All I am saying is, would it not be sensible to allow handovers of animals already sold, gifted or on loan in the controlled environment of a show venue rather than some backstreet somewhere. Why do you find *that* so difficult to comprehend?


Because it's not their responsibility to wipe your arse.


----------



## peterf

MCEE said:


> I am not disagreeing with organisers right to disallow any sort of handover of animals not on sale withing the exhibition hall. All I am saying is, would it not be sensible to allow handovers of animals already sold, gifted or on loan in the controlled environment of a show venue rather than some backstreet somewhere. Why do you find *that* so difficult to comprehend?


Is it your sole intention to argue and disrupt or do you have some other motives?
Looking at some of your other posts you do seem to relish conflict!


----------



## Row'n'Bud

........or attention.:whistling2:


----------



## MCEE

Chris Newman said:


> I am sorry but I am really struggling to understand your train of thought or why you are so persistent in arguing your point, which as I understand it is that trading in the car park is acceptable and or legal – it is neither full stop!


 But I am not talking trading or money changing hands, mearly swapping, gifting, loaning, animals already sold.



> It is certainly not acceptable, at least to responsible individuals. As to the legality personally I would not like to test your theory in a Court of law, not least of all because it would be exceedingly unhelpful to the future of shows in the UK! Shows are under immense pressure from our opponents, partly on the grounds of ‘illegal trade’ do you really think people handing over animals out of the boot of a car help us? It is about perception as much as anything else!


But these exchanges will happen anyway. Would it not be wise that it is done in a controlled way?


> The bottom-line to this debate is quite simple; the solution unfortunately is not quite so straight forward. The issue is people travelling from different parts of the country to attend a show may wish to meet and exchange animals at a show, perfectly reasonable.


And this is all I am saying.


> A solution needs to be found and I will have something in place for Doncaster, it is simply getting a balance, which actually is not as easy as you may think.


 Exactly.


> Your perpetuation of the argument is simply unhelpful...


I made a point and felt the need to defend my point. If people misunderstood me and counter argue aginst something I was NOT saying then I will try and clarify my position further.


> ...transactions in the car park or surrounding area at a show is simple not acceptable and will not be tolerated.


Again that is your perogative and I am not arguing as to *what* your position is but as to *why* your position is what it is (if that makes sense).


----------



## MCEE

peterf said:


> Is it your sole intention to argue and disrupt or do you have some other motives?
> Looking at some of your other posts you do seem to relish conflict!



Isn't it amazing (well not that amazing) how many people on this thread will disagree with someone elses point of view but yet have nothing constructive to contribute to the themselves. Instead they will try and name call or make a personal attack on those they disagree with.

Still, that's the nature of forums I suppose.


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> But I am not talking trading or money changing hands, mearly swapping, gifting, loaning, animals already sold.


These things ARE trading. It doesn't have to be a full, unsolicited trade of money and animal there in the parking lot, just for a PART of the exchange to take place there. Go read up on the law, and the actual definitions of words, then re-visit your logic.



MCEE said:


> Again that is your perogative and I am not arguing as to *what* your position is but as to *why* your position is what it is (if that makes sense).


Because it is illegal, because it risks the show getting closed down, because it risks the entire hobby.


----------



## peterf

Think you should take a step back and listen to yourself. Or you could carry on digging....
And where is my name calling?


----------



## George_Millett

MCEE said:


> Isn't it amazing (well not that amazing) how many people on this thread will disagree with someone elses point of view but yet have nothing constructive to contribute to the themselves. Instead they will try and name call or make a personal attack on those they disagree with.
> 
> Still, that's the nature of forums I suppose.



Whats more amazing is that your post only describes one person who has posted here, you, no one else.

Everyone else has come in an provide backup for their arguments and the only tactic you appear to be able to use is stick your fingers in your ears close your eyes and say it does not apply.

Sorry but the legal definition of a sale is against you on this. If money or some other item of value has changed hands for an item it makes it a sale. It does not matter if you are handing over the money at the same time as you get the goods or you hand over the money in advance. IF any of that process occurs on the street and the merchandise is an animal you have committed an offense under the relevant legislation. Any arguments about it being a gift will come out at the trial by which time it will be to late and the damage will have been done. 

Your other argument about why not let us do it inside the venue also falls flat as if you are not willing to support the club by paying for a table why should the club be willing to support you as they are already out of pocket for the event as they have had to hire the venue and pay all the necessary costs up front and are likely relying on the funds they receive for tables to help recoup their costs so they can survive and continue to provide this service which you seem so keen on abusing.


----------



## MCEE

Khaos said:


> These things ARE trading. It doesn't have to be a full, unsolicited trade of money and animal there in the parking lot, just for a PART of the exchange to take place there.


As you are unable to site the actual section of the pet animals act 1951 which states just this, I think you will have to concede it does not exist. 


> Go read up on the law, and the actual definitions of words, then re-visit your logic.


It seems you have no idea that I may already know what I am talking about. However, as I think this is now going to turn into an argument on who has better knowledge of relevant laws, I think it is best we agree to disagree and leave it at that.


> Because it is illegal...


OK, whatever.


----------



## MCEE

George_Millett said:


> Whats more amazing is that your post only describes one person who has posted here, you, no one else.
> 
> Everyone else has come in an provide backup for their arguments and the only tactic you appear to be able to use is stick your fingers in your ears close your eyes and say it does not apply.


So you have only read parts of the thread that suits. OK, thats up to you. However, I think you need to read everyones posts again and then rethink your statement.


> Sorry but the legal definition of a sale is against you on this. If money or some other item of value has changed hands for an item it makes it a sale. It does not matter if you are handing over the money at the same time as you get the goods or you hand over the money in advance. IF any of that process occurs on the street and the merchandise is an animal you have committed an offense under the relevant legislation. Any arguments about it being a gift will come out at the trial by which time it will be to late and the damage will have been done.


Ho hum. OK, if you say so.


----------



## George_Millett

Ok quick question for you. If the legal definition of a sale only includes goods being exchanged at the same time as the money. How does it apply to mail order and online sales???


Hint it does apply as the sale is the period from the initial request/order right through to the final acceptance and exchange of product. The reason I know this, training in accountancy particulary accounts payable/receivable for which the definition of a sale is rather important.

Oh yeah in your response to me thank you for validating pretty much every thing I put in my last post.


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> So you have only read parts of the thread that suits. OK, thats up to you. However, I think you need to read everyones posts again and then rethink your statement.
> Ho hum. OK, if you say so.


MCEE, even if you don't think that I know more about the law than you do (and I do) and that you're right (you're wrong), fine. If you'd taken the time to go look at the wording of the law, rather than expecting it to be spoon fed to you, you'd see you are wrong. 

Allow me to defer you to the expert in the field who has very kindly, and politely, replied to you several times, Mr Chris Newman. Who has also, repeatedly, told you that you are wrong. You do not know more than him.


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> As you are unable to site the actual section of the pet animals act 1951 which states just this, I think you will have to concede it does not exist.
> It seems you have no idea that I may already know what I am talking about. However, as I think this is now going to turn into an argument on who has better knowledge of relevant laws, I think it is best we agree to disagree and leave it at that.
> OK, whatever.


However, I'm feeling generous tonight... Here's a mere smidgen of the legal definition of a sale in the UK.

_SALE, contracts. An agreement by which one of the contracting parties, called the seller, gives a thing and passes the title to it, in exchange for a certain price in current money, to the other party, who is called the buyer or purchaser, who, on his part, agrees to pay such price. Pard. Dr. Com. n. 6; Noy's Max. ch. 42; Shep. Touch. 244; 2 Kent, Com. 363; Poth. Vente, n. 1; 1 Duverg. Dr. Civ. Fr. n. 7. 

2. This contract differs from a barter or exchange in this, that in the latter the price or consideration, instead of being paid in money, is paid in goods or merchandise, susceptible of a valuation. It differs from accord and satisfaction, because in that contract, the thing is given for the purpose of quieting a claim, and not for a price. An onerous gift, when the burden it imposes is the payment of a sum of money, is, when accepted, in the nature of a sale. When partition is made between two or more joint owners of a chattel, it would seem, the contract is in the nature of a barter. See 11 Pick. 311. 

3. To constitute a valid sale there must be, 1. Proper parties. 2. A thing which is the object of the contract. 3. A price agreed upon; and, 4. The consent of the contracting parties, and the performance of certain acts required to complete the contract. These will be separately considered._


----------



## MCEE

George_Millett said:


> Ok quick question for you. If the legal definition of a sale only includes goods being exchanged at the same time as the money. How does it apply to mail order and online sales???
> 
> 
> Hint it does apply as the sale is the period from the initial request/order right through to the final acceptance and exchange of product. The reason I know this, training in accountancy particulary accounts payable/receivable for which the definition of a sale is rather important.


All of which has has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pet Animals Act, which is act in question in this thread.


----------



## MCEE

Khaos said:


> However, I'm feeling generous tonight... Here's a mere smidgen of the legal definition of a sale in the UK.
> 
> _SALE, contracts. An agreement by which one of the contracting parties, called the seller, gives a thing and passes the title to it, in exchange for a certain price in current money, to the other party, who is called the buyer or purchaser, who, on his part, agrees to pay such price. Pard. Dr. Com. n. 6; Noy's Max. ch. 42; Shep. Touch. 244; 2 Kent, Com. 363; Poth. Vente, n. 1; 1 Duverg. Dr. Civ. Fr. n. 7.
> _


Erm, I know what a Sale is but what has this got to do with laws which govern the transfer of animals under the Pet Animals Act?


> _ 2. This contract differs from a barter or exchange in this, that in the latter the price or consideration, instead of being paid in money, is paid in goods or merchandise, susceptible of a valuation. It differs from accord and satisfaction, because in that contract, the thing is given for the purpose of quieting a claim, and not for a price. An onerous gift, when the burden it imposes is the payment of a sum of money, is, when accepted, in the nature of a sale. When partition is made between two or more joint owners of a chattel, it would seem, the contract is in the nature of a barter. See 11 Pick. 311.
> 
> 3. To constitute a valid sale there must be, 1. Proper parties. 2. A thing which is the object of the contract. 3. A price agreed upon; and, 4. The consent of the contracting parties, and the performance of certain acts required to complete the contract. These will be separately considered._


Where on earth did you cut and paste that from?
And again, what has this got to do with laws which govern the transfer of animals under the Pet Animals Act?


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> Erm, I know what a Sale is but what has this got to do with laws which govern the transfer of animals under the Pet Animals Act?Where on earth did you cut and paste that from?
> And again, what has this got to do with laws which govern the transfer of animals under the Pet Animals Act?


1) the Act prevents the Sale of animals in the street, from a barrow or a stall.
2) the legal definition of a Sale includes ANY kind of transfer, in part or in full, between two parties in exchange for money.

Thank you and good night.


----------



## MCEE

Khaos said:


> 1) the Act prevents the Sale of animals in the street, from a barrow or a stall.
> 2) the legal definition of a Sale includes ANY kind of transfer, in part or in full, between two parties in exchange for money.


You would make a good politician but an absolutely terrible barrister.


----------



## Khaos

MCEE said:


> You would make a good politician but an absolutely terrible barrister.


Good job I'm neither. 

What I am, however, is right.


----------



## George_Millett

MCEE said:


> All of which has has nothing whatsoever to do with the Pet Animals Act, which is act in question in this thread.



Since the entire bit of legislation deals with the selling of an animal the definition of a sale is very relevant don't you think?


Here read it for your self Pet animals act 1951

Especially clause 2 which you appear to be claiming does not exist. And before you mention pedigrees, that needs a breed standard. Something I don't believe exists yet for reptiles.


That will be the bit of legislation you will be arrested and charged under. As I said earlier what ever arguments you might chose to make later on either in the police station or in court trying to peddle your theory are completely and utterly irrelevant you have already succeeded in giving plenty of ammunition to anyone who dislikes the keeping of reptiles.


----------



## MCEE

George_Millett said:


> Since the entire bit of legislation deals with the selling of an animal the definition of a sale is very relevant don't you think?
> 
> 
> Here read it for your self Pet animals act 1951
> 
> Especially clause 2 which you appear to be claiming does not exist. And before you mention pedigrees, that needs a breed standard. Something I don't believe exists yet for reptiles.
> 
> 
> That will be the bit of legislation you will be arrested and charged under. As I said earlier what ever arguments you might chose to make later on either in the police station or in court trying to peddle your theory are completely and utterly irrelevant you have already succeeded in giving plenty of ammunition to anyone who dislikes the keeping of reptiles.


I am very well aware of the Pet animals act 1951, thank you.

However, it seems other people have a problem understanding that the Pet animals act 1951 only refers to those that are "selling" an animal would be guilty of an offence. For this reason, the onus is on the prosecution to substantiate that a sale has taken place. Simple as that. If they cannot substantiate a "sale" took place then the fact that a "transfer" took place (which is NOT covered in the act) would not be evidence enough to convict someone of making a sale, as a transfer could be for other reasons other than a sale.
Like it or not, people, I am afraid that wording is all important in the legal world and this act is quite clear in what it refers to. There is a huge difference between "selling" and "transferring" and if the prosecution tried to gain a conviction for selling when all they have is evidence of person A handing a snake to person B then it would be thrown out of court, if it ever got that far in the first place.

Now can we all please move on.


----------



## colinm

Do you really think that the animal rights people care whether it is a sale or exchange? No.It will be all over their websites stating that smuggled animals are for sale in carparks.Its about public perception.

Pay your £10 or £20 per year and join a club for the benefits a club can bring.These shows are run by clubs and the F.B.H. for the benefit of hobbyists not the other way around.The sooner people realise this the better.


----------



## Tarron

Anyone else who wants to argue their point against MCEE is wasting their time. He will not change his mind and seems to relish winding everyone up.

The fact is, a request has been made by the organisers, as is their prerogative, and we as conscientious hobbyists should respect and adhere to that request. Anyone found in breach of it should gladly accept any consequences. Maybe then we will know for sure where the law stands.

However, I hope anyone that does get caught ensures they mention they had been told not to do it and it's only very few people acting like this. Damage limitation will be required.

Good luck to you MCEE, I hope any sale you make on the day goes to plan and nothing comes of it. Purely because I don't want the hobby I love ruined by spoilt selfish idiots.

On the plus side, all the extra bumping will have ensured more people saw the notification.


----------



## MCEE

Tarron said:


> Anyone else who wants to argue their point against MCEE is wasting their time. He will not change his mind and seems to relish winding everyone up.


 Why should there be a requirement that anyone needs to change their mind? A "point of view" is all it is after all. However, as there has been name calling and personal remarks made by some people who are not articulate enough to partcipate in adult debate, and respect another's point of view, it seems quite obvious people are quite capable of winding themselves up.


> The fact is, a request has been made by the organisers, as is their prerogative, and we as conscientious hobbyists should respect and adhere to that request.


And I have never said anybody should do otherwise.


> Good luck to you MCEE, I hope any sale you make on the day goes to plan and nothing comes of it. Purely because I don't want the hobby I love ruined by spoilt selfish idiots.


I can assure you that if I need sell anything in the future I will do so legally and above board.


----------



## chalky76

In my opinion anyone conducting an activity like this (which could blatantly be exploited by the antis) should be banned from this forum as they are being totally irresponsible and harming the good conduct principles we all try to adhere to. At the end of the day if you want to behave in a manner which would jeopardise the future of our hobby (weather legally or illegally) then leave this community.


----------



## MCEE

chalky76 said:


> In my opinion anyone conducting an activity like this (which could blatantly be exploited by the antis)



Acting like what?


> ...should be banned from this forum as they are being totally irresponsible and harming the good conduct principles we all try to adhere to.



Who, what, eh? Should be banned from the forums? Define irresponsible. You need to give some context to these sweeping statements.


> At the end of the day if you want to behave in a manner which would jeopardise the future of our hobby (weather legally or illegally) then leave this community.



I agree, nobody who keeps, breeds or sells animals should act outside the law. 100% with you there. However, I think you may be a little bit beyond your remit to suggest that anyone who persues their hobby legally should not be part of whatever community they choose to be. After all, who has assigned you, me or anyone else to act as judge and jury when it come to decide what you or I or anyone else should do with their lives.


----------



## chalky76

You're entire angle on almost everything you've previously said is contrary to THIS COMMUNITY'S norms in regards to responsible herpetology. And no, YOU don't choose a community, by definition it chooses you. If you dont share the common values of this community, if you're understanding of ethics and acceptable practices flys in the face of this community then you forfeit your right to be part of it. I'd suggest opening your own MCEE forum where like minded people can discuss things.


----------



## MCEE

chalky76 said:


> You're entire angle on almost everything you've previously said is contrary to THIS COMMUNITY'S norms in regards to responsible herpetology.


I'm irresponsible?:lol2:
I suggest you read ALL my posts in this thread, again and tell me where I have been "irresponsible". Just because my point of view is not the same as others does not constitute "irrisponsibility".



> And no, YOU don't choose a community, by definition it chooses you.


Eh?



> If you dont share the common values of this community.


What? How on earth...? Where? Why? Eh? Again, re read ALL my posts.



> If you're understanding of ethics and acceptable practices flys in the face of this community then you forfeit your right to be part of it. I'd suggest opening your own MCEE forum where like minded people can discuss things.


Oh, I see. If ones opinion does not agree with someone elses they have no place in that forum ("community") and must start their own.

:roll2:Are you for real?

I think your ideas about public (yes,* PUBLIC*) forum are a bit deluded. Based on this and the fact that this has now gone way off topic, there is no point continuing my conversation with you.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

mcee, intentionally small characters.........

Take the chip off yer shoulder, get off yer high horse and wind yer neck in for a minute

You come on here and first rip a show apart and now all this childish trying to prove how intelligent you are......

If still at school/uni : do it in class

If old enough to be in a relationship : try it with yer partner...good luck with that one

If too stupid or ignorant that you actually think you are looking good here : think again !!

Everyone has now seen your true antagonistic self and in your true light....if this makes you feel clever, so be it but leave the sensible people of the forum who understand manners, respect and common courtesy to get on with their hobby and abide by the wishes of those who have earned the right to do so


----------



## chalky76

MCEE said:


> I'm irresponsible?:lol2:
> I suggest you read ALL my posts in this thread, again and tell me where I have been "irresponsible". Just because my point of view is not the same as others does not constitute "irrisponsibility".
> 
> Eh?
> 
> What? How on earth...? Where? Why? Eh? Again, re read ALL my posts.
> 
> Oh, I see. If ones opinion does not agree with someone elses they have no place in that forum ("community") and must start their own.
> 
> :roll2:Are you for real?
> 
> I think your ideas about public (yes,* PUBLIC*) forum are a bit deluded. Based on this and the fact that this has now gone way off topic, there is no point continuing my conversation with you.


You find it hard to understand other people's values and concerns don't you? I'm even thinking you may have dissocial personality disorder (and before you ask, yes I do have a psychology background).

And yes a community is made up of individuals with a common ideas and an understanding of their groups ethical values. In this instance you can't grasp that so I suggest you go elsewhere where you can link up with like minded people (maybe www.shadycarparkherpdealers.co.uk). 

Yes this is a public forum but it is moderated and in my view you should be banned because you've made it quite clear that you would quite happily put our hobby in jeopardy by your actions. 

And finally I do hope you are sincere in that your conversation will finally stop.


----------



## MCEE

chalky76 said:


> You find it hard to understand other people's values and concerns don't you?


It seems that you, and some others, find it hard to *repect* others opinions and contribute to healthy debate otherwise you would not resort to petty personal attacks.



> I'm even thinking you may have dissocial personality disorder.


Ho hum. See what I mean. No substance whatsoever.


> And yes a community is made up of individuals with a common ideas and an understanding of their groups ethical values. In this instance you can't grasp that so I suggest you go elsewhere where you can link up with like minded people (maybe www.shadycarparkherpdealers.co.uk).


Please re read all my posts in this thread because you seem to find it hard to grasp my point of view.


> Yes this is a public forum but it is moderated and in my view you should be banned...


:lol2:Why, because you disagree with me? :lol2:


> ...because you've made it quite clear that you would quite happily put our hobby in jeopardy by your actions.


Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear! You really must re read all my posts before spouting such silly statements.


> And finally I do hope you are sincere in that your conversation will finally stop.


It seems that this debate seems to have run it's course. The only people I seem to be talking to now are only able to contribute with personal attacks and name calling. If you are finding it that difficult to constructively contribute to the subject of the thread then, yes, I will happily cease to converse with you.


----------



## chalky76

Yep, everyone else is wrong and you're right. Like I said disocial personality disorder, and that's not a personal attack its an observation from someone with a background in the subject.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

Problem is that this thread was not made for you to show off on mcee.....

It, ONCE AGAIN, was simply a reminder for people not to put the show in jeopardy by dealing outside of the venue....FULL STOP !!!


----------



## MCEE

Row'n'Bud said:


> Problem is that this thread was not made for you to show off on mcee.....


It was posted on a public forum. A forum is a medium based on the ability to reply with opinion, argument and debate. If replies were not allowed the thread would have been locked.



> It, ONCE AGAIN, was simply a reminder for people not to put the show in jeopardy by dealing outside of the venue....FULL STOP !!!


OK, as you, and a couple of others, cannot be bothered to read the entire thread I will remind you of my views:

*It is illegal to SELL aninmals in a public place. Agreed.
However, it is not illegal to "transfer" in a public place because no law distiguishes this fact and there are various reasons why one would transfer animals other than selling. The Pet Animals Act is clear that it only refers to "selling".

I have NEVER said one SHOULD "transfer" animals in a public place. However, I recognised that no matter who says what, or who wants what, this practice will continue to happen. Nobody's opinions on this forum or anywhere else will change that fact. However, as the practice or transfering animals will happen anyway, would it not be better that it happened within the confines of an organised event **and in full view of the organisers **rather than in some back street or supermarket car park, somewhere?*

Now, that is my opinion, IN FULL, like it or not. Had you, and others, been bothered to read the entire thread rather than jump on the playground bandwagon you will have seen this.
Some people responded with adult debate and countered arguments regarding the pros and cons of my opinion. That is fine.
However, comments that I am "irresponsible" and I should be "banned" merely because people disagree with my opinions or cannot be bothered to understand the sentiment behind my comments, and because they are unable to add anything constructive to the debate, are the ones who will, ultimately, look silly.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

Ho hum......................


----------



## MCEE

Row'n'Bud said:


> Ho hum......................


Ho hum, indeed.


----------



## Chris Newman

MCEE said:


> *It is illegal to SELL aninmals in a public place. Agreed.*
> *However, it is not illegal to "transfer" in a public place because no law distiguishes this fact and there are various reasons why one would transfer animals other than selling. The Pet Animals Act is clear that it only refers to "selling".*
> 
> *I have NEVER said one SHOULD "transfer" animals in a public place. However, I recognised that no matter who says what, or who wants what, this practice will continue to happen. Nobody's opinions on this forum or anywhere else will change that fact. However, as the practice or transfering animals will happen anyway, would it not be better that it happened within the confines of an organised event **and in full view of the organisers **rather than in some back street or supermarket car park, somewhere?*


It really is disappointing this thread is still running! 

I am afraid your point is not entirely accurate, your argument may stand in terms of the Pet Animals Act, however, it does not hold true for the Control of Trade in Endangered Species regulations (COTES). 
The bottom-line is quite simply exchanging animals in the car park or surrounding area of a show is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Measures will be implemented for Doncaster, and future shows, that will facilitate people meeting and exchanging animals but it will be done openly and transparently and fairly to all interested parties. Once the fine print is agreed it will be made public.

If people abuse this facility by ignoring it and continue to hand over animals in the car park and we catch them we will report the incident to the relevant authorities, police council etc. If the individuals are identified and are members of a club or society I will ask that organisation to expel them for one year, a second breach and I would ask the society to expel them for life! 

This may sound draconian but a lot of effort has been put into making sure shows can continue, it is unfair on the overwhelming majority of peoples interests and enjoyment are put at risk because of the selfish minority.


----------



## MCEE

Chris Newman said:


> It really is disappointing this thread is still running!


It is still running because certain people could not be bothered to read previous posts and based their replies on cherry picked sections of the thread. This meant old ground was covered for the sake of integrity.


> I am afraid your point is not entirely accurate, your argument may stand in terms of the Pet Animals Act, however, it does not hold true for the Control of Trade in Endangered Species regulations (COTES).


To be fair, COTES is not really relevant to the argument and that is why I did not need to refer to it.
COTES is a whole different ball game. Not only does it set out to regulate the trade only in *specifically* listed species (and subspecies) of animals and plants but the regulations are also enforceable inside shows, retail outlets, in fact anywhere where the animal is dispalyed or used for commercial gain or sold offered for sale or transported for sale.
By bringing COTES into the argument for not exchanging/transfering animals in the car park you may as well also remind people they cannot sell drugs or stolen goods in the car park, either.


> Measures will be implemented for Doncaster, and future shows, that will facilitate people meeting and exchanging animals but it will be done openly and transparently and fairly to all interested parties. Once the fine print is agreed it will be made public.


And on that good news it may be a good point to end the thread (although I dare say more flamers and trolls are queuing up).


----------



## Row'n'Bud

I'm first....

Someone buy this tool a mirror and a dictaphone as they are obviously so impressed by their self importance that looking at and listening to themself might just help to keep them occupied........

Anyone else noticed a trend of non stop pointless arguements following Chris and others around at the minute across the forums ??......a few AR sleepers or sympathisers coming to the surface perhaps ??


----------



## MCEE

Row'n'Bud said:


> I'm first....


Why does that not surprise me.
And, as usual, nothing constructive to say.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

Love you really........:blush:


----------



## Chris Newman

MCEE said:


> It To be fair, COTES is not really relevant to the argument and that is why I did not need to refer to it.
> COTES is a whole different ball game. Not only does it set out to regulate the trade only in *specifically* listed species (and subspecies) of animals and plants but the regulations are also enforceable inside shows, retail outlets, in fact anywhere where the animal is dispalyed or used for commercial gain or sold offered for sale or transported for sale.
> By bringing COTES into the argument for not exchanging/transfering animals in the car park you may as well also remind people they cannot sell drugs or stolen goods in the car park, either.


Sorry but I must pull you up on this point, COTES is absolutely relevant to this debate, indeed I would argue is as relevant if not more so that the Pet Animals Act! Suggesting brining COTES into this is as relevant as reminding people they cannot sell drugs or stolen goods is simply ludicrous, purveying drugs or stolen goods is illegal full stop, trade in species covered by COTES is legal – the issue is how the sale is conducted, and exchanging said animal out of the boot of the car might not create the best image and remember the onus is on you to prove the sale is lawful not the enforcement body to prove its illegal!


----------



## MCEE

Chris Newman said:


> Sorry but I must pull you up on this point, COTES is absolutely relevant to this debate, indeed I would argue is as relevant if not more so that the Pet Animals Act!


But COTES is only relevant to listed species. What about the species of animals it does not cover?


> Suggesting brining COTES into this is as relevant as reminding people they cannot sell drugs or stolen goods is simply ludicrous, purveying drugs or stolen goods is illegal full stop, trade in species covered by COTES is legal – the issue is how the sale is conducted.


I think the point has been lost on this. It was only meant as a throw away point anyway so I won't labour it.:smile:


> ...remember the onus is on you to prove the sale is lawful not the enforcement body to prove its illegal!


Depends on which law to which you are now referring.

It looks like we will have to agree to disagree, if for no other reason than to end the thread.:cheers:


----------



## Chris Newman

I am sorry but you are being argumentative now purely for the sake of it, if you are not familiar with COTES and how it works then arguing it is not relevant or is only relevant to a minority of keepers is both inaccurate and unhelpful. COTES has implication for just about every keep in the UK, and keepers can and do loose their animals due to it. The onus is on your to prove the animals or patents of said animals were acquired lawful, and for the majority of keepers this is an impossible burden to discharge. Most responsible keepers would, I am sure, not wish to take the risk. It occurs to me that your dogged arguing over trivial point’s leads me to conclude that you personal believe exchanging animals in the car park, irrespective the potential consequences to the hobby is acceptable. That may well be you view, and you are entitled to it but I, and I hope the overwhelming majority of keepers would disagree, and that is my final word on this mater.


----------



## MCEE

Chris Newman said:


> I am sorry but you are being argumentative now purely for the sake of it, if you are not familiar with COTES and how it works then arguing it is not relevant or is only relevant to a minority of keepers is both inaccurate and unhelpful. COTES has implication for just about every keep in the UK, and keepers can and do loose their animals due to it. The onus is on your to prove the animals or patents of said animals were acquired lawful, and for the majority of keepers this is an impossible burden to discharge. Most responsible keepers would, I am sure, not wish to take the risk. It occurs to me that your dogged arguing over trivial point’s leads me to conclude that you personal believe exchanging animals in the car park, irrespective the potential consequences to the hobby is acceptable. That may well be you view, and you are entitled to it but I, and I hope the overwhelming majority of keepers would disagree, and that is my final word on this mater.


For you to reply in such a manner now makes YOU look like the one who wants to argue for the sake of it.
I had my opinion, you had yours. You felt you must have your say, I felt I should have mine. I was willing to agree to disagree, and end it there, but, you were not. You were not happy to leave it there. So who is the one being argumentative now?
It was obvious you were not going to back down with your point of view, I was not going to back down with mine, so why did you find it so hard to agree to disagree? Shall I hazard a guess? Maybe it is because you think it is it is one rule for you and one rule for other forum contributors who may oppose you views. Maybe because you think it is only your opinions that count.
If you post anything in a public forum you cannot expect to sit back and everybody agree with you. I have news for you, that is the nature of public forums. If I want to argue my point, as long as I do so legally and without abuse, I will do and neither you or anyone else will tell me otherwise (short of censorship). Telling me I am being argumentative for the sake of it and then you follow with a further rant, because you just can't find it in yourself to agree to disagree, is slightly hypercritical don't you think? And here is you, surprised this thread is still going?

You may be the "appointed" spokesperson for the hobby, Mr Newman, and there may be many of your "disciples" on this forum who will jump to your beck and call and your defence, regardless of what you say and do, but that does not mean you have carte blanche to have the ONLY views that matter.

Don't get me wrong, I have contributed to the FBH because I believe in what it stands for. I did not contribute to give the FBH/IHS or any part of their membership, their committee or spokespeople a golden ticket to be the only ones who can say what they want and do what they want in a public forum.

If you do not like people speaking out with oposing views, Mr Newman, may I suggest you keep your comments to FBH/IHS members only and make these reptile shows/expos members only. At least you will have some control over members by threatening membership if they do anything you do not like. Absurd idea? Maybe, but while everything you do, Mr Newman, is done in public for public consumption, you have to accept these oposing view are a part of life. Get used to it.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

^^^ moron ^^^


----------



## Row'n'Bud

Just another of your rebellious fanclub Chris.....not worth even giving credit to this fool either


----------



## Pete Q

MCEE said:


> you have to accept these oposing view are a part of life. Get used to it.


You need to get used to this type of reaction if your view is going to be unexceptable and is an extremely bad idea, the FBH and reptile clubs need to have a zero tolerance when it comes to car park dealings, for all the reasons already out lined, it's not hard to understand why surely ? 

Your being meet with a strong message because we can't and should not let it happen, we don't want others getting any ideas.

If we allow this to happen its game set and match to the antis, I'm sure you understand this and why you have had such a strong reaction.


----------



## MCEE

Pete Q said:


> You need to get used to this type of reaction if your view is going to be unexceptable and is an extremely bad idea, the FBH and reptile clubs need to have a zero tolerance when it comes to car park dealings, for all the reasons already out lined, it's not hard to understand why surely ?
> 
> Your being meet with a strong message because we can't and should not let it happen, we don't want others getting any ideas.
> 
> If we allow this to happen its game set and match to the antis, I'm sure you understand this and why you have had such a strong reaction.



The legal disagreements aside, the whole point I have been trying to make from the very start is that these exchanges will happen, no matter what anybody says or does. In which case, surely it would be preferable to have these exchanges happen in the confines of the show venues themselves rather than the surrounding backstreets and supermarket car parks.
According to Mr Newman, measures are now being implemented for this to happen at future shows, so all is well.
I think all the bad reaction I have recieved is because certain people have not read all the posts (or at least not in context) and assumed that I felt that exchanges should be allowed in car parks, come what may, which is not what I have said at all.

Still, that's forums for you.


----------



## chalky76

Row'n'Bud said:


> ^^^ moron ^^^


^^^^This^^^^


----------



## Chris Newman

Row'n'Bud said:


> Just another of your rebellious fanclub Chris.....not worth even giving credit to this fool either


Unfortunately in all walks off life you have those who simply don’t care, know best [regardless] or simply wish to be argumentative, engaging with such individuals only encourages them.


----------



## MCEE

Chris Newman said:


> Unfortunately in all walks off life you have those who simply don’t care, know best [regardless] or simply wish to be argumentative, engaging with such individuals only encourages them.


Unfortunately, in all walks of life, you also have those who are indifferent to other peoples viewpoint, think they are holier than thou, who think their viewpoint is the ONLY viewpoint [regardless], and quite openly engages with individuals who publicly namecall and be abusive other individuals with oposing opinions to themselves.

Again, thats public forums for you.


----------



## Row'n'Bud

again, ^^^ moron ^^^

Now you'll have to post again to get the childish last word in ...ha!!!


----------



## Chris Newman

Row'n'Bud said:


> again, ^^^ moron ^^^
> 
> Now you'll have to post again to get the childish last word in ...ha!!!


The problem with forums are they attract ‘attention seekers’, once an individual has individual identifies themselves as such, and here we have a classic, the best advise is ignore them. Let them have the last word, let them feel big and important, but above all treat them with the contempt they deserve and ignore them…….


----------



## Austin Allegro

Chris Newman said:


> It really is disappointing this thread is still running!
> 
> I am afraid your point is not entirely accurate, your argument may stand in terms of the Pet Animals Act, however, it does not hold true for the Control of Trade in Endangered Species regulations (COTES).
> The bottom-line is quite simply exchanging animals in the car park or surrounding area of a show is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Measures will be implemented for Doncaster, and future shows, that will facilitate people meeting and exchanging animals but it will be done openly and transparently and fairly to all interested parties. Once the fine print is agreed it will be made public.
> 
> If people abuse this facility by ignoring it and continue to hand over animals in the car park and we catch them we will report the incident to the relevant authorities, police council etc. If the individuals are identified and are members of a club or society I will ask that organisation to expel them for one year, a second breach and I would ask the society to expel them for life!
> 
> This may sound draconian but a lot of effort has been put into making sure shows can continue, it is unfair on the overwhelming majority of peoples interests and enjoyment are put at risk because of the selfish minority.


Was just about to send off my table booking form for the November Donny show but on reading this will wait to see how the measures work at the September show. For a few of us there might be no need to have a table, if they are now going to allow exchanges on the premises. Seems a really good initative and takes the hobby right back to it's grassroots by way of a retro 80's style swap shop initative.


----------



## Pete Q

Austin Allegro said:


> Was just about to send off my table booking form for the November Donny show but on reading this will wait to see how the measures work at the September show. For a few of us there might be no need to have a table, if they are now going to allow exchanges on the premises. Seems a really good initative and takes the hobby right back to it's grassroots by way of a retro 80's style swap shop initative.


Did you read the post you quoted ? reptile clubs don't want this to happen and will ban anyone seen doing this outside, you've answered one reason why yourself, your second thoughts about booking a table.
If your talking about a swap inside I think you can contact the club, but we need to *support our reptile clubs. *


----------



## Janine00

Pete Q said:


> Did you read the post you quoted ? reptile clubs don't want this to happen and will ban anyone seen doing this outside, you've answered one reason why yourself, your second thoughts about booking a table.
> If your talking about a swap inside I think you can contact the club, but we need to *support our reptile clubs. *


Oh my.... what can I say but reflect the above.... *Please folks, have some common sense.* If you just have a couple left to sell off, which may be what Allegro was intimating, this may be fine and not be worth shelling out for a table for, however if we are talking about people bringing loads to swap, we are talking something different. Personally, I feel that it should be a limited number of swaps/exchanges etc that is allowed to prevent everyone piling onto this bandwaggon :whip: (Sorry Allegro, not having a go personally at you, can just imagine some people reading this and thinking ok, lets not book tables.... at what point to the organisers then decide it's not worth going ahead)??

We are fighting to keep shows going, prove their legality, keep hobbyists from being just 'keyboard warriors', educate and bring on our youth, provide LOCAL clubs that people can turn up to in person that ARE different from shows/breeders meetings. Let's try to remember the good things about the hobby and try not to throw out the baby with the bathwater whilst these necessary changes are happening. It is NOT all about large shows, however these have their purpose amongst the rest of the hobby. Table sales and entrance costs at these are what keep the shows going and allow for the occassional legal battle to happen BEFORE there is a referendum on who will pay for it (or a collection at the said show once won)!

OK.... minor rant over.... sorry... J :blush:


----------



## Austin Allegro

Pete Q said:


> Did you read the post you quoted ? reptile clubs don't want this to happen and will ban anyone seen doing this outside, you've answered one reason why yourself, your second thoughts about booking a table.
> If your talking about a swap inside I think you can contact the club, but we need to *support our reptile clubs. *


The way i read it was that Chris Newman is organising a facility inside the Doncaster show where people can pickup animals bought on here or other sales forums from people who don't book tables at the show. Therefore, it seemed that for breeders who haven't got a lot of end of season stock it might be better to use this facility rather than book a table.


----------



## mushroomminer

MCEE said:


> Unfortunately, in all walks of life, you also have those who are indifferent to other peoples viewpoint, think they *are holier than thou*, who think their viewpoint is the ONLY viewpoint [regardless], and quite openly engages with individuals who publicly namecall and be abusive other individuals with oposing opinions to themselves.
> 
> Again, thats public forums for you.



Sorry to drag this back up again, but reading this thread and the posts this person has been making is so frustrating! What is so bloody hard to understand? The rules are that nobody is allowed to sell/trade/give away/swap for magic beans any animals in the show car park. Yes it might be easier and convienient for some people but the public and animal rights groups will only percieve it as 'dodgy dealings' whether this is the case or not! Surely you must understand that in order to protect our hobby we need to cover ourselves and present ourselves in a good light to the public so as to not give them any more negative ammuntion towards us!

And why should the show organisers go out of their way to provide an area/table for private sellers/traders to exchange herps when they are not in any way affiliated with the show or contributing towards the costs of running the show? Seems like people are expecting something for nothing really! Although it appears that the show organisers are actually planning on arrangng something like this to take place out of their own good will and to keep everyone happy but some people still have to be arguementative and downright rude!

Its quite offensive to see you being so rude and disrespectful to people like Chris Newman after all he does to help this hobby, I found your comment quite interesting actually, I would definitley say Chris is holier than thou- someone who bends over backwards and is constantly fighting to protect our hobby out of his own pocket and time deserves a heck of a lot more respect and gratitude than a keyboard warrior who does nothing more than sit on their arse and has to argue their point contstantly regardless of wether they are right or wrong!

And yes, I have read the whole thread, and yes I have read all of the posts properly, I have the day off work so plenty of time! :2thumb:

Rant over! Sorry but I have found this quite fustrating and thought I would add my opinion to this since it is a public forum!!


----------



## Pete Q

Austin Allegro said:


> The way i read it was that Chris Newman is organising a facility inside the Doncaster show where people can pickup animals bought on here or other sales forums from people who don't book tables at the show. Therefore, it seemed that for breeders who haven't got a lot of end of season stock it might be better to use this facility rather than book a table.


Are right, got ya.


----------



## Khaos

Austin Allegro said:


> The way i read it was that Chris Newman is organising a facility inside the Doncaster show where people can pickup animals bought on here or other sales forums from people who don't book tables at the show. Therefore, it seemed that for breeders who haven't got a lot of end of season stock it might be better to use this facility rather than book a table.


But where's the limit? Three snakes and a crested gecko you get to do for free, but someone who brought five animals has to pay for a table? 

I'm afraid I do see this one in black and white, either you contribute to the clubs and the venue, who put up all the money and endure the risk and effort and legal challenges, or you go somewhere else entirely and do a discreet little trade for free.


----------



## Janine00

Hmmmm....:hmm: suppose I am sort of in the middle on this one at the moment. Unless I see it wrongly if all affiliated FBH clubs can agree on a joint protocol we could possibly get the best of both worlds here, and possibly help a few people out at the same time.

Maybe we need to limit the number of animals that can be brought in for collection per person to about 2 or 3? then there should not be such an issue about not booking a table if people still have stock to sell off.

Perhaps only members of an FBH affiliated club should be able to use this facility in respect of the 'bring in' part?

People are still going to have to pay to get into the show, so thats a small contribution.

Maybe we need to have a nominal figure of £1 per animal or a donation to the FBH fighting fund for each animal brought in to this facility?

Animals exchanged could stay in part of the creche facility, and that may stop the problem of some of the overheating in cars?

It will certainly need extra people to man this venture and some thought behind how it will need to run. It's quite possible that for a large number of people this could work well and save on some of the dodgy dealing in the car park scenario..... yeah, on the whole, I still see more positives than negatives, but then I tend to be a glass half full person :lol2:


----------



## Chris Newman

Khaos said:


> But where's the limit? Three snakes and a crested gecko you get to do for free, but someone who brought five animals has to pay for a table?
> 
> I'm afraid I do see this one in black and white, either you contribute to the clubs and the venue, who put up all the money and endure the risk and effort and legal challenges, or you go somewhere else entirely and do a discreet little trade for free.


The point your raise is entirely valid, however, the issue of people exchanging animals in the car park of shows is one that we need to address. I can fully understand that two people who are in different part of the country who are both attending a show might take the opportunity to meet and exchange animals, that is perfectly reasonable. The perception if this is observed by the authorities may well be entirely different, and of course there are potential welfare implications if the animals are left in the car! Therefore I think it is reasonable and proportionate that we facilitate this by making it open, transparent and ensuring the welfare of the animals. The problem, as always the devil is in the detail, clearly some people are going to try and take the pee… regrettably that is human nature! Notwithstanding this I think we should try and address the issue in a fair, reasonable and proportionate fashion. Draft guidelines are currently being discussed within the FBH Council and I hope to have an agreed pilot for the Doncaster show, this will be made publically available as soon as possible.


----------

