# imagine a home where there are no pets



## serpentkid100 (Mar 7, 2006)

this is for those of you who dont know the rspcas real reason for existance....the truth is that they want a complete ban on all pets, so think about it your entire collection seized in a 30 minute raid after years of growing and loving. think about what will happen to those pets....rescue homes? i doubt it....more like extermination. we need this sorted before this forum is about our dreams and pasts not our futures and present

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

we must work together before its too late


----------



## carl24bpool (Oct 26, 2006)

Is this not a bit of an overreaction????

You make it sound like we are going to get our doors smashed in and all our animals taken within the next year.

I really can't ever see us being banned from keeping pets. Especially domesticated ones like cats and dogs.

Chill out dude. Your pets are safe for the forseeable future.


----------



## serpentkid100 (Mar 7, 2006)

not really, if u look at it from the point of view i'm trying to help people realise what might happen


----------



## Athravan (Dec 28, 2006)

I personally don't think spamming this on every forum here is actually going to make a difference.. One post is plenty, all spamming is going to do is not raise awareness but make people annoyed with you :smile: I'm sure there are people here who can put you in touch with the correct organisations, where you could join in with the campaigning


----------



## sami (Oct 23, 2006)

They probably have pills that will help you.  

The RSPCA has it's bad points yes but they still cannot simply walk in and steal your animals without reason.

What can be done?

Probably nothing until a reptile specific charity grows large enough so that the RSPCA will not be needed by reptile owners.

IMO the *GREAT* work that the *MAJORITY* of the RSPCA do should continue. God knows how many aminals would have died through continued cruelty and neglect without them.
I'm also sure crossposting so much wasn't the best idea. Maybe "general herp chat" and just one thread would have done


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

So do you have anything solid to back your statement? 

I cant see the government allowing a multi-billion pound industry to be wiped out by the RSPCA at her majesty's pleasure, the queen keeps dogs, lots of them, and horses, god knows what else. It would take decades of confiscation and cost them hundreds of millions to eradicate all the pets in the country, there are so many of them. What about pets like horses? What about the olympic showjumping team? Would we just not participate anymore? I know Nick Skelton's family personally, and they aren't just working horses, they are completely adored expensive, well trained pets. What about international sell out meetings like crufts? Or the Royal Show? Or the Town and Country show? Or use of sheep dogs? Hunting dogs, fox hunting (supported by royalty), Polo, Greyhound racing, horse racing, a lot of these animals end up as pets when their careers are over. There are endless reasons why the government, let alone the 

And what about their policy on rehoming, they have to quit rehoming before they start rounding them up to kill em all off, lol

Sounds a little extreme to me. maybe someone can prove me to be wrong??


----------



## welshgaz (Dec 12, 2005)

OK I don't think we need to have multiple threads on the same topic... I'll move this into General Herp chat and delete the other...


----------



## sami (Oct 23, 2006)

it's not going to happen! This is the RSPCA we're talking about not the SS!

Load of rubbish.

Take a deep breath, calm down.

Maybe there's some kind of charity we can contact to report you for abusing your keyboard so much


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2007)

dont panick :lol2:


----------



## sami (Oct 23, 2006)

SteveL said:


> dont panick :lol2:


Mister mannerin'


----------



## SilverSteno (Feb 12, 2006)

gan1 said:


> So do you have anything solid to back your statement?
> 
> I cant see the government allowing a multi-billion pound industry to be wiped out by the RSPCA at her majesty's pleasure, the queen keeps dogs, lots of them, and horses, god knows what else. It would take decades of confiscation and cost them hundreds of millions to eradicate all the pets in the country, there are so many of them. What about pets like horses? What about the olympic showjumping team? Would we just not participate anymore? I know Nick Skelton's family personally, and they aren't just working horses, they are completely adored expensive, well trained pets. What about international sell out meetings like crufts? Or the Royal Show? Or the Town and Country show? Or use of sheep dogs? Hunting dogs, fox hunting (supported by royalty), Polo, Greyhound racing, horse racing, a lot of these animals end up as pets when their careers are over. There are endless reasons why the government, let alone the
> 
> ...


Agreed, even PETA who are the most active in trying to ban pets have nothing to work on with wanting pets banned. Besides, you could always leave the country, the RSPCA doesn't control the world!


----------



## chriscollier (Mar 24, 2006)

Silvershark said:


> Agreed, even PETA who are the most active in trying to ban pets have nothing to work on with wanting pets banned. Besides, you could always leave the country, *the RSPCA doesn't control the world*


If we ignore this threat that could all change!


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

The thing is, its a royal society, not an international society. PETA dont stand a chance with all the animal lovers we have here in the country and the economic gain thats to be had from the pet trade. Jeez they havent even stopped DWA's, just controlled them. How would they EVER expect to get all the domestic pets out of the coutry, lmao


----------



## SilverSteno (Feb 12, 2006)

chriscollier said:


> If we ignore this threat that could all change!


mg: Are you basically saying that the RSPCA is secretly plotting to take over the world!!!

I think Pinky & The Brain would have more luck :lol2:


----------



## Morelia Matt (Dec 6, 2006)

Silvershark said:


> mg: Are you basically saying that the RSPCA is secretly plotting to take over the world!!!
> 
> I think Pinky & The Brain would have more luck :lol2:


:lol2: well they are totally insane


----------



## Rubber-man (Dec 23, 2006)

I think the child who started this thread is getting a bit carried away.

We all know that the RSPCA don't like us keeping our reptiles. 
But remember, there are thousands of us nationwide and the government wouldn't want to lose all those potential votes if they implimented a ban. It isn't going to happen, at worst there will be stricter regulation. ie. DWA for large constrictors.

Being that there is no national register of reptile keepers, how would they ever know who keeps them anyhow?

Been reading too many fantasy stories kid?


----------



## dtaylor21184 (Dec 18, 2006)

pets are a multi million pound business and thats not even including buying the pet. in the uk people spend millions on treating pets, pet care, pet insurance, toys and thousands of other items. in the uk people love their pets more than people. 

think of all the jobs lost - vets, dog groomers, dog walkers, stable staff, pet shop staff, and for starters the rspca staff won't have a job.

what about other pets like police dogs, blind dogs, grey hounds and horse racing. 

never gonna happen and as someone has already said can you imagine a spotty faced rspca worker going up to the quenn and trying to remove her dogs :lol2: .


----------



## fundo (Feb 7, 2007)

chiiiiiiilll Winston


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

carl24bpool said:


> Is this not a bit of an overreaction????
> 
> You make it sound like we are going to get our doors smashed in and all our animals taken within the next year.
> I really can't ever see us being banned from keeping pets. Especially domesticated ones like cats and dogs.
> Chill out dude. Your pets are safe for the forseeable future.


Paraphrased:

First they forced licensing for the people who keep certain animal species - some venomous, some larger mammals, all 'exotics' considered Dangerous.
And I did not speak out, because I do not keep venomous, they're potentially deadly.
Then they talked about banning primates in private collections.
And I did not speak out, because I don't think monkeys should be kept in captivity.
Then they got the import of wild-caught birds banned.
And I did not speak out because I don't think wild-caught parrots should be sold in pet shops.
Then they strengthened the laws on keeping European reptiles of certain species and required permits to own them, even when legally obtained.
And I did not speak out because I don't own any European protected species... or do I? 
Then they started talking about licensing - or banning - large constrictors. 
And I did not speak out because I don't have a retic. I didn't know they meant "anything over five feet long". 
Then they started talking about owner checks and licensing any exotic 'for health reasons' and 'because people can't keep them properly in captivity'.
And I didn't speak out because they couldn't possibly mean my leopard geckos or my mice or my rats... 

And when they make the laws preventing you from having companion animals of any species.... and the laws saying that your existing companion animals (which they've got a record of because you licensed them) are better off euthanised than in your hands....
Who will speak out for you and your animals?

I firmly believe it's a slippery slope. We're already at the "might require permits for European animals" stage - and possibly for Annex II animals - when these permits and legal paperwork have NEVER been issued and thus you cannot prove your animals are legal.

There are cities in the States working towards banning all snakes over five feet in length. Yes, that means your corn snakes too.

Give them an inch and they'll use it as a foothold.


----------



## Blazey (Apr 30, 2006)

They aren't going to have a pet holocaust mate, i think u need to chill out with this idea.

The rspca do more good than harm, they try to save and rehome animals, not try take the animals away from those who care for them.
As its already been said, the queen is the one who signs legislation to be passed and somehow i cant see her deciding she doesnt want her corgi's and the rest of her pets anymore, so its not going to happen.

If you are so concerned, why dont u write to tony blair and see what he thinks about ur ideas.


----------



## CBR1100XX (Feb 19, 2006)

RSPCA going to ban us from having pets, you have got more chance of Thierry Henry playing for England.

Never heard so much rubbish as some of these threads about the RSPCA and what is going to happen and there is going to be an end to rep keeping and so on. In the bin is where these threads should go:smile:


----------



## Blazey (Apr 30, 2006)

fazer600sy said:


> RSPCA going to ban us from having pets, you have got more chance of Thierry Henry playing for England.
> 
> Never heard so much rubbish as some of these threads about the RSPCA and what is going to happen and there is going to be an end to rep keeping and so on. In the bin is where these threads should go:smile:


he was in the england team wasnt he? im just dumb :Na_Na_Na_Na: sexy thierry henry though :mf_dribble:


----------



## CBR1100XX (Feb 19, 2006)

Blazey said:


> he was in the england team wasnt he? im just dumb :Na_Na_Na_Na: sexy thierry henry though :mf_dribble:


I wish he was, instead we get peter "streak of bacon" crouch:Na_Na_Na_Na: :grin1:


----------



## Blazey (Apr 30, 2006)

dont make me shout at u. peter crouch is the sex!


----------



## CBR1100XX (Feb 19, 2006)

Blazey said:


> dont make me shout at u. peter crouch is the sex!


with you thinking like that there is hope for everyone:smile:


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

Anoyone want to buy some sand ?


----------



## eeji (Feb 22, 2006)

ratboy said:


> Anoyone want to buy some sand ?


eh??????????

i don't think an all out pet ban will ever happen, but we need to keep an eye out on government proposals and RSPCA policies. Like already stated theres been mention of bigger constrictors been put on the DWA list - this could be just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## welshgaz (Dec 12, 2005)

eeji said:


> i don't think an all out pet ban will ever happen, but we need to keep an eye out on government proposals and RSPCA policies. Like already stated theres been mention of bigger constrictors been put on the DWA list - this could be just the tip of the iceberg.


They would have to introduce certain large boids onto the DWA list over a long period of time though... If they went ahead for example and said right all Reticulated Pythons, Burmese Pythons & Boa Constrictors will be banned unless you have a DWA they are going to have alot of owners either just keeping quiet, alot of snake suddenly appearing on streets, in the RSPCA centres etc and they will not have the resources for this.... Don't get me wrong though its not going to stop them trying but logistically I just don't think its possible..

My theory is they will bring out an intermediary dwa license for large constrictors... How much money again they'll have for this I don't know. 

First of all these types of things have to be passed through government. Which they will be looking at injuries to people and the danger of these snakes to others around it. Lets be honest how many stories have we seen about this in the UK? Not many?

I think it will be very very difficult for the RSPCA, PETA etc to push any new legislation through... again its not going to stop them trying though.


----------



## eeji (Feb 22, 2006)

true, this is why we have to keep an eye on them


----------



## welshgaz (Dec 12, 2005)

and keep an eye on them we shall... then smash there faces into the ground Mwhahahahah :bash:

In all honesty though I don't think and of this will come to pass. To many problems with it all for no real gain.


----------



## Dan (Jan 11, 2006)

I can not believe the ignorance of the people who have posted on this thread!!

Have a look around you FFS.

This is not overly dramatic and it will happen.

Forget the sand, pull your head out of your ass and look around you.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

LMFAO!!!!!!

As requested I have looked around, and seen FAR more animals than can possible be confiscated or destroyed without international uproar, a major economical catastrophe, and countless redundancies. Sure you have your opinion, I respect you for it, however i am NOT IGNORANT my head is certainly NOT up my own ass OR in the sand. 

It is just not practical, economical or, *in my opinion* possible to fulfil the task outlined by the person that started this thread.

I have read the original post several times, he isnt talking about reptiles, or the reptile trade, he is talking about pets full stop. THE RSPCA WANT TO BAN PETS.


> the truth is that they want a complete ban on all pets


The FACT is they cant. Neither can PETA, and logically neither can the government


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

welshgaz said:


> I think it will be very very difficult for the RSPCA, PETA etc to push any new legislation through... again its not going to stop them trying though.


They dont need to. It will not be long before the RSPCA polices most if not all of the AWB. They already have all the legislation they need.

Within a couple of months or so, the new transportation legislation will be active ( are they already ? ) making it almost impossible to take animals to shows to be able to sell them unless they are on your doorstep or you have kitted out transportation. This affects ALL animals, not just reptiles and other exotics.

It's all very well keeping an eye on them, but by the time we spot what is going on, it's usually too late because we run around saying it wont happen until it already has.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

There are not exactly an enormous number of animal for purchase found on displays, particularly reptile shows, the activists always seem to succeed in having them cancelled. The market is in retail and private purchase. I've never been and bought a cat, dog, rabbit, fish OR reptile at a show, the only animals I ever bought at this kind of event were horses. I'm sure the majority of general animal owners would be in the same position.


----------



## welshgaz (Dec 12, 2005)

its sites like this that are going to protect the hobby.....


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

Well that's OK for you as an individual if you don't buy animals. But what about the millions of people that buy from shops ? or the classifieds ? or from breeders ? or from shows ?

How are the animals going to get from one person to the other ?

How much is it going to cost the transporters to upgrade their vehicles to be legal ?

Will they bother doing it if the cost is prohibitive ?

banning pet keeping is not a case of people coming round to your house and confiscating your pets. It's a matter of making it too much trouble or hassle of replacing the pets when they die or making them a complete pain in the butt to keep.

Say, for the sake of argument, the RSPCA declared under the AWB that dog numbers were out of control so they ban imports and decree that every male puppy has to be neutered at birth unless you have a licence which they control the issuing of. A little more conceivable than destroying all the current dogs ?

Hey presto... 15 years time. No more dogs other than those the RSPCA allow to be bred.


----------



## gaz (Oct 5, 2005)

seems your forgetting something else here,that is th European union which passes laws that have to be enacted in all member states,on the pet front one thing that will come to pass fairly soon is that we will have the same restrictions that are in force in germany and france,in Germany you have to register and license every one of your snakes,you have to guarantee how large it will grow to and then you have to provide caging that the licensing authority approves of,all with an inspection no doubt too and fees etc,easy to see how the regulations could be written to make exotic keeping all but impossible,in France all exotics not native to france have to be licensed,again very easy once this is in place to force exotic keepers to give up.
the attitudes displayed on this thread are exactly the same ones displayed by gun owners when new restrictions loomed,also by field sports enthusiasts when the hunting bill was looming and now by anglers as fishing is attacked and here by people who keep snakes etc
its always the same,people will insist on saying "it will never happen" right up to the end must be human nature or something,an inability to see whats over the horizon and an inabilty to react in any effective way to whatever threat is approaching,possibly the same mentality that allows people to live on the slopes of active volcanoes??
regards gaz


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

You misunderstand my point. They might make things "Difficult" to buy or transport, but it isnt as simple as that, I personally dont think that it will EVER happen. For example stopping people from buying dogs or breeding: Think of all the collars, leads, mite and worm treatments, annual jabs, veterinary visits, poop scoop bags, toys, grooming sessions, bags of dog food, treats, and kennel visits one single dog will go through during its life. Times that by all the dogs in the country. Then move onto the cats. Then every single other type of animal that is kept as a household pet in the UK. 

I can't see WHY they would choose to intentionally make life SO difficult that people wouldnt bother buying or breeding. The resulting dip in the trade would be phenomenal, taxes would rise, unemployment would rise, the value of the £ would drop dramatically, Wall St would be on its knees.......IF they achieve all of the above and there comes a day when the only animals are either farm animals, wildlife, or zoo animals, then can you image the same things metioned above: international economical failure, folding manufacturers, wholesalers, importers, overseas manufacture of things as simple as dog food tins, or flea powder tubs, or the bells that go on pet collars...... It would be an international amnesty............ vets, trainers, breeders, animal shows such as crufts, the royal show, hunt horses, hunt dogs, rehomed racehorses, greyhounds, basset hounds, ex polo ponies, ex showjumpers, police dogs/horses, retired guide dogs, the Queen's Cavalry (and corgies), the list is ENDLESS. Its not just about pets its also about sport, livelihoods, economical balance, nobody would aid the hindrance of one of our biggest financial gains, at the say so of the RSPCA or PETA, I cannot comprehend that these laws are SO strict that in 15 years time we'll have no pets, vets, animal welfare officers, police dogs, cavalry, animal care courses, lecturers, or animal related sports ! 

Sorry but that just doesnt wash, as I've explained.

I can entirely understand that they will inflict regulations. Germany is still the largest market for reptile sales in EUROPE, despite the infringements laid down, they still trade, import, and get on with their lives. It isnt comparably expensive either. France, again, they have their own laws, they wouldnt bother if it weren't an interest, at the end of the day all torts on the British market go with a license and a history, therefore why would it be any more difficult to simply broaden the spectrum and apply those rules across the board? I dont see people not buying torts simply based on the fact that they have to hold a license. They aren't exactly difficult to acquire are they?


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

gaz said:


> the attitudes displayed on this thread are exactly the same ones displayed by gun owners when new restrictions loomed,also by field sports enthusiasts when the hunting bill was looming and now by anglers as fishing is attacked and here by people who keep snakes etc
> its always the same,people will insist on saying "it will never happen" right up to the end must be human nature or something, an inability to see whats over the horizon and an inabilty to react in any effective way to whatever threat is approaching,possibly the same mentality that allows people to live on the slopes of active volcanoes??
> regards gaz


I see your point Gaz, YES they can implement restrictions, YES they can quite rightly make transportation of livestock legally comfortable, YES they can prevent the loose and often uncouth trade of pets more controlled, they have every right to do that. Will they PREVENT or BAN or MAKE IT TOO DIFFICULT to own a pet?

I dont think so. 

Will they act on the will of the general public and prevent cruelty to animals? I certainly hope so.

People still own guns. They hold a license, there are less accidental deaths and shootings as a result. People still use them in sport. People still go about their routines, its just a SAFER hobby now than it used to be.
People still hunt foxes, rabbits, deer, they still fish, they still go about their field sports, at least there are less foxes suffering as a result of barbaric human activity. Thats the important factor to me.
There is a bigger sport in drag hunting nowadays than ever, the ONLY difference being the lack of a living breathing prey item.


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

gan1 said:


> You misunderstand my point. They might make things "Difficult" to buy or transport, but it isnt as simple as that, I personally dont think that it will EVER happen. For example stopping people from buying dogs or breeding: Think of all the collars, leads, mite and worm treatments, annual jabs, veterinary visits, poop scoop bags, toys, grooming sessions, bags of dog food, treats, and kennel visits one single dog will go through during its life. Times that by all the dogs in the country. Then move onto the cats. Then every single other type of animal that is kept as a household pet in the UK.


At the end of the day, we are talking about the UK and only the UK. A tiny proportion of European trade. I really don't see that the AR campaigners will give a damn about the pet trade or how many jobs are lost as long as they get what they want. 

You might be right and it will never happen, I hope you are. But 10 years ago where we are now now was also unthinkable.


----------



## Dan (Jan 11, 2006)

> Nobodys got their head up their ass, they just have their own opinions, and they're entitled to them !!!!!


 
This isnt about opinions.

This is about the facts and people like "gan1" are living in a dreamworld if they think for one second it will just stop at "making it hard".

I'm sorry folks but you REALLY need to look at what is and has been going on.


----------



## Blazey (Apr 30, 2006)

I don't see the point of this thread anymore. Rspca was established in 1824 and they still haven't met their aims? They aren't working very hard then are they? If they wanted to get their points across I think they should stop rehoming animals for a start as thats giving an opposite impression to what their aims are, if its to stop us keeping pets.

Animals will not be taken away from us. Most households in the country are likely to have a pet of somesort, may it be a goldfish or a horse. Can you imagine how much money it would cost the country to start taking everyones animals away from them? where do you think theyre going to put them all? The RSPCA HAVE to rehome animals because they dont have space to just keep all the animals. It'd cost even more money and alot of outrage to euthanise them all so that isnt going to happen, the only real other option to take them from us would be to ship them somewhere, and where will that be exactly? I can't see many countries wanting to take millions of dogs and cats off our hands somehow and I dont think it'd work very well to dump them in the wild. 

Sure they could make us hold licences for our animals but so what? You have to hold licences and paperwork for many things so what difference will it make to owning one for ur cat and ur snakes? 
If they decide an animal is unfit to be kept by the owner or in captivity then its most likely to be something endangered or dangerous and in that case u either qualify for the license for them or they are taken from your care, but realisticly this will just cover the animals that are already covered by that ruling anyway.


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

gan1 said:


> I can't see WHY they would choose to intentionally make life SO difficult that people wouldnt bother buying or breeding.


Because they believe that an animal is better off dead than being in captivity. It really is as simple as that.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

At the end of the day forget that Britain is a small portion of the EU, think of the BILLIONS of pounds that are exchanges WITHIN this country every year throughout the pet/animal trade.

Nobody is that stupid that they'd take it all way, because its so incredibly important to the function of the country, its one of the biggest selling industries in the country. Money makes the world go around. Animals make this country money. Lots of it. 

If they take the animals away they deprive themselves and their fellow brits of billions. They Government arent stupid, neither is the royal family, or international relations/influences.


----------



## Blazey (Apr 30, 2006)

It would cost too much money to remove all the animals from our care and would lose the country money in the long term. I think Gan1 is correct with his idea on this matter. 
The queen has to pass the legislation and I doubt she is going to get rid of all her animals, which she is well known for keeping, for the sake of what exactly?


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

and those BILLIONS would just be spent on something else.

Blazey... forgetting about people coming in to remove animals for a moment. What if it was just impossible to replace them when they die ? Do you think the royal family would complain too much then ?

You're right though, this thread is going nowhere. We'll just sit back and watch what happens.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

ratboy said:


> Because they believe that an animal is better off dead than being in captivity. It really is as simple as that.


Flipping ridiculous, there might be SOME folk out there that think that way, there is not a hop in hell that it will happen based on the premise of your statement. Extremists objecting to bears being kept in squalour, yes. Animal rights activist trying to stop the live export of animals facing the food chain, of course. 

Lots of people probably think all African Game are better off dead than living a life in fear of lions. They wouldnt go and kill them all off, or neuter them in order to kill off the species and thus prevent the suffering of future generations. The lions would suffer, the environment would suffer. The implications would be massive. Same thing would happen by taking the pets out of britain, there would be a mass crisis, for a thousand different reasons. Would we take that risk because the RSPCA's main goal in life is to stop the creation of animals that will be better off dead than in human company?

Same thing, slightly different context. You clearly havent thought it through.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

Blazey said:


> It would cost too much money to remove all the animals from our care and would lose the country money in the long term. I think Gan1 is correct with his idea on this matter.
> The queen has to pass the legislation and I doubt she is going to get rid of all her animals, which she is well known for keeping, for the sake of what exactly?


Thanks Blazey, but can I just say that I'm a GIRL, lmao :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

ratboy said:


> and those BILLIONS would just be spent on something else.
> 
> You're right though, this thread is going nowhere. We'll just sit back and watch what happens.


Who said its going nowhere?

And where do you suppose all those folk that work in the animal trade go and work? They cant all just "get a new job". There are already more people than jobs. Think of all those unempoloyed people that wont HAVE any money to just go and "spend on something else".

Maybe in your world its all simple as pie, the real world, unfortunately is not as you appear to understand it. It isnt a simple case of "spending it elsewhere". I never heard anything so ludicrous, except maybe that the RSPCA are going to stop the trade in British pets.

The Royal Family are pro-pets. The future King of England is one of the best Polo riders in the world. Will he give up his sport and his passion at the will of the ROYAL SPCA, knowing damn well that his pets get the best care possible, and yet are better off dead than in his care? You jest. They are worm free, fed well, do not have to fight for survival, get veterinary care when they need it, enjoy their sports, and have secure, trusting relationships with the people that care for them. 

Would he believe that its ok to stop breeding horses in captivity, yet allow wild horses of the americas to continue to be eaten by mountain bears, lions and wolves? Please explain HOW they intend to achieve this credibility, and how they will overcome the risks to the future of many species with this theory in mind?


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

reticulatus said:


> This isnt about opinions.
> 
> This is about the *facts* and people like "gan1" are living in a dreamworld if they think for one second it will just stop at "making it hard".
> 
> I'm sorry folks but you REALLY need to look at what is and has been going on.


AGAIN I HAVE looked at whats going on. Am I not entitled to my own opinion? Am I not allowed to draw my *own* conclusions based on the *facts* before my own eyes? This automatically makes you right and me wrong? I have my head up my own ass and you *arent* behaving like an arse yourself?

Dude I live in the REAL world, one with economics, where EVERYthing revolves around MONEY, not one where people with power deprive their country of financial gain in order to satisfy their own beliefs. This isnt Iraq, It's the UK. 

Until the time comes when I'm PROVEN wrong (and lets face it there is evidence to support both sides), then I dont see how you have the right to lay the accusation that I walk around with my eyes closed and live in a flipping dreamworld.

:bash:


----------



## Blazey (Apr 30, 2006)

I said its not going anywhere and it isnt really. Half of you think our pets are going to be restricted and even banned and the other half see its not possible.

I give up with this thread, its a little too tense for me, but i personally don't think its ever going to happen and there are many many reasons why it cant happen.

Its an interesting argument to say they could stop us replacing the animals but people will get around that with no problems. People in the country keep illegal animals already without the proper paperwork and if they can go unnoticed, i think many people can get away with hiding other animals from view.


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

gan1 said:


> Maybe in your world its all simple as pie, the real world, unfortunately is not as you appear to understand it.





gan1 said:


> Until the time comes when I'm PROVEN wrong (and lets face it there is evidence to support both sides), then I dont see how you have the right to lay the accusation that I walk around with my eyes closed and live in a flipping dreamworld.



hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

HHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??

Point being?


----------



## Dan (Jan 11, 2006)

gan1 said:


> Dude I live in the REAL world, one with economics, where EVERYthing revolves around MONEY, not one where people with power deprive their country of financial gain in order to satisfy their own beliefs. This isnt Iraq, It's the UK.


The point is that these people often make financial donations to the government - we do not.

It is all about money, they have plenty and we have none.


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

gan1 said:


> HHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??
> 
> Point being?



You are doing the same thing that you are accusing Reticulatus of


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

I apologise, let me re-phrase that, I wasnt trying to say anyone was WRONG, just why I have my own opinion:

Maybe in your world its all simple as pie, *MY* world, unfortunately is *different to yours*.

In my world, even if it is up my ass, the RSPCA is commissioned by the Royal family, hence its name, the ROYAL society for the protection of cruelty to animals. It is the same ROYALTY that keep, and enjoy their animals. The same family that live on the tax payer's money. 

I DO see that there is room for them to stop the ownership of dangerous animals, wild or captive bred. Pitbulls, iguana's whatever, sure, I totally accept that they might infringe laws that might make life difficult for enthusiasts, as they have in Germany and France. 

I DON'T see there ever being a day in our lifetime that we are unable to have pet goldfish, or a cat, or a pony, or a guinea pig. The forfeits are far too great, in my opinion to justify your statement:



> Because they believe that an animal is better off dead than being in captivity. It really is as simple as that.


In my world, the facts are not as SIMPLE as this:


> those BILLIONS would just be spent on something else.


That is my opinion and I'm entitled to it.



The following is not a disagreement, please read it again:

_



Until the time comes when I'm PROVEN wrong (and lets face it *there is evidence to support both sides*), then *I dont see how you have the right to lay the accusation that I walk around with my eyes closed and live in a flipping dreamworld*.

Click to expand...

__This, effectively means purely and simply, that everyone has their own opinion, they have a RIGHT to their opinion. They clearly have a reason to disagree (I havent read anything within this thread that makes clear WHAT those reasons are, though they must exist) with my own statements, but you can't take my opinion away from me, and I have at least justified my REASONS for my beliefs. If there is evidence at any point to make me believe that my opinion is no longer valid, then I'll happily listen, I did actually read the whole for and against before giving my own OPINION, but am unsure what the FOR's are? Please enlighten me. Until then, I will maintain the belief that it isnt likely. I could be wrong, but I have no reason to believe that's the case at present._

_Ratboy, if you can come up with something better than "Because they believe that an animal is better off dead than being in captivity. It really is as simple as that", I'll gladly listen._

_And for the big worldly person that left me this......_

_



Nieve idiot with childish dreams on what is going on

Click to expand...

, _

_Please reconsider your words, or at least learn to spell them before attempting to understand them, or USE them. _

_Maybe you could explain what you mean about "What is going on". WTF is going on? Am I missing something? Can you give me evidence? Please do, I'm interested in the second side to this story, its just that "Because they believe that an animal is better off dead than being in captivity" isnt enough to make me sway my opinion............ _


----------



## King Of Dreams (Aug 4, 2006)

Blazey said:


> The queen has to pass the legislation and I doubt she is going to get rid of all her animals, which she is well known for keeping, for the sake of what exactly?


you do know that is just a formality. the queen has about as much power over law as you or i. she can express disapproval of a certain law (fox hunting) but in the end she cant do shit about it. and you accuse me of being cluelss as regards to british law.


----------



## tazzyasb (May 4, 2005)

the queen can actually veto any law she wants she just never does as the uk is supposed to be a democracy ran by the elected PM. If the queen went around changing laws at will the UK would not be democratic. I know this as I studied Politics and Government

On the note of this thread. Think about the work required to stop people having pets of any kind. If they were all distriyed where would the bodies go? Whould the people of the UK let this happen? Never mind the loss of the pet food, pet sales and care trade. The whole of the RSPCA would have to be restructered. It would stay in exsisitance for wild animals but lots of people in that orginisation would lose their jobs. Wha about vets etc and all the university's and colleges that offer pet care and vetanary courses? Horse racing,dog racing, guide dogs, hearing dogs, police dogs? The list goes on and on and on!

Yes there are problems with the RSPCA especially there view on reptile keeping. But surely the focus should be on this? 

Remember its 2007 not George Orwells 1984

A complete ban of pets is never going to happen. It would cost millions if not billions and if you think about the logistics of it, it is impossible.


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

That is excellent news.

Pop along here and let them know they are all wasting their time : FOCAS: the animal welfare bill 

But please do so before April 6th when the Animal Welfare Bill comes into force which has already had royal assent.


----------



## 16-BIT (Apr 17, 2006)

i think this would win the overeggaration of the year award if this forum had awards


----------



## eeji (Feb 22, 2006)

16-BIT said:


> i think this would win the overeggaration of the year award if this forum had awards


my keyboard spells like that sometimes!


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

ratboy said:


> That is excellent news.
> 
> Pop along here and let them know they are all wasting their time : FOCAS: the animal welfare bill
> 
> But please do so before April 6th when the Animal Welfare Bill comes into force which has already had royal assent.


Where in the AWB does it say the RSPCA are planning on stopping people from keeping animals? Isnt it all about "Animal Welfare", and not animal eradication?

Maybe I misread it? I dont beleive they are wasting their time, and I didnt understand the post above to mean that this was the queen approving of slowly changing regulations to prevent people from actually keeping animals as opposed to protecting the animals in captivity from harm?

Maybe you could cut and paste the bit you refer to, where she agrees to this in particular?


----------



## Dan (Jan 11, 2006)

I think the biggest problem here is the lack of ability to see things from a long term perspective.

In order to stop pet keeping completely all they need to do is create bans on imports, followed by bans on exotics being bred (with a few in between).

This would remove ALL pets from the country within 30 years and they would have no short term influx of anything.

As already mentioned, they have been around for years. These people aren't in it for the quick win. It is a well thought out attack, designed to eradicate pets over a long term period ensuring maximum profit and minimum outlay.

I have said twice before that people need to open their eyes and yet nobody has seen this on here yet, despite claims they can see what's going on. Remarkable.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

You make it sound very simple, that they can change a few laws and just go about their business, I cant see them rationalising doing this when there is so much more to lose than our pets.


I think the "Remarkable" issue is how they would do this without putting us back into a recession, seeing as its such a big part of our livelihood as a nation.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

reticulatus said:


> I think the biggest problem here is the lack of ability to see things from a long term perspective.
> 
> *If you explained specifically WHY the Government/RSPCA is doing this, which I've asked several times, you would have no need for this statement*
> 
> ...


*My Eyes are open, I'm just waiting for the picture to be put in front of me, people seem unwilling to do explain WHY this is supposedly going to happen, its not easy when you dont know WHAT you're opening your eyes to*

What I cant understand, or find within the thread itself is WHY they would do it in the first place? What do the RSPCA feel is so terrible about nice owners keeping happy well looked after animals? 

You speak of the bigger picture, I see the part about them stopping us from keeping pets. WHY exactly are they doing this, other than the fact that they believe they are better off dead, and HOW do they aim to compensate for the billions that will be lost without the pets?

I assume you refer to me "claiming" to see what is going on, I have ASKED repeatedly WHY this would be happening and HOW the country would compensate for the losses. I dont need to know how they will implement the laws, just WHY would they forfeit such a massive income, and what are the benefits/reasons?


----------



## Snakes r grreat (Aug 21, 2006)

An interesting issue here, i have pointed out in the past that Animal Aid: Latest News & Campaigns are a group of animal activists who target large pet chains and force them to stop selling live animals, at the end of last year after over a year of campaigning, they got wyevale garden centres, the second largest pet seller in the uk to stop selling pets! Animal aid are funded by members of the board of directors of the RSPCA. Up until recently on animal aids website, they publicly admitted that they were against the keeping of *ANY* animal at all, from farm animals to dogs, cats etc. They have now changed this on their website to being against cruelty to animals, now i personally do not believe their view has changed at all, they are simply aware that they may gain more support from this view as every good pet owner is against cruelty to animals, meanwhile their members and subscritptions grows, allowing them to further fund campaigns against other pet chains like pets at home, who they have also admitted they want to target publically!

Now while i dont think myself that pet keeping will be outlawed in this country, this surely should make us open our eyes a bit more, and be aware of what these people are really up to! 

I wonder if the queen is aware of her link to an animal activist group?


----------



## 16-BIT (Apr 17, 2006)

eeji said:


> my keyboard spells like that sometimes!


its called cant be arsed sydrome suffered it most of my life


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

gan1 said:


> Where in the AWB does it say the RSPCA are planning on stopping people from keeping animals? Isnt it all about "Animal Welfare", and not animal eradication?


Have you actually read the site and understood what is possible through the AWB ?



> Maybe I misread it? I dont beleive they are wasting their time, and I didnt understand the post above to mean that this was the queen approving of slowly changing regulations to prevent people from actually keeping animals as opposed to protecting the animals in captivity from harm?


FOCAS is an amalgamation of companion animal bodies joining together in an effort to stop the eradication of their hobbies. If, as you claim, this cannot possibly happen then they must be wasting their time trying to prevent it.



> Maybe you could cut and paste the bit you refer to, where she agrees to this in particular?


Royal assent means it's been through the house of commons and through the house of lords and is about to become law. It is on the front page of the link I posted earlier.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

ratboy said:


> Have you actually read the site and understood what is possible through the AWB ?
> 
> I* have read it and understand it to be in favour of animal welfare. I do NOT AS PREVIOUSLY STATED KNOW WHERE IT SAYS THAT WE WONT HAVE ANY PETS IN 30 YEARS TIME. Maybe you don't either? You could always just answer the question instead of being a smart arse and tell me where I can find this specific information, Its not like I havent already asked.*
> 
> ...


*I understand the meaning of the word "Assent", I already read the front page (and the bill itself). I understand that new laws are being introduced for the protection of animal welfare, and that the queen supports these new regulations. How and WHERE does this explain that there are to be no more pets? OR WHY???????????????????????????*


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

gan1 said:


> *I understand the meaning of the word "Assent", I already read the front page (and the bill itself). I understand that new laws are being introduced for the protection of animal welfare, and that the queen supports these new regulations. How and WHERE does this explain that there are to be no more pets? OR WHY???????????????????????????*


How and where:

The AWB introduces legislation that means that:

1. You cannot move any animal for ANY commercial purpose more than 40 miles without a license and a "correctly" fitted transport vehicle. The RSPCA gets to decide what the appropriate fitments are for transport and whether you get the license. If they think you have to have heated vivs in your transport vehicle, and of appropriate temperatures for each species you're moving... how do you propose to get your hatchlings to a shop that will buy them if you can't sell them locally? Or to a reptile show? Or even to deliver them to a buyer... or have the buyer collect them? All of those things are moving animals for commercial purposes.

This also means that big European shows like Hamm have their own problems... because you've got to have the license to bring back your animals. 

2. Sellers have a duty of care to make sure that a buyer has the appropriate facilities to care for the animal. Sounds great on the surface, but who decides what the appropriate facilities are... and what if someone lies when they buy the animal and is reported to the RSPCA for genuine bad care - they can blame the seller! Does a seller of animals want to be blamed for this - or possibly face lawsuits? Hobby breeders often can't afford to be!

I don't WANT to believe that the RSPCA is now run largely by animal rights organisations - who want to end all human 'exploitation' of animals, regardless of the cost. However... the RSPCA IS run by animal rights activists. 

Why don't they want people to keep pets? God knows - if I understood why they wanted no more pets, no more human association with any kind of animals, then I would probably BE an Animal Rights nutjob instead of just an animal welfarist. I don't understand the reasons because I don't follow their philosophy, and so the idea that a pet is better off dead than in captivity is abhorrent to me.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

At last someone with some sense can provide partial answer. This explains the rules regarding buying animals, and transporting them, which I did already understand, but thanks for the clarification.

I still have no answer to how this will result in complete eradication of pets in the UK, ok so we arent _all_ going to apply to purchase licenses for their transportation, but that is on the shoulders of the suppliers, and it would appear that people with a license to carry, for example private breeders trading outside the 40 mile radius can then still deliver. It will also prevent whimsical trades from bulk buying at places like Hamm, unless you are an owner carrying a transport license. Then again, what's to stop me from buying a crate of spiders, travelling 40 miles down the road, writing a receipt to my buddy sat next to me, so he can carry them another 40 miles and then selling them back to me? Lol

_Sellers have a duty of care to make sure that a buyer has the appropriate facilities to care for the animal. Sounds great on the surface, but who decides what the appropriate facilities are... and what if someone lies when they buy the animal and is reported to the RSPCA for genuine bad care - they can blame the seller! Does a seller of animals want to be blamed for this - or possibly face lawsuits? Hobby breeders often can't afford to be!
_
Is there anything impending that prevents the seller providing a form that the buyer fills out with a list of information check points that has been provided, and a disclaimer that any neglect as a result of ignoring the advice given is the buyer's responsibility not the seller's? If the buyer takes a copy, and the seller takes a copy, then this can only go in favour of the animal, right? That sounds like a positive move, and will work towards positive changes in the reptile industry.

I understand your questions over why it is the RSPCA's will to stop us from keeping animals, I just dont see that this is genuinely the case with all animals, or that their goal is as stated previously. 

Thanks for answering what other's couldnt, maybe now someone will explain the reasons for the RSPCA's supposed long term goals. Any volunteers?


----------



## Snakes r grreat (Aug 21, 2006)

gan1 said:


> _Sellers have a duty of care to make sure that a buyer has the appropriate facilities to care for the animal. Sounds great on the surface, but who decides what the appropriate facilities are... and what if someone lies when they buy the animal and is reported to the RSPCA for genuine bad care - they can blame the seller! Does a seller of animals want to be blamed for this - or possibly face lawsuits? Hobby breeders often can't afford to be!_
> 
> Is there anything impending that prevents the seller providing a form that the buyer fills out with a list of information check points that has been provided, and a disclaimer that any neglect as a result of ignoring the advice given is the buyer's responsibility not the seller's? If the buyer takes a copy, and the seller takes a copy, then this can only go in favour of the animal, right? That sounds like a positive move, and will work towards positive changes in the reptile industry.


Thats all well and good, but for someone who wants to open a pet shop, i can tell you now that you might find that very difficult to work on a busy saturday or sunday afternoon, when u may have over 300 customers coming through the door, most of them at the same time is typical, and none of them will want to wait very long, or fill out forms everytime. Its a nice idea but the practical side of it maybe somewhat different.

Where will you store all this information too?


----------



## Blazey (Apr 30, 2006)

My local pet store makes u sign forms when u buy an animal anyway as its already a requirement. If a petstore isnt getting u to sign paperwork with ur details and agreeing to care for an animal then they are already breaking the law.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

Just a theory for now, I havent really had time to think it over, its as unplausible as it is plausible, just depends on exactly what those regulations are I guess


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2007)

from lwhat i read of this thread....even if they did try to ban pets...people wont just hand over their dogs,cats and whatever else...nearly every household has one sort of pet or another....it just wont happen...people just wont do that...and as theres like less than 1% of us that are in the police they wouldnt stand a chance.

so im not worried and if anyone tried removing my pets....the only thing i would suggest to them is to gochoose their coffin lol


----------



## Snakes r grreat (Aug 21, 2006)

Blazey said:


> My local pet store makes u sign forms when u buy an animal anyway as its already a requirement. If a petstore isnt getting u to sign paperwork with ur details and agreeing to care for an animal then they are already breaking the law.


 
Go and look that up again Blazey!


----------



## King Of Dreams (Aug 4, 2006)

tazzyasb said:


> the queen can actually veto any law she wants she just never does as the uk is supposed to be a democracy ran by the elected PM. If the queen went around changing laws at will the UK would not be democratic. I know this as I studied Politics and Government


true, she can, but she won't because:

A) It's just a formality nowadays.

B) It will completely undermine all the major changes in our government for the past 500 years. ya know, the little civil war we had?

C) It will make the royal family very unpopular.

D) She didn't veto the fox hunting ban (a sport many royals enjoy(ed) beforehand) so why should she veto the ban on having her silly little corgis taken away?

I know this because i've studied law making at college.

EDIT: and all this time i haven't given my opinion of the actual subject matter.

well the "ban on pets" won't happen for many reasons:

1) The costs involved. not only will the uk be cutting itself out of a multi-million pound industry but also it will have to pay for them to be all physicaly taken from pet owners (which make up the vast, vast majority of the populace)

2) the fact that no sane PM will allow such a stupid act to happen. think about it. how much influence will this law actually have? none. come on:

MP: hmm what this? AHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAAA BAN ALL PETS??!?!? what a stupid ****ing idea.

this is a very ludicrous law that will have a great deal of detrimental influence on the economy.

3) it's popularity. how many people do you think will actually support this law?


----------



## dtaylor21184 (Dec 18, 2006)

just copied this from the website someone posted before 



*Over half of UK households own some form of pet (companion) animal and many will have multiple pets. Dogs have traditionally been the most popular pets but with many households now unoccupied during the day this figure is on the decline. Cats have now overtaken dogs as the most popular pet, with fish the most numerical. The most rapidly growing sector is the reptile and amphibian market, with an estimated one million households owning some five million animals.**Small mammals, fish, birds and even invertebrate animals, such as spiders and scorpions, are also popular pet or companion animals. *​
*Clearly pet-owners represent a very sizeable sector of those eligible to vote and could, potentially, have great political influence.*​
*The pet industry is worth £3.54 billion annually, and growing.*​​Million cat owning households keeping 9.2 million cats
Million dog owning households keeping 6.5 million dogs
Million fish owning households keeping 70 million fish
Million small mammal owning households 6 million mammals
Million bird owning households 2.3 million birds
Million reptile owning households keeping 5 million reptiles


----------



## fantiquitous (Feb 7, 2007)

i don't understand why they would ban pets. as what will happen to all the various species that live only in domestication or in protected environments? are they just going to let them die out? they aren't doing the animal kindom many favours that way. if we banned all pets and kept animals there would not be much wildlife left. and what about all the pets that will be let loose by owners who fear prosocution. could turn the natural world on its head, killing off many native species compeltely (as we'd not even be able to save them in captivity). seems a bit strange to me. besides. there is too much money to be made from animals. let's not fool ourselves into thinking people care about anything other than that. (i don't see the rspca as an immediate danger). however the govenrment may well impose lots of liscences to make more money. that, is very likely indeed. we'll probably end up needing liscences to own pillows and cutlery. making it out to be our own good. it's nothing to do with the welfare of anything.


----------



## tazzyasb (May 4, 2005)

King Of Dreams said:


> true, she can, but she won't because:
> 
> A) It's just a formality nowadays.
> 
> ...


 
that was the point I was making!!!!


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

Anyone know exactly what the RSPCA aim to achieve by this?

We still haven't been told WHY, lol

Fair enough new laws, but the solid proof that this is a plausible, active intention?

Still no response, I'm DYING to know !!


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

gan1 said:


> Thanks for answering what other's couldnt, maybe now someone will explain the reasons for the RSPCA's supposed long term goals. Any volunteers?


Couldn't or wouldn't ?

Reading back through the thread, I mentioned the points that ssthisto raised about two pages ago which you seem to have conveniantly overlooked.

The thing is not even law yet and already they have nearly strangled the transport of animals throughout the UK. An obvious example being snakes... The animals have to be kept in a suitable environment if being transported more than forty miles. ANY decent care sheet will tell you that a snake needs a heat gradient as a suitable environment. Any ideas how this will be achieved in a van ? No ? Nor will an RSPCA inspector when he turns up with his checklist to see if your vehicle is complying with transportation regulations.

Instead of asking people to spoon feed you all the bloody answers, some time spent reading the stuff and understanding just what can be achieved through this bill may well be a good idea. If you actually read and digested all that is on the FOCAS site between your two posts at 6:39 and 6:49 last night... then good on ya.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

It's not as much the RSPCA as it is the Animal Rights people who RUN the RSPCA at this point in time.

The Animal Rights plan is for human exploitation and enslavement of animals to end. And yes, my pet cats who do what they please and just come home for their extra breakfast, apparently they're exploited slaves.

All it takes is one nutjob who believes that "if we get rid of exotic pet keeping, then we've got a foothold in getting rid of the rest of the animal exploitation" ... and the RSPCA's ruling council isn't just one, it's several people with this mentality.

And no, they're not talking about going in with a load of inspectors and taking your granny's budgie away - what they're talking about is more insidious.

1. Stop the imports of wild-caught animals. Most people will support this because "taking animals from the wild is bad." They don't see the 'need for new bloodlines' issues.

2. Make it difficult for breeders of certain species - particularly Annex I and II animals on CITES (which includes rainbow boas, monitors, and dozens of other species in the trade) to sell their animals. This is particularly with regards to annex II animals - they're looking at legislation that will make all animals currently in captivity "illegal" unless the owner can provide paperwork proving that their Annex II animal was legally obtained. The problem, however, is that Annex II paperwork is ONLY issued for animals that have been brought into the EU - and is not valid for the offspring of these animals. DEFRA does not issue Annex II paperwork for animals that were bought in the EU or bred in the EU. The law is pointed at making it essentially illegal to own or sell offspring of these species - because they want paperwork as proof that is never issued for these animals under these circumstances.

3. Step up the spay/neuter program - very good idea, right up until they make a law that unless you buy a breeder's license you have to have your animal altered. I could see this law going through pretty easily too - Joe Public sees all those photos of poor little kittens and puppies left abandoned to starve and thinks "yeah, if the people had to pay money in order to keep their animals entire maybe they wouldn't breed and abandon litters". But what if they don't SAY how much the license fee is going to be? What if you need a separate breeder's license for each animal? All the animal rights folk have to do is get a law through stating you require a license to breed... then the fine tuning can be done afterwards. This alone could get dogs and cats removed over the long term - if it's very much more difficult to breed, very much more difficult to keep an entire animal, if breeders lose ANY profit they might make breeding the animals because they're having to shell out a license fee - then why would they keep breeding?

4. Introduce licensing for any animal that "can't be kept correctly by the average person." To some extent this has been done with the DWA. I could see more species being introduced to the list (a relatively simple law to get passed - think about it: "Constricting snakes have killed people in the US. Constricting snakes must be dangerous. An average human is six feet tall, so any snake that's bigger than a human could be dangerous to a human. We'll make people get licenses for snakes six feet long or longer." Oops, they've just forced licencing for almost everything, including large corn snakes!) And, of course, with the right spin, the AR/RSPCA could get this passed too - because nobody wants their baby to be eaten by an escaped burmese, do they? Yeah, make people get licenses for 'big snakes', they MUST be dangerous and nobody but a tattooed macho punk with no sense of societal responsibility would ever want to keep one!

And those issues are just the 'easy' ones off the top of my head. Ways that AR folk COULD easily get laws passed that would drastically reduce the number of animals kept in the UK.


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

ratboy said:


> Couldn't or wouldn't ?
> 
> Reading back through the thread, I mentioned the points that ssthisto raised about two pages ago which you seem to have conveniantly overlooked.
> 
> ...


lol, I'm not as naive as you assume,

I was reading the website a while before you did the honour of posting a link, how silly you assume I'm asking to be "Spoonfed", or that I read the whole thing in 10 minutes? Do you think I had such a strong opinion based purely on that front page, LMAO. I'm simply asking for clarification on something I havent been able to understand based on the information I've found. You really should have a think before making assumptions, and believe me I have asked questions that I couldnt FIND or UNDERSTAND the answers to, otherwise what's the point of debating it ?? If you are so intent on my opinion being wrong, and it would appear that is the case based on all the posts you've made so far, please enlighten me, as I've asked so many times already. I havent got all day to sit around looking for something I dont believe exists, so in order to understand your perspective, I've asked a few questions, if you don't ask you'll never know.

An there was no "Convenience" involved in overlooking your post, please re-read and digest the fact that I offerd these thanks to someone "With a bit of sense". I understood loud and clear the part that was written sensibly, in basic terms, and without the complications of "You dont listen, you have your head up your arse, you are naive, you cant see the big picture, you dont know what you're talking about" blah blah.

Ratboy either answer the original question WHERE is the EVIDENCE there will be no pets whatsoever in 30 years time or give it a rest and stop trying to avoid the question, which inevitably is ALL I'M ASKING

We have established How it will happen. We have established the fact that the queen is behind the new laws.

My question is, where is the solid evidence that this is the long term objective? Other than the fact that there are activists with pipe dreams employed by the RSPCA, it doesnt mean that they will get their own way every time, particularly on something so extreme.

And where is the evidence the queen is aware of this long term objective and approves?


----------



## ratboy (Jan 10, 2007)

The answer to your question as to why is the RSPCA trying to stop reptile keeping Gan1 is all over the FBH website and has been for at least the last 7 years. 

The potential ramifications of the AWB is all over the FOCAS website and I'm not going to bother to regurgitate them all here.

You have asked where the information is, and you have been told many times.

Getting people ( meaning anybody reading this thread, not just you ) to go and read the stuff for themselves rather than putting it on a thread like this that will be dead, buried and forgotten about in a weeks time has to be a good thing whether you agree with it or not.

and with that I will indeed butt out and go back to my simple little world where the AR organisations are trying to stop the pet trade and none of them give a toss about jobs, the royal family or the UK economy.


----------



## Stubby (Jan 30, 2007)

I am sure the RSPCA will never get away with banning the keeping of cute furry critters, I am a lot less convinced that they will be unable to ban the keeping of reptiles. There is much less public understanding and a huge amount of misinformation and bad publicity surrounding the keeping of 'exotic' animals already. Many of the public already believe snakes etc to be dangerous pets or impossible to keep safely/humanly in captivity.

Already there are laws in place that if/when enforced will make the buying and transporting of reptiles difficult or (potentially) impossible.

And while I am not 100% against the idea of people having to prove in some way that they are capable of looking after their *exotic* pet correctly, I am uncomfortable with the notion that the RSPCA (who do appear to be very anti-exotic) are the ones who will be judge and jury over this. All it will take is some innocent looking wording in some legislation and the right interpretation and it could well become impossible to prove that you are capable of taking care of anything with as 'diificult' and 'complex' needs as say, a royal python...

Already the potential for all CITES Annex 2 animals to be illegal to own is there as it will be impossible to prove satisfactorily that they are are not wild caught. People with Carpet Pythons may want to consider that for starters...


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

See just goes to show, yet again, I've explained I dont understand specifically how this information interprets tht there will be no animals here in 30 years time. You say it's there, I have read it, I cant see where these documents specifically commit to this "Fact". 

Why be so spiteful? 

Why not just help me to educate myself in such a major issue? I have read it, I have asked questions, I have reiterated time and time again that I dont see specifically how this will mean no more pets, reptiles, exotics, absolutely possible, cats and dogs? Where? All I'm asking is would someone that does see this to help me understand.

Can you imagine a teacher telling a student she doesnt care if he doesnt understand the subject matter, its his own fault for not being able to understand, she isnt there to teach, she's just there to tell him where he can learn for himself?

LMFAO I rest my case.


----------



## Stubby (Jan 30, 2007)

A few minutes of googling goes a long way 


The Federation of British Herpetologists

The Federation of British Herpetologists

A report to the RSPCA on the nature and status of the reptile andamphibian pet trade between 1980 and 1992.


[URL="http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f22/Essex01/Reptile%20File/AAAAAA.jpg?"]http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f22/Essex01/Reptile%20File/AAAAAA.jpg?[/URL] - Thanks to Natrix for posting this link in another thread 

House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Written Evidence

Animal Rights & the Future of the Pet Industry 2006 Again, thanks to the person (whose name I can't remember, sorry) who posted this link on another thread.

C.Shaw Statement


----------



## Kellybee (Oct 13, 2006)

Stubby, thanks for such a prompt and uncomplicated reply!! I havent got time to read all that now but when I get a few hours later on, I'll gladly take time to sit and read the links above.

Thanks


----------



## Issa (Oct 13, 2006)

its also about reading between the lines sometimes when it comes to leglislation like this. A total blanket ban on reptiles would be easily achievable without actually banning the species themselves. Just consider this scenario for a second: A ban on transport of exotics (or simply setting impossible "standards" for transport) would mean shops have not way of obtaining livestock, or any stock that was obtained would be repriced to cover the extra charges for shipping (pricing the beginner out of the market from the word go). Private breeders have no simple way to courier any animals to purchasers or shops (again any that do will have to reprice to cover the extra costs). Individual keepers wouldn't be able to pick up themselves because again their transport isn't up to standard. Couple that with the few reclassifications proposed (making any snake capable of reaching 6ft or more DWA applicable) and effectively supply of ANY snake will become impossible, once that is achieved the AR nuts have won. Take the long view on this and in 20-50 years the current population of snakes will be dead of old age and the british public simply wont have a supply of new animals because of the laws regarding their transportation.


----------

