# Shows – some history



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Summary of events regards to reptile shows *

Reptile shows/fairs have been in existence for some twenty years, commencing in the very early nineteen eighties, such events flourished and ran unhindered until the late nineteen nineties. I am uncertain as to who held the first show/fair, but as far as I can ascertain the first licensed show was held by Thames & Chiltern Herpetological Group in 1985.

The first reported incident of an anti attack against a reptile show was in 1996. A group called "Campaign for Reptiles" picketed the Avon International Herpetological Society show quoting Clifford Warwick and claiming the show was illegal.

Around 1998/9 the Captive Animal Protection Society (CAPS) launched a campaign against reptile, and to a lesser extent bird, shows/fairs. The campaign launched by CAPS was quickly taken up by Animal Aid (AA) a larger, more belligerent animal rights’ extremist organisation. It is worthy of note that both AA & CAPS are not charities but are commercial enterprises which derive revenue by running campaigns pertaining to animal related matters. It should also be noted that Clifford Warwick does not hold a doctorate from Copenhagen University, as is often claimed. Also the claim in 2003 that he was a researcher at Leeds Medical School, as per a letter to Norwich area Health Authority, has been emphatically denied by the dean of the aforementioned institution.

The International Herpetological Society (IHS) have within the reptile show/fair circuit been the prime target of AA, and although they have targeted most other reptile events the ferocity and energy expended at disrupting IHS events is unparalleled. The first major show to be canceled by the activities of the antis was the spring IHS fare held by the Kent branch of the IHS in April 2000, this subsequently followed by disruption of the autumn show in September. 

The IHS 2001 September show was cancelled and the society forced out of the Alumwell Centre, Walsall. This show was seen as the flagship of reptile events and had been in residence at the Alumwell for over twelve years. Subsequently other shows have been affected or canceled, in particular entrepreneurial events, such as those held at Dagenham and Stockport have been eliminated. The only society event which has remained unaffected, despite heavy pressure, is the Eastern Herpetological Society Show in Norwich which has run licensed for over ten years and continues to do so.

The original tenet of the attack by the antis was on the grounds of human health, i.e. the spread of salmonella, but the strength of this argument soon waned in favor of the legality of such events in terms of sales and the Pet Animals Act (1951). The main legal argument raised by the antis centres on section 2 of the Act, which prohibits the sale of pets in a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market, the argument being that a show or fair constitutes a market. (_see attached Legal Opinion drafted for Animal Aid_) 

Animal Aid lobbied the Chartered Institute of Environment Health (CIEH) to issue a directive to its members, Environmental Health Officers (EHO), that such events were unlawful. As a result, Andrew Griffiths, assistant secretary of the CIEH, issued such a directive in late 2001 to all Local Authorities (LA). I would suggest that it is very clear Andrew Griffith’s sympathy lies with Animal Aid and their kin, in his 2001 directive he unashamedly used Animal Aid’s documentation verbatim. (c_opies of all Animal Aid documentation available upon request_) 

The Federation of British Herpetologists (FBH) commissioned its own Legal Opinion and wrote to Andrew Griffiths pointing out various errors of his original directive. Subsequently in February 2002 Griffiths reissued his directive altering and clarifying some of the deficiencies, especially regarding private members’ meetings. It is interesting to note that Griffiths has met with AA on several occasions, usually at AA headquarters, but to my knowledge he has never meet with any representatives from the animal keeping societies.

The 2002 directive from the CIEH whilst clarifying, to some extent, the legalities of the situation failed to clarify the legal situation pertaining to shows which were held under a Pet Shop License (PSL). Both directives issues by the CIEH have been used very successfully by AA in disrupting or closing events, but opinion from LA’s has continued to varied. Some LA’s have conceded to AA’s view and refused pet shop licenses, other have not. Others have changed their opinion and refused licenses but allowed private members meetings and others, such as Bradford, have decided that private members meetings are also illegal.

Subsequent to the start of the issue of shows/fairs the government, in the form of DEFRA, have announced proposed new legislation in the form of the Animal Welfare Bill (AWB) This new legislation will effectively merge and up-date all existing animal welfare legislation, including the Pet Animals Act which governs the issuing of licenses for pet shops etc. DEFRA have held several consultation meetings with both the hobbyist and industry during 2002.

In 2001 the organizer of the Creepy Crawley event held at Newton Abbot Racecourse took the LA to magistrate’s Court for refusing to issue a PSL, the event having run under licence in previous years. The action was unsuccessful and they largely concluded that the matter was too complex for such a court to hear. Had the magistrates’ court found in favor of the event and overturned the decision not to issue a license this would not have been binding for other events as one magistrates’ court ruling is not binding upon any other court, i.e. it does not set a legal precedent.

By 2002 it was very clear that what was required was to seek a Judicial Review (JR) on this matter, although the costs were prohibitive. Knights had quoted 5-8K to seek leave for a JR and should this be challenged by the LA this could easily cost in the order of 20-30K. Costs of this magnitude were beyond the means of the FBH and others.

In early 2003 DEFRA held a meeting at Page Street on the matter of shows in respect of the proposed AWB. This meeting was attended by approximately 26 representatives from the opposing lobby, AA, CAPS etc., with Clifford Warwick, Elaine Toland and Andrew Tyler being the main protagonists for the anti lobby. By contrast, I was the sole representative of the pro lobby. DEFRA officials repeatedly stated to Animal Aid at that meeting that in their view (DEFRA) the law pertaining to shows was ambiguous, and it was not their view that such events held at this time were necessarily unlawful. 

I specifically asked Elaine Toland that if an event was to be held later that year (2003) under a PSL (specifically the National Bird Show held at the NEC) would they (AA) seek a JR against the Council for issuing such a licence. Ms Toland refused to answer the question. My response was to suggest that they would not seek a JR as they were fully aware that such action would be unsuccessful and again Ms Toland refused to respond.

A licence was subsequently sought in respect of the National Bird Show held in December at the NEC. AA ran a protracted and vociferous campaign against the event which culminated in a public hearing by the licensing authority. The outcome of this meeting was that the authority decided that they could issue the license and duly did. AA were challenged to proceed with a JR if they believed their legal argument was correct but they failed to do so.

This failure by AA to move for a JR in view of the Council’s decision to issue a license was seen by many as categorical acceptance by AA that their legal argument was weak, as clearly had they thought the action likely to succeed they would have proceeded. Had AA sought a JR and succeeded at this time then under the AWB it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for DEFRA to have licensed such events under the new Bill, effectively closing all such events permanently.

In 2003 the IHS launched legal action against Bradford City Council for refusal to issue a PSL in respect of there breeders meeting, this was regrettable as in all such previous such actions had had failed. This substantial advantage given to us by AA falling to seek a JR was subsequently lost after the IHS failure. This was further exacerbated by the IHS stated it was considering seeking a JR against Bradford City Council then failed to do so, this was unfortunate in all respects.

DEFRA have given strong indications that under the AWB such events will be specifically licensable and a working party is currently being formed which will be tasked with the duty of setting standards for such events. There are still some difficulties to overcome and AA have not conceded defeat and are still in a position to make mischief, at a DEFRA meeting on the 18th Feb this year the RSPCA have privately conceded that DEFRA will be likely to licensing such events under the AWB.

In light of this the RSPCA asked for a meeting with the FBH, which took place last Friday (March 26th) in order to discuss the issue. Both the RSPCA and FBH have been invited to sit on the working group for shows/fairs and it is important for the best possible chance of successes that both organisations work together on this issue. 

The purpose of setting up this FBH working group is to seek opinion from a variety of experienced keepers and traders to advise on the required Code of Practice for animal welfare at such events. I very much hope that this will pave the way for the re-launch of proper, licensed and well-organised reptile shows which will give the hobby a much-needed boost. 

Chris Newman
_31st March 2004_


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Minuets Pet Fairs Working Group with other animal organisations*

*Defra, Nobel House, Smith Square, London*
*2pm - 1 July 2004*


*Attendees:* 
Chris Newman – FBH (Chair)
Phil Alder – Defra
Graham Thurlow – Defra
Sarah Kennell – RSPCA
Bob Esson – British Federation of Aquatic Societies
Vic Reynolds – Professional Koi Dealers Association
Paula Reynolds – Professional Koi Dealers Association
Gary Pritchard – British Koi Keepers Society
Lyn Pritchard – British Koi Keepers Society
Niloufar Getman – British Dendrobatid Group
Paul Owen – National Association of Private Animal Keepers
Anne Storey – National Fancy Rat Society
Alan Gibbs – British Rabbit Council
Eddie Crutchley – National Chinchilla Society
Julie-Anne Stansfield – National Hamster Council
Eric Shadforth – National Ferret Welfare Society
Ernest Waterhouse – National Mouse Club
Julian Barker – National Gerbil Society

*Apologies:*
Andrew Griffiths – CIEH
Debbie Ashenhurst – RSPCA
Phil Easteal – Thurrock Council

An agenda was given out by CN. The key aims of the meeting are for GT to give a presentation to the invited animal organisations to update them on the Animal Welfare Bill; then CN will present the conclusions of the Pet Fair Working Group (PFWG). The animal organisations have been invited to ask questions on the issues that affect the keeping of animals in the proposed Bill and to consider the conclusions of the PFWG in light of the ‘pet fair’ events each of their respective organisations currently hold in the UK.

*Progress and publication of draft Bill*

PA first confirmed that the Bill is being drafted and will be published very soon [14th July was the publication date given when asked]. Following publication of the draft Bill, there will be a consultation period which will probably be carried out by the EFRA Committee (House of Commons). The EFRA Committee will carry out a pre-legislative scrutiny to iron out potential difficulties that may be encountered when the primary legislation goes through Parliament. The Bill will then be introduced to Parliament in November.

PA was asked for clarification on how the Bill will be published and how the organisations present at the meeting would obtain copies of the draft Bill on 14 July. There will be an official launch by the Minister and on the Defra website with media coverage on the day. The Defra website will direct people to the EFRA website to view the draft Bill and any further information on the Bill. Defra will also be sending a copy of the draft Bill to 450 stakeholder organisations.

CN offered to email a copy of the draft Bill to the animal organisations attending the meeting. A list was handed round for everyone to note down their email address. 

*Summary of events held by other animal organisations*

The animal organisations represented at the meeting were then invited to give a brief verbal summary of the types of animal events they currently hold each year. Events held are:

*[For further clarification, could each organisation representative please check the summary given below and confirm whether they obtain a licence now and, if they do, for which events. Also please confirm which events are open to the public and at which events animals are sold to the public.]*

*National Fancy Rat Society* – National show each year which is open to members and the public. Additional shows are held anywhere with approximately 30 shows/ year. Also has 6-7 area clubs that must be affiliated to the NFRS.

*British Rabbit Council* – 3 tiers of events (local, regional and national breed clubs). All clubs are affiliated to the BRC and run shows according to BRC rules. All have to be a member *[Is that each club that has to a member of the BRC or each individual has to be a member?].* Rings are obtained from the BRC for each rabbit. Also hold pet classes for non-members of BRC for juniors and adults which then provide a good source of new members.

*National Chinchilla Society* – 4 areas (Scotland, North, Midlands and South). Everyone attending is a member. 13 shows/ year which include the national show in the Northampton area.

*Federation of British Herpetologists *

– Reasonably unique as does not have exhibition shows for the judging of animals. Instead, the shows are events to get people together interested in keeping herps..

*Fish health consultant/ Professional Koi Dealers Association *

– PKDA do not run their own shows as EHOs refuse to licence. Koi are displayed and sold at shows run by the British Koi Keepers Society. The BKKS follow a code of conduct.

*National Hamster Council* – Covers areas in South and Northern England. 2 affiliated clubs. 6 shows/ year. Holds display shows for members and pet shows for non-members.

*British Koi Keepers Society* – 1 national show. 30 sections around the country. Each section has 1-2 shows/ year. The shows are for exhibition of the fish and no animals are sold. Also invite professional dealers to shows to generate income to run shows in parallel with business. BKKS would like to see the introduction of one licence to exhibit animals and another licence for dealers to sell.

*Aquatic Foundation* – Individual society with 360 members. A third of the events run are open shows to the public. Some shows also include auctions of animals amongst members.

*National Ferret Welfare Society* – 2 formal shows/ year for members only. Occasional open shows. 2000 members. Affiliation clubs. NFWS promotes ferret welfare and has a strict non-sale policy at shows.

*National Mouse Club* – 5 cup shows/ year only open to members. Do sometimes hold auctions between members but badly supported. Sale is not a problem as not dependent on sale for revenue.

*National Gerbil Society* – 10 shows/ year. NGS is a small organisation that does not run shows but attends shows as a guest of other organisations, such as the National Fancy Rat Society. Sometimes the events are open shows run by the host. NGS has own rules to control sale of animals at shows but difficult to enforce. The host organiser of the event may also have own rules on the showing of animals. No selling is allowed at the shows but it still can happen – for example – trading from car boots.


*Presentation by GT on Animal Welfare Bill *(Key points listed below)
*Introduction*

- Current legislation is outdated and the creation of Defra provided the opportunity to look at animal welfare legislation, to look at cruelty, neglect and the needs of captive animals.
- The Animal Welfare Bill will consolidate and modernise legislation to replace the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and 22 associated Acts – to provide the same standards of legislation for captive, companion and sporting animals as for farm and research animals.
- The Animal Welfare Bill will be an enabling Bill with secondary legislation and related code of practice. It is easier to change codes of practice when necessary because they are brought in through secondary legislation.
- It is recognised that some interest groups already have codes of practice. Defra now want to work with groups to make Defra CoPs.
- CoP will provide guidance for keepers and be used for prosecution. Putting the required standards down in writing will also benefit defendants when demonstrating compliance with codes. The CoP will provide evidence but is not a legal document in itself.
- Defra has consulted with 1000’s of individuals, including hobbyists.
- Animal Welfare Bill will cover all vertebrate species kept by man. If in the future research demonstrates that other animals are sentient, the definition of animals can be altered to include any relevant invertebrates.
- The legislation will be’pro-active’ to promote responsible ownership and prevent suffering of animals kept in bad conditions.
*Purpose of Act*

- Maintain a ban on acts of cruelty
- Promote good welfare practice by introduction of a ‘duty of care’
- Implement the 5 freedoms (Farm Animal Welfare Council) for captive animals
*Consultation procedure*

- Jan 2002 Defra launched a 16 week public consultation on the Animal Welfare Bill
- 2372 responses from a wide audience
- Between October 2003 and February 2004 Defra met with representatives from more than 100 interested parties
- Defra do listen and will implement the Bill taking into consideration the issues raised by stakeholders
*Areas of reform [None of this is in tablets of stone and requires input during consultation]*

- Licensing of performing animals, livery yards, animal sanctuaries and pet fairs
- Raising minimum age people can buy pets from 12 years to 16. This will encourage responsible pet ownership, with a child needing to take a parent or guardian that will be responsible for the care of the animal if wants to buy an animal
- Controls on the buying and selling of pets – such as expecting pet shops to give out the appropriate care sheets at the time of sale
- Rearing of pheasants for sport shooting (debate on whether classed as farm livestock).
- Mutilations – all banned with an exemption list (such as for certain farming practices). The docking of dog tails is a big issue. Pinioning of waterfowl for flight prevention and the use of alternative methods are under consideration. The legislation will not include veterinary procedures required for the welfare of the animal.
[BRC asked whether ‘mutilations’ would include tattooing and the use of rings that their organisation uses to mark rabbits. GT confirmed that these practices were used for farm animals so cannot see how the same act on a rabbit could be an offence under the Animal Welfare Bill. Microchipping is also encouraged as part of responsible ownership. There was some question over whether the removal of fish scales, feathers or guard hairs for ‘cosmetic’/display purposes would be included as an offence.]
- Mis-use of biotechnology in animal breeding – A few examples were given where selective breeding of animals can lead to suffering, such as when the dam of double muscled cattle require a caesarean to calf or when the bitch of certain breeds of dogs are unable to whelp naturally. The Kennel Club are taking a responsible approach to review current breeding practices to introduce measures to remove detrimental traits from dog lines.
[Some animal organisations suggested ‘biotechnology’ was not an appropriate term when describing selective breeding for rare mutations. CN confirmed that the issue of selective breeding and the potential impact on welfare is currently being considered by the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC). Aquatic Federation asked whether ‘mis-use of biotechnology’ would include the selective breeding of fish, such as to breed a fish with no dorsal fin. GT made a general comment that the breeding of any animal that had an impact on the animal’s ability to move normally and to express natural behaviour, would be likely to cause suffering and therefore a welfare concern that would need to be covered by the new legislation.]
- Increase in police powers of investigation and arrest, with increased sentences.
- Disqualification orders already present for farm animals. Defra are looking at ways to prevent stock of disqualified keepers being simply passed into the ‘care’ of relatives or friends and still being kept in the same conditions.
- Deprivation orders that allow the removal of animals from the property of a person who has been banned from keeping animals after causing suffering.
The Bill will….
- streamline and update legislation
- support responsible pet ownership
- lead to improved breed standards
The Bill will not….
- provide a ‘bill of rights’ for animals
- ban hunting, shooting or fishing
- ban zoos or circuses (Defra is working with trainers on standards of training practices)
- include the Dangerous Wild Animals Act – which is being reviewed through the Bristol office of Defra.
Where next….
- Draft Bill consultation in summer 2004 
- Development of the two tranches of regulations and codes over the same period
- Continue working with groups to draw up licence conditions and codes of practice
- Working groups set up by stakeholders to produce documentation that is passed on to Defra.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Other questions*

- Will all individuals that rehome animals be licenced? There was concern about the proposed licensing of individuals who ‘rescue’ animals because some organisations take animals back if the animal does not ‘suit’ the new keeper and will rehome animals on a small scale. This is seen as an important part of encouraging responsible ownership. It was recognised by Defra that organisations provide an important education and advice role when rehoming animals. GT mentioned that CAWC has produced a detailed report on sanctuaries which recommends the introduction of a 2 tier system of licensing and inspection. Licensing is recommended for ‘rescue organisations’ that have animal centres and rehome animals on a larger scale; but registration is proposed for others that rehome animals on a smaller scale. Even those rehoming on a small scale should be required to maintain an agreed good standard, with a right of entry if there is a complaint. There may also be a one-off fee for registered individuals. 
- Will the Bill include new rights of entry for the RSPCA and others? GT confirmed that the RSPCA has not asked for, or been given, any new powers of entry. Enforcement will be through the local authority, however, anyone can take a private prosecution. To assist with enforcement and the assessment of evidence of an offence to prevent suffering, Defra are looking into the development of a database of registered ‘experts’ (to include both vets and non-vets that have great knowledge and experience in the keeping and welfare of exotics). These registered experts can then be called upon, in a similar way as the ‘experts’ used by zoos registered through the Secretary of State Standards of Modern Zoo Practice, by those enforcing the duty of care to prevent suffering. SK confirmed that the RSPCA has been very supportive of the establishment of such a register of experts to include experienced keepers of exotic animals. The establishment of agreed codes of practice within the framework of the five freedoms will provide the detail of good practice; which will also involve animal organisations and individuals that are knowledgeable within their field being invited to submit codes to Defra for ratification.
- Is it possible to set up a ‘post box’ facility to raise other issues not thought of during this meeting and issues that come up in the future? For example, there continue to be concerns for about the lack of consistency in licensing, enforcement and inspection of pet fairs by local authorities. CN confirmed that many issues raised during the meeting have been raised before. Defra has provided plenty of opportunity for exotic organisations to discuss these issues and the working groups have worked well. The meeting of the pet fair working group has already been very beneficial as it brings together representatives that are hobbyists, local authorities, welfarists, CIEH and LACORS to discuss the key issues from each of their perspectives. Often when one person has raised an area of concern, another member of the group can suggest a workable solution. There has also been a great deal of agreement, far more than the areas of disagreement. SK said that the pet vending working group will be proposing to Defra the establishment of regional Animal Welfare Panels. These Panels can then provide a forum for raising, discussing and resolving on-going issues that relate to the sale of animals in the future at a regional and national level, which includes the need for consistency of standards and enforcement across the country.
- Will the use of secondary legislation make the introduction of the Animal Welfare Bill a lower priority for the Government? PA confirmed that the Bill will be introduced as primary legislation giving the Secretary of State the power to introduce regulations, such as in relation to pet vending. The introduction of this legislation has taken some time to get a parliamentary slot and has now moved away from the Home Office. The use of secondary legislation will allow the regulations to be more easily amended when necessary.

*Presentation of Pet Fairs Working Group recommendations*

CN started by mentioning that the interpretation of the Pet Animals Act has been ambiguous on whether pet fairs are legal and can be licenced. This has become a big problem for organisations trying to put on an event, especially following involvement of animal rights organisations and the CIEH issuing a directive on pet fairs. The pet fair working group was therefore set up by Defra following initial meetings with stakeholders to define what a pet fair is (which has been a challenge as there are many different events being organised by different organisations keeping a wide range of animals) and to discuss which events need to be licensed.

A summary of the definition, the different tiers of events identified and level of regulation proposed by the working group were attached to the agenda for review by the animal organisations present. Some initial points were raised during the meeting (key points given below). Further comments will be passed back to CN after further consideration of the summary document and these minutes in the next couple of days. This short deadline is because CN needs to pass the pet fairs working group proposals paper to Defra later this week, ideally by the 8 July 2004.

*Definition*

- What is an event?
- What is meant by ‘exhibiting’? – would this include the animal being in a public place as being seen by others? Or do we just mean displaying animals for a competition or auction?
- Can the description of ‘exhibition show’ geographical catchment area be expanded to include ‘national’ events? The National Fancy Rat Society, for example, arrange national exhibition shows.

*Different tiers of events*

Tier 1
- How about people walking off the street? Guests are OK.
- Need to define private place.
- Exchange and sale of surplus stock between members is not commercial.
Tier 2
- Need to clearly define what is commercial and give commercial test to local authorities. Aquatic Foundation will carry out auctions to sell surplus stock – is that commercial?
- Flagged up difficulties to monitor and control the numbers of animals sold to ensure the 10% threshold of sales vs exhibited animals is not exceeded.
Other issues
- BKKS believe that all events should be licensed to protect the welfare of animals. Others mentioned the logistic difficulties in licensing all events. CN confirmed that all the events will still have to run to a code of practice and fully consider the welfare of the animals. BKKS thought the duty of care should also be put on the organisers of the event. CN said that pet vending was the key issue, so that any pet shops, wholesalers, dealers and importers are selling animals commercially so need to be licensed. This would therefore also include commercial breeders.
- GT thought the greatest concern was for the commercial dealers at pet fairs where their commercial gain is the primary aim.
- British Rabbit Society asked how the duty of care differentiates between the show community and the individual organiser. GT confirmed the duty of care falls on the owner or keeper of the animal. There is also the responsibility of the pet fair licensee to follow the conditions of the licence and to ensure that the animals are presented in an appropriate way. National Gerbil Society asked what would happen when the animal being exhibited was passed into the care of a warden during an event?
- Several people asked whether the CIEH guidelines on pet fairs would be retracted and new guidelines produced for the interim period between current discussions and the introduction of new legislation to allow for the licence or exemption for different tiers of pet fair events? CN said he would ask CIEH.
- Can CN circulate the minutes for the pet fairs working group meeting on 9 June 2004 to the other organisations at the meeting on 1 July? Many at the meeting thought that the minutes of the previous meeting would provide further information on the rationale behind the different tiers of events and the considerations made by the pet fair working group. *CN agreed to contact all members of the pet fair working group to ask for their OK to circulate the completed minutes to the other organisations and to check whether anyone wanted their name removed from the list of WG attendees.*

CN will now focus on completing the pet fair working group document to return to Defra later this week. CN would then like organisations to sign up to the summary document.

SK agreed to write up the minutes for this meeting on Monday 5 July. The minutes will then be passed to CN for circulation to the animal organisations at the meeting as soon as possible - to give them as much time as possible within the tight deadline to review and get any further comments on pet fairs back to CN before the 8 July.

Skennell/1 July 2004


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Reptile Shows – the facts*


June, 2012​

Reptiles have been kept as companion animals for over 200 years in the UK (the first records date to 1625) and today there are as many reptiles kept as companion animals as there are dogs, with approximately 7 million animals. Over the past two decades the popularity of reptiles has increased as they are more suitable as a pet for many people than many more traditional pets, such as cats and dogs. In 2003 the Companion Animal Welfare Council, which advises the government on animal welfare, stated in a report that: 

“…..it may be easier to keep some non-domesticated species to high welfare standards than some that are domesticated. Thus, meeting all the requirements - space, dietary, social, thermal, and so on - of a small, hardy, reptile may be more readily achievable for many people than adequately fulfilling all the needs of some breeds of dog” 

*In 2010 it was estimated that: *


1.2 million households keep reptiles [or amphibians]
In excess of 7 million animals are kept
95% of animals kept are bred in captivity 
The value of the pet reptile industry exceeds £200 million 
*Reptile shows*

Reptile shows or Pet Fairs (as they are sometimes described) have taken place since the early 1980’s. These are events where keepers meet to display, show and dispose of surplus stock and should, more correctly, be called breeders’ meetings. All animals at such meetings are captive bred and animals taken from the wild are not permitted, although long-term captive animals may be offered at the organisers’ discretion in some cases, such as disposal of ex-breeding stock.

In or around 1995 a coalition of Animal Rights businesses targeted many traditional pet-keeping events, including breeders’ meetings. The fundamental argument from the AR Industry is that the keeping of animals as companions is wrong and should be banned. All subsequent arguments, including allegations that events are illegal, detrimental to animal welfare, pose a massive risk to human welfare and are a ‘hot bed’ for the illegal trade in wildlife have no scientific basis and can be shown to be without foundation in truth.

The facts concerning breeders’ meetings are far less sensational than the AR publicity would suggest:


No prosecutions have ever been brought against a show for contravening animal welfare in over 30 years

No prosecutions have even been brought for illegal wildlife offered for sale in over 30 years

In 2010, the September IHS Breeders Meeting was inspected by various authorities, including the police, Defra Wildlife Inspectors and the Local Authority as part of Operation RAMP, a global investigation into the illegal trade in reptiles and the event was applauded by all concerned. 

Hundreds of thousands of people attend such events and there are no known cases of illness being contracted through contact with animals. 

Animal Rights organisations have offered a no win no fee compensation claims service for anyone who had attended such an event and contracted an illness, such as salmonella, but no such claim has ever been sought 
 

*Legality of sales of animals at Private Breeder’s meetings*​

Commercial sale of animals in the UK is regulated by the Pet Animals Act, 1951. Prior to 1995 reptile shows ran in the UK but were not licensed under the Pet Animals Act. Post 1995 many Local Authorities took the decision to license shows under the aforementioned Act to avoid confusion as many Animal Rights organisations claimed shows required to be licensed. The Act states:

1(1) No person shall keep a pet shop except under the authority of a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 

*A pet shop is defined as:*

7(1) References in this Act to the keeping of a pet shop shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be construed as references to the carrying on at premises of any nature (including a private dwelling) of a business of selling animals as pets, and as including references to the keeping of animals in any such premises as aforesaid with a view to their being sold in the course of such a business, whether by the keeper thereof or by any other person: 

*Exemptions from the regulations are:*

7 [1] (a)a person shall not be deemed to keep a pet shop by reason only of his keeping or selling pedigree animals bred by him, or the offspring of an animal kept by him as a pet;
7 [1] (b) where a person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in conjunction with a business of breeding pedigree animals, and the local authority are satisfied that the animals so sold by him (in so far as they are not pedigree animals bred by him) are animals which were acquired by him with a view to being used, if suitable, for breeding or show purposes but have subsequently been found by him not to be suitable or required for such use, the local authority may if they think fit direct that the said person shall not be deemed to keep a pet shop by reason only of his carrying on the first-mentioned business.

In 2001 Animal Aid sought a legal opinion as to weather it was legal to licence such events under the Pet Animals Act due to the amendment to the Act in 1983, Section 2 which states:

*Pets not to be sold in streets, etc *
If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, [or] at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence. 






*Government’s intention to licence such events*​

The legal position as to whether Section 2 applied to reptile shows was ambiguous and on 14 July 2004, Defra published the draft Animal Welfare Bill which included a proposal to regulate pet fairs. 

On the 23 of June 2005, the Animal Welfare Bill Team issued the following statement:


*Pet fair operators, the RSPCA, Chartered Institute for Environmental Health (CIEH), Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) and local authority officers were represented on Defra’s working group to look at the regulation of pet fairs. All members accepted the recommendations of the group to regulate pet fairs, where appropriate*
On the 14th June 2006 a Judicial Review, Haynes v Stafford Borough Council, considered the issue of licensing shows under the Pet Animals Act. The conclusion was that licensing of such events contravened Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act and this precluded further licensing of such events, although it also clarified that private breeder’s meetings were lawful as they were outside the remit of the Act.

The Animal Welfare Act, 2006 was enacted in April 2007. Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act has been ear-marked for repeal, thus allowing the licensing of reptile shows again under the Pet Animals Act, although regrettably the Commencement Order which will enforce this has not been read.







*Challenge to Doncaster Borough Council *

If Doncaster Borough Council believes that the sale of surplus captive-bred animals at the IHS Breeders Meeting contravenes the Pet Animals Act, 1951, then it should allow the meeting to take place at the weekend and bring a prosecution. The IHS Breeders’ Meetings have taken place in Doncaster twice a year since 2003 since when no changes under the Pet Animals Act have been implemented. 


*Challenge to government *

Under the Animal Welfare Act the former Labour government committed to introducing new Pet Vending legislation, including improved regulation for Pet Fairs. We would now urge the government, with support from the Labour opposition, to introduce this Secondary Legislation as soon as the parliamentary time table permits. Notwithstanding this, we would also urge the current government to enact the Commencement Order repealing Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act, 1951 which would allow Local Authorities to licence and regulate reptile shows.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Shows/Expos and the law – FBH position statement*


September, 2010​


In 2006 Animal Rights organisations successfully exploited loop holes in the law to prohibit the licensing of one day events under the 1951 Pet Animals Act, by means of a Judicial Review. This was unfortunate as it was potentially detrimental to the welfare of animals as it removed the ability for a Local Authority to insist such events should be licensed, therefore regulated. Of course one should not confuse Animal Rights with Animal Welfare - the Animal Rights Industry has little regard for the welfare of animals, political and financial interests more of a pressing concern.

Notwithstanding this, the legal challenge by the ‘antis’ backfired dramatically as it brought clarity to the confused legal situation and made it absolutely clear that ‘Private Members Meetings’ are lawful, this includes ‘Breeders Meetings’, such events are defined as: 

*Breeders Meeting*

The Federation of British Herpetologists defines a ‘Breeders Meeting’ as a private members meeting organised by a club or society for the benefit of its membership at which surplus livestock may be sold or exchanged, subject to the following conditions:


Only member of the club or society, or members of affiliated clubs or societies may dispose of surplus livestock at a breeders meeting. 

All livestock disposed off must be done so in accordance with the FBH Code of Practice.

Members of a club or society who hold a Pet Shop Licence issued under the Pet Animal Act, 1951 are not permitted to sell livestock.

A club or society must be in existence for a minimum of 2 calendar years before it may organise a show.
*To be lawful a show/Expo must be organised by a bona fide club or society, these are defined as:*

*Club or Society*

The Federation of British Herpetologists defines a club or society as an independent body that fulfils, but is not limited to, all of the following requirements: 


*Articles of association*
A club or society must have articles of association stating its aims and objectives.


*Committee *
A club or society must have a committee of at least three persons. 

*Accounts*
A club or society must hold at minimum a treasuries account with a recognised banking institution. 


*Membership database*
A club or society must have a database and/or written record of paid up members.


*Publication *
A club or society must produce regular publications, at minimum circulation of a newsletter biannually. 

Events not organised by a bona fide club or society would be deemed as ‘commercial’ and therefore fall under the remit of 1951 Pet Animals Act. However, as one day events [in a public place] cannot be licensed under the aforementioned Act* they are unlawful. Under these circumstances the Federation of British Herpetologists could not condone or support any events which fail to meet the requirements as outlay above.

*It must be made clear that any person organising or selling at an event not covered by the definition of a Breeders Meeting would, in the opinion of the Federation of British Herpetologists, be committing a criminal offence and as such would be liable prosecution by a Local or National Authority. *

Guidance issued by Defra in April 2007 reaffirmed this position:

“Those events where there is either no selling of animals to members of the public: or where there is selling of animals but where it is not in the course of a business, such as hobbyists selling excess stock, will continue to take place without the requirement to be licensed”


----------



## Horny Toad (Sep 9, 2006)

This needs bumping to the top - and making a sticky. 

All please read, digest and understand - especially those interested in organising or promoting an animal show.


----------

