# Legislation which states it is illegal to feed live mammals to reptiles?



## DragonHeart<3

I'm having trouble convincing someone that the UK laws do actually state that it is illegal to feed live mammals to reptiles, so does anyone have a link to a site which says this? Preferably a reliable source. :2thumb:


----------



## colinm

Have a look on the snake forum,its a grey area.


----------



## starfox

As far as i'm aware, it is legal but only if absolutely needed in order to keep the rep alive. 
I don't keep snakes or larger reps anyway, so either way it doesn't affect me lol.


----------



## truncheon1973

DragonHeart<3 said:


> I'm having trouble convincing someone that the UK laws do actually state that it is illegal to feed live mammals to reptiles, so does anyone have a link to a site which says this? Preferably a reliable source. :2thumb:


its only illegal if youre doing it for fun etc

it is NOT illegal if it is the only way to keep the reptile alive


----------



## Spikebrit

DragonHeart<3 said:


> I'm having trouble convincing someone that the UK laws do actually state that it is illegal to feed live mammals to reptiles, so does anyone have a link to a site which says this? Preferably a reliable source. :2thumb:


That would be because you are wrong lol. 

Feeding live mammals is not illegal just frowned upon. However, feeeding live mammals for entertainment and amusement is as its classed as unnecessary suffering. 


The discussion on this thread by a friend of mine covers all the points nicely, and the new legislation does not contrivine this either. 

http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forums/snakes/69279-live-feeding-laws.html

In summary basically its a grey area at the moment, with no hard and fast answer, the law states i believe that it is illegal to cause unnecessary harm and suffering. But that also animals in captivity must show natural feeding responces. 

Which basically suggests that you can feed live if it is in the best interest of the snake. ie it will die or be caused unnecessary suffering if it is not fed live. However with this in mind the feeder mammal must be given the adequate care prior to this. basically it could be argued either way. In the same legalization i also believe it states that an animals must show natural feeding behaviors, which for a snake is live feeding, though this is a tenuous link. Currently no case has ever been challenged as the law could be interpreted either way. I doubt that any case will be brought in the future either unless their is a change in law as it could go either way. 

Basically the answer is, as it stands it is perfectly legal to fine live. But to be completely safe it should only be done as a last resort. 

Hope that helps
jay


----------



## TeamCockroach

http://www.xtramilereptile.co.uk/live feeding law.pdf
Have a read of this.


----------



## ian14

TeamCockroach said:


> http://www.xtramilereptile.co.uk/live feeding law.pdf
> Have a read of this.


It's out of date - the Act it refers to is the 1911 Protection of Animals Act, which has long since been replaced by the Animal Welfare Act.


----------



## Spikebrit

ian14 said:


> It's out of date - the Act it refers to is the 1911 Protection of Animals Act, which has long since been replaced by the Animal Welfare Act.


The new act doesn't change anything though if you read it. 

Jay


----------



## Turner89

i once heard about a woman on a site (i think it was youtube) who fed a kitten to a snake for fun, not sure where though, but that is definatley illegal! the woman should be found and shot, if you are caring for an animal that does require live feed then you are charged with the responsibility of being an adult about it! not a sick twisted individual.
some people dont deserve to look after animals, they give every reptile owner a bad name.


----------



## Amy2310

Turner89 said:


> i once heard about a woman on a site (i think it was youtube) who fed a kitten to a snake for fun, not sure where though, but that is definatley illegal! the woman should be found and shot, if you are caring for an animal that does require live feed then you are charged with the responsibility of being an adult about it! not a sick twisted individual.
> some people dont deserve to look after animals, they give every reptile owner a bad name.


I really don't think the OP is talking about feeding Kittens to their snake.... Calm down a bit. 

Spikebrit's post pretty much summed up my understand of the legalities behind it.

If the snake will die without live, then it's 'okay'
If the snake can happily live on Frozen Thawed, then it's not 'okay'


----------



## Spikebrit

Turner89 said:


> i once heard about a woman on a site (i think it was youtube) who fed a kitten to a snake for fun, not sure where though, but that is definatley illegal! the woman should be found and shot, if you are caring for an animal that does require live feed then you are charged with the responsibility of being an adult about it! not a sick twisted individual.
> some people dont deserve to look after animals, they give every reptile owner a bad name.



I agree it is not something i would do, or particularly wish to see. if it could be shown that it was in the best interest of the snake and the kitten was not caused unnecessary suffering (asside from the death) then it would not be illigal though it would cause far more outcry then a mouse and thus more likely to be prosecuted. The recording it would make it for entertainment and thus illigal

Agreed it could be seen as worse then live feeding a mouse but it is classed as exactly the same under law. Mouse, cat, dog, baby elephant, would all be classed as the same under the law no one gets special treatment. 

Most of the videos on the web are from American sites where it is common practise. 

Jay


----------



## Turner89

Amy2310 said:


> I really don't think the OP is talking about feeding Kittens to their snake.... Calm down a bit.
> 
> Spikebrit's post pretty much summed up my understand of the legalities behind it.
> 
> If the snake will die without live, then it's 'okay'
> If the snake can happily live on Frozen Thawed, then it's not 'okay'


I wasn't quite saying that they were referring to everyone handing out kittens to be the new pet food, I know kittens aren't classed as live food I was merley saying that that is a case where live food is not okay, as its not really necessary for a snake to eat a kitten, and yes their are grey areas but I was saying that wasn't acceptable


----------



## PeterUK

Turner89 said:


> I wasn't quite saying that they were referring to everyone handing out kittens to be the new pet food, I know kittens aren't classed as live food I was merley *saying that that is a case where live food is not okay, as its not really necessary for a snake to eat a kitten*, and yes their are grey areas but I was saying that wasn't acceptable


How do you know that other live food options like rats, guinea pigs or rabbits were not available at the time ?
What exactly is the difference in using a kitten or a rat as live food ? 
They are both small mammals, one is seen as 'cuddly' and the other isnt. !


----------



## cavan

PeterUK said:


> How do you know that other live food options like rats, guinea pigs or rabbits were not available at the time ?
> What exactly is the difference in using a kitten or a rat as live food ?
> They are both small mammals, one is seen as 'cuddly' and the other isnt. !


 agree, :2thumb:


----------



## Mynki

Spikebrit said:


> The new act doesn't change anything though if you read it.
> 
> Jay


If you have read the act can you point me in the direction that states the feeder animal is not covered by the legislation also?

I've read it and cannot find this. It is a grey area and we need a test case before anyone can say that feeding live vertebrates is legal or illegal. Until that time it is all speculation.

I would add, that all of the people on pet websites throughout the UK which believe it is lawful have NEVER once managed explain why the feeder animal is not covered by the new Animal welfare act. The thread repeatedly reffered to here on RFUK is out of date as Ian14 has pointed out and as such is no longer relevant. If you found yourself in court you would not be able to cite this old law, so why bother using it in a discussion on a forum?


----------



## suffolk etb

my understanding of this this has always been as follows -

live feeding is legal 

BUT

it is illigal to - 

use an animal sold as a pet as a food item
use the feeding as entertainment - ie have people over to watch. its deemed the food animal is already in enough stress without people watching and cheering.

SO

in order to live feed, the 'food animal' must be obtained or bred with the knowledge of its purpose as a food item, and the actual feeding, must take place with as much isolation as possible, so as not to stress the animal more than it already is.


----------



## colinm

Is this discussion wise in the current situation?


----------



## suffolk etb

Its always going to be an issue, whatever the political climate around the keeping of reptiles & snakes. I think its more important that the correct details be made available to the people that need to know. As 99% of snakes can be lured to frozen/thawed/humanly killed food its not a big issue, but one that will continue to make an inpact unless everyone faced with a snake that will only live feed, is in possession of the correct facts and way it should be done.

-


----------



## Revobuzz

There is no law that will state "it is illegal to feed a live mouse to a snake"

The law is just not written that way.

The Animal welfare Act makes it illegal to cause unnecessary suffering and goes on to expain what that means.

You will have to wait for case law to establish further what that realy means when applied to the real world.


----------



## Natrix

I wrote the following about five years ago. It was correct then and is still correct now.
Gordon Glasson
FBH VC
　
1) The first thing to consider is that UK law only tells us what we can’t do and does not tell us what we can do. This means that you have to look for a law that says you can not live feed and if you can’t find one then the assumption must be that live feeding is legal. 
With the above in mind, no one as yet has managed to find a piece of legislation that declares live feeding to be illegal.
2) Any UK animal welfare law relating to live feeding would only relate to the use of vertebrates as the prey animal as no welfare protection is given to invertebrates with the exception of cephalopods (octopuses, squid, cuttlefish)
3) There are a number of groups (animal rights and animal welfare) that have looked at various ways to make live feeding illegal.
Suggestions such as, if you place a live vertebrate with a predator you are encouraging the animals to fight and that arranged animal fights are illegal. 
And that putting a vertebrate in a place of danger is failing to provide proper care for the prey animal have all failed to be accepted in the eyes of the law.
4) DEFRA (Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs) have yet to consider live feeding laws in relation to the secondary legislation for the new animal welfare bill. They have been very unwilling to rush into this review mainly because of the strength of opinion by both those fore and those against.
On the one hand you have the people (including many reptile keepers) that want it banned and consider it a cruel act. These people can easily whip up public support with horrific (propaganda) about how the small cute fury animals suffer at the hands of the horrible scaly monsters.
And on the other hand you have those (including professional institutions) that consider it an essential tool when working with reptiles (especially with snakes) and can show that some rare species would fail and die in captivity and that the actual suffering of the prey is minimal and death is quick, especially when compared to the millions of wild life kills made by pet cats every year.
If you then add in the fact that it is totally legal for the public to use break back traps and poisons (both potentially horrible, painful ways to die) along with terrier dogs to hunt, catch and kill pest rodents and the whole subject becomes a mine field (in many ways very similar to the hunting bill) that DEFRA is unlikely to find a good answer to.
5) An interestingly new angle on live feeding surfaced during the animal welfare bill. The RSPCA (a group very much against live feeding) pushed for the use of what they call their five freedoms to be included within the legislation. The fourth freedom is the freedom for the pet animal to behave in a natural manner. A number of mischievous people on the pro live feeding side of the fence have pointed out that very few snakes actually feed on carrion in the wild. This law actually suggests that we are failing in a duty of care if we do not allow our reptiles to have the opportunity to hunt and kill their own prey. While this is obviously not what the fourth freedom is intended to mean it has rather left the RSPCA in an embarrassing position as one of the strongest arguments for live feeding is a regulation invented and pushed in to the animal welfare bill by themselves.
6) Several years ago a copy of a letter from DEFRA was passed on to me (as Vice Chairman of the FBH) from an FBH member answering a number of questions they had raised. One of these questions was about the legalities of live feeding in the UK. The following answer is from the letter.

Finally, the protection of Animals Acts 1911 to 1964 *do not prohibit the feeding of animals with live prey*, although the live feeding of vertebrate prey should be discouraged and avoided apart from in exceptional circumstances and then preferably only under veterinary advise. 
Where live prey must be used, feeding must be observed and its welfare must be considered as well as any potential injury which might be caused to the predator. 

The letter is signed by the MP Ben Bradshaw who was the minister in charge of the work on the new Animal Welfare bill at the time
It is worth pointing out that the bit that says
although the live feeding of vertebrate prey should be discouraged and avoided apart from in exceptional circumstances and then preferably only under veterinary advise
is not actually a legal requirement and is purely how DEFRA currently would prefer things to take place. This interestingly may be the way that any future secondary legislation may be worded, in which case this may become future law. 
7) There is one area of legislation which I have yet to look into in depth but basically it is illegal to set up an animal fight for public viewing and it is illegal to film such a fight. It is also illegal for institutions (zoo’s, wild life parks, pet shops) to live feed in view of the public. Whilst this does not make live feeding itself illegal, it could see some one taken through the court process for live feeding in the wrong situation or even for filming live feeding and putting it on something like U-Tube.
　
8)At some point in the future (depending on changing views of different Governments) DEFRA will be considering the legislation on live feeding and everything could change but as things currently stand there are no laws against live feeding in the privacy of your own home.


----------



## Mynki

I'm not opposed to live feeding if done for the right reasons and as a last resort. Should an obligate live feeding species be subject to a valid conservation project then it makes sense.

But if a case went to court, I'm pretty certain the person feeding live could be torn apart by the prosecution as the feeder animal did noy have its five rights respected.

Ask PDR about his special home office excemption for feeding live if required. If he is excempt from prosecution then surely it must be unlawful in the first place? 

The law is far too ambiguous and needs rewriting as soon as possible IMHO.

Ironically I'm watching a Jeremy Wade program as I type. It shows videos of people feeding their pet snakeheads live fish... :/


----------



## Natrix

Revobuzz said:


> There is no law that will state "it is illegal to feed a live mouse to a snake"
> 
> The law is just not written that way.
> 
> The Animal welfare Act makes it illegal to cause unnecessary suffering and goes on to expain what that means.
> 
> You will have to wait for case law to establish further what that realy means when applied to the real world.


Noyhing in the new act changed the law on live feeding. 
You have to remember that the law relates to all situations that require live feeding of vertebrates.
Apart from us, Zoo's and conservation groups use live feeding on some WC snakes in important conservation projects. It is also common practice among those that deal with injured wild life to make sure that predators can feed themselves before release back to the wild. My local seal sanctuary feeds the seals on live fish prior to their release. I know of a guy that rescues raptors (owls, kestrels etc) that puts the birds into a large aviary with live mice before they are released. A few years ago one of the big AR groups made a fuss because live antelope were fed to tigres in India prior to their release into the wild(not the UK I know but an example of live feeding).

The simple fact is that two many important conservation projects need live feeding to continue. There is no way that a ban will ever happen but at some point we will most likely see a very strict code of practice put in place,

Gordon Glasson
FBH VC


----------



## Natrix

Mynki said:


> If you have read the act can you point me in the direction that states the feeder animal is not covered by the legislation also?
> 
> I've read it and cannot find this. It is a grey area and we need a test case before anyone can say that feeding live vertebrates is legal or illegal. Until that time it is all speculation.
> 
> I would add, that all of the people on pet websites throughout the UK which believe it is lawful have NEVER once managed explain why the feeder animal is not covered by the new Animal welfare act. The thread repeatedly reffered to here on RFUK is out of date as Ian14 has pointed out and as such is no longer relevant. If you found yourself in court you would not be able to cite this old law, so why bother using it in a discussion on a forum?


None of the threads repeatedly reffered to here on RFUK about this are out of date. No new legislation on this subject was created and all existing legislation on it was amalgamated into the new act. 

As for the feeder animals they have always been covered by the legislation (old and new). While they are in your care you must treat them with respect and provide food, water, bedding etc just as you would any other animal. You should also make sure that you are present to intervene if the snake makes a bodge of the kill. But the legislation is aimed at you not the snake. Once the mouse is placed in with the snake it is out of your hands and snakes can't be done for killing a mouse as it is just showing natural behaviour..

To add to the above if your snake is refusing frozen/thawed food you are failing in it's care if you do not offer alternative food source's. 

Gordon Glasson
FBH VC


----------



## Mynki

Natrix said:


> None of the threads repeatedly reffered to here on RFUK about this are out of date. No new legislation on this subject was created and all existing legislation on it was amalgamated into the new act.
> 
> As for the feeder animals they have always been covered by the legislation (old and new). While they are in your care you must treat them with respect and provide food, water, bedding etc just as you would any other animal. You should also make sure that you are present to intervene if the snake makes a bodge of the kill. But the legislation is aimed at you not the snake. Once the mouse is placed in with the snake it is out of your hands and snakes can't be done for killing a mouse as it is just showing natural behaviour..
> 
> To add to the above if your snake is refusing frozen/thawed food you are failing in it's care if you do not offer alternative food source's.
> 
> Gordon Glasson
> FBH VC


You've missed my point unfortunately. In law, the predator has no more rights than the prey animal. 

Placing a feeder animal with a predator violates the feeder animals rights. Something a prosecutor in court could have a field day with. 

If a case ever comes to court the prosecution could easily argue that the snake could have been assist fed or even euthanised if refusing to feed. I know how ridiculous that will sound to a reptile keeper. But the prosecution could argue it more ethical to euthanise one animal to spare the lives of many as again, the feeder animals have no less rights than the predator. 

I'm going to add again that I'm not neccesarily against live feeding. And I also live in the real world, but I don't believe anyone can say it is legal or illegal until a case comes to court.


----------



## Natrix

Turner89 said:


> i once heard about a woman on a site (i think it was youtube) who fed a kitten to a snake for fun, not sure where though, but that is definatley illegal! the woman should be found and shot, if you are caring for an animal that does require live feed then you are charged with the responsibility of being an adult about it! not a sick twisted individual.
> some people dont deserve to look after animals, they give every reptile owner a bad name.





suffolk etb said:


> my understanding of this this has always been as follows -
> live feeding is legal
> BUT
> it is illigal to -
> use an animal sold as a pet as a food item
> use the feeding as entertainment - ie have people over to watch. its deemed the food animal is already in enough stress without people watching and cheering.
> SO
> in order to live feed, the 'food animal' must be obtained or bred with the knowledge of its purpose as a food item, and the actual feeding, must take place with as much isolation as possible, so as not to stress the animal more than it already is.


There is no legislation differentiating between species or the purpose they were bred for.
The legislation refers to animals as vertebrates or invertebrates. It is legal to feed both to predators. In the eye's of the law it doesn't matter if you feed you snake a mouse, a cat, a dog or a camel. They are all legal as they are all vertebrates.

The legislation also does not refer to animals as pets or food, just vertebrates or invertebrates. If I choose to go and buy an albino spider royal and feed it to my king snake I have no more broken the law than if I had brought a live feeder mouse to feed to my king snake. What I choose to do with my purchase after I buy it is up to me, what ever that animal is. I just have to care for it properly according to the Animal Welfare Bill while it is alive. 


It is very easy for us all to assume what the law is based on our own personal morals and ideals but it doesn't work like that. The law has to cover a lot of different situations for a lot of different people. For this reason general legislation can't pick out individual animals or situations and it often works in ways we don't expect because of the needs of others that we ourselves haven't taken into account.
Were a species is endangered or rare there is more specialised legislation to target and protect the individual species.

Before any one attacks me for suggesting the feeding of kittens etc, I'm not, I'm just laying out the law as it is. I would always advocate the use of frozen/thawed food first and see no reason to feed anything other than rodents when resorting to live.

Gordon Glasson
FBH VC


----------



## Lacerta.

Must admit I havn't read through all this thread but basically no law directly states that it is illegal to feed live prey HOWEVER the animal welfare act 06 places a duty of care on any animal in your care (mouse or not) it makes it illegal not to provide the five freedoms for said animal. Theese guidlines state you must reasonably do everything to prevent fear and distres aswell as pain and suffering and this ishere law Bitish law nidirectly states it is illegal to feed live prey . hope this helps


----------



## Mynki

Natrix said:


> Were a species is endangered or rare there is more specialised legislation to target and protect the individual species.
> 
> Gordon Glasson
> FBH VC


Thats the most interesting sentence I've read in a long time. Just sent you a PM linking to a debate on this subject elsewhere.

Which law covers this?


----------



## Natrix

Mynki said:


> You've missed my point unfortunately. In law, the predator has no more rights than the prey animal.
> 
> Placing a feeder animal with a predator violates the feeder animals rights. Something a prosecutor in court could have a field day with.
> 
> If a case ever comes to court the prosecution could easily argue that the snake could have been assist fed or even euthanised if refusing to feed. I know how ridiculous that will sound to a reptile keeper. But the prosecution could argue it more ethical to euthanise one animal to spare the lives of many as again, the feeder animals have no less rights than the predator.
> 
> I'm going to add again that I'm not neccesarily against live feeding. And I also live in the real world, but I don't believe anyone can say it is legal or illegal until a case comes to court.


No I haven't missed your point.
Neither the prey animal or the predator have rights in that sense. The Animal Welfare Bill puts the responsibilty of care on the owner. To give rights to animals would create a situation where a mouse could take a cat to court for harrasment. 
I have already explained above that other groups need to use live feeding. As for your arguement about it being more ethical to euthanise one animal to spare the lives of many as again the feeder animals have no less rights than the predator. 
I'm sorry but you haven't thought that through. Apart from neither having rights as explained above, every snake in captivity eats mice. Every mouse has to end up dead to be eaten. If you are going to use that argument then all snakes should be killed to save the lives of mice every where regardless of them being live feeders or frozen /thawed feeders. 

Would you also advocate the euthanising of an endangered species of snake in a breeding program rather than offer a live mouse?

Gordon Glasson
FBH VC


----------



## Natrix

Mynki said:


> Thats the most interesting sentence I've read in a long time. Just sent you a PM linking to a debate on this subject elsewhere.
> 
> Which law covers this?


In the UK native species that are rare or endangered are protected by the Wildlife and Country side act. Europe has several including the Bern convention, other countries have their own legislation and internationally we have cities. The list is endless.

Gordon Glasson
FBH VC


----------



## Lacerta.

Apologies it seems after reading the thread once not on a phone when I couldn't properly make it out I can see that someone else has explained it far better than me already: victory:


----------



## Mynki

Natrix said:


> No I haven't missed your point.


Yes you have. Totally. 



Natrix said:


> Neither the prey animal or the predator have rights in that sense. The Animal Welfare Bill puts the responsibilty of care on the owner. To give rights to animals would create a situation where a mouse could take a cat to court for harrasment..


Gordon, I'm afraid a mouse could not take a cat to court. However, the CPS could bring the owner of a predator to court if a feeder animal was fed to it alive. The needs of the predator don't need to be taken into consideration. The feeder animal will have had it's five freedoms violated. Therefore the person introducing a feeder animal alive to a predator risks being prosecuted. 



Natrix said:


> I have already explained above that other groups need to use live feeding. As for your arguement about it being more ethical to euthanise one animal to spare the lives of many as again the feeder animals have no less rights than the predator.


There is no mention of these 'other groups' in the AWA 2006 from what I can see. What part of the act refers to these 'other groups'?




Natrix said:


> I'm sorry but you haven't thought that through. Apart from neither having rights as explained above, every snake in captivity eats mice. Every mouse has to end up dead to be eaten. If you are going to use that argument then all snakes should be killed to save the lives of mice every where regardless of them being live feeders or frozen /thawed feeders.


I've thought it through. A lot actually, I'm not so sure you hae though. Indeed every mouse ends up dead before being eaten, but feeding a live mouse as stated above will violate it's rights as stated in the act. It would be very easy to argue in court that frozen defrost were dispatched humanely, whereas a feeder animal will be subjected to stress and pain that it would not be if dispatched humanely.




Natrix said:


> Would you also advocate the euthanising of an endangered species of snake in a breeding program rather than offer a live mouse?.


See my previous post as it covers your point already. If you read the link I sent you you'll also see further thoughts of mine on the subject. 

Remember law is law, it's not always moral or common sense! Remember too that in the Animal Welfare Act as you have pointed out an animal is classed as a vertebrate or invertebrate. Species are not listed specifically. Ironically you have already made this point previously. 

Why does PDR have excemption from prosecution from the Home Office if he ever needed to feed live? Something I believe he's not had to do in years though. I can forward you a PM from him proving this if you like?


----------



## Mynki

Natrix said:


> In the UK native species that are rare or endangered are protected by the Wildlife and Country side act. Europe has several including the Bern convention, other countries have their own legislation and internationally we have cities. The list is endless.
> 
> Gordon Glasson
> FBH VC


Very true, but you've not answered my question. Where do these laws show differences in regards to live feeding?

Also, considering there has never been a case in court covering live feeding how do you feel you can say it's lawful?


----------



## Natrix

Mynki said:


> Gordon, I'm afraid a mouse could not take a cat to court. However, the CPS could bring the owner of a predator to court if a feeder animal was fed to it alive. The needs of the predator don't need to be taken into consideration. The feeder animal will have had it's five freedoms violated. Therefore the person introducing a feeder animal alive to a predator risks being prosecuted.


The needs of the predator *do* need to be taken into consideration. Anyone trying to prosecute some one for live feeding would have to show that the predator wasn't suffering by not being offered live food. Basically it would be a mine field and DEFRA have made it very clear that live feeding is legal because of the potential to cause suffering to the predator if the option is banned.




Mynki said:


> There is no mention of these 'other groups' in the AWA 2006 from what I can see. What part of the act refers to these 'other groups'?


There's no mention of us either! The Bill was put together by DEFRA after lengthy consultation with all interested parties (called stake holders) including the FBH. We all had an input and the Bill allows for the various needs of the stake holder groups.




Mynki said:


> I've thought it through. A lot actually, I'm not so sure you have though. Indeed every mouse ends up dead before being eaten, but feeding a live mouse as stated above will violate it's rights as stated in the act. It would be very easy to argue in court that frozen defrost were dispatched humanely, whereas a feeder animal will be subjected to stress and pain that it would not be if dispatched humanely.


Having spent the last decade researching legislation for both live feeding and humanely dispatching rodents, including meetings with DEFRA, discussions with RSPCA officers and the police as well as preparing information sheets and suggested codes of best practice for the FBH and DEFRA you are correct I probably haven't given it a lot of thought.



Mynki said:


> See my previous post as it covers your point already. If you read the link I sent you you'll also see further thoughts of mine on the subject.
> 
> Remember law is law, it's not always moral or common sense! Remember too that in the Animal Welfare Act as you have pointed out an animal is classed as a vertebrate or invertebrate. Species are not listed specifically. Ironically you have already made this point previously.
> 
> Why does PDR have excemption from prosecution from the Home Office if he ever needed to feed live? Something I believe he's not had to do in years though. I can forward you a PM from him proving this if you like?


Sorry I'm not sure who PDR is or why he would need an excemption from prosecution from the Home Office to do something that is already legal.

Gordon Glasson
FBH Vice Chairman


----------



## Natrix

Mynki said:


> Very true, but you've not answered my question. Where do these laws show differences in regards to live feeding?


The animals listed on Appendix 1 are totally protected. You can be prosecuted for just disturbing their habitat, never mind using them for live food.


Mynki said:


> Also, considering there has never been a case in court covering live feeding how do you feel you can say it's lawful?


I'm not ........DEFRA is. They are the law makers, it's their ball they just let us play with it. 

I'll post this again 

Several years ago a copy of a letter from DEFRA was passed on to me (as Vice Chairman of the FBH) from an FBH member answering a number of questions they had raised. One of these questions was about the legalities of live feeding in the UK. The following answer is from the letter.

Finally, the protection of Animals Acts 1911 to 1964 *do not prohibit the feeding of animals with live prey*, although the live feeding of vertebrate prey should be discouraged and avoided apart from in exceptional circumstances and then preferably only under veterinary advise. 
Where live prey must be used, feeding must be observed and its welfare must be considered as well as any potential injury which might be caused to the predator. 

The letter is signed by the MP Ben Bradshaw who was the minister in charge of the work on the new Animal Welfare bill at the time
It is worth pointing out that the bit that says
although the live feeding of vertebrate prey should be discouraged and avoided apart from in exceptional circumstances and then preferably only under veterinary advise
is not actually a legal requirement and is purely how DEFRA currently would prefer things to take place. This interestingly may be the way that any future secondary legislation may be worded, in which case this may become future law.


----------



## Natrix

Ok everyone, lets turn this around and try it from a different angle.

*Question*

*Where is the piece of legislation that says it is legal to feed invertabrates to predators?*

Gordon Glasson
FBH Vice Chairman


----------



## Mynki

Natrix said:


> The needs of the predator *do* need to be taken into consideration. Anyone trying to prosecute some one for live feeding would have to show that the predator wasn't suffering by not being offered live food. Basically it would be a mine field and DEFRA have made it very clear that live feeding is legal because of the potential to cause suffering to the predator if the option is banned.


No they do not. You are wrong and are still missing my point. It is very simple :-

The prey item is protected under the animal welfare act just as much as the predator. 

There is no test case as you know. You are in no position to say that live feeding is legal or illegal. That can only be stated after a precedent is set by a judge. Which ever judge overseas a case, if indeed one ever did make it to court would determine there and then if it was legal or not.






Natrix said:


> There's no mention of us either! The Bill was put together by DEFRA after lengthy consultation with all interested parties (called stake holders) including the FBH. We all had an input and the Bill allows for the various needs of the stake holder groups.


You insinuated that some groups of animals have more legal protection of others. Not groups of people! I'm not sure why you thought I was talking about the FBH. I do not believe that any groups of vertebrates have any more protection in law in regards to live feeding than any others. There is no mention in the AWA 2006 I guarantee you. I'm not sure why you think wouldn't think I'd know what a stake holder is either. 





Natrix said:


> Having spent the last decade researching legislation for both live feeding and humanely dispatching rodents, including meetings with DEFRA, discussions with RSPCA officers and the police as well as preparing information sheets and suggested codes of best practice for the FBH and DEFRA you are correct I probably haven't given it a lot of thought.


And yet Chris Newman advises on this very forum that if you were to feed live you could end up in trouble with the law. None of your last paragraph has anything to do with a test case in respect to live feeding under the AWA 2006 despite your experience.




Natrix said:


> Sorry I'm not sure who PDR is or why he would need an excemption from prosecution from the Home Office to do something that is already legal.
> 
> Gordon Glasson
> FBH Vice Chairman


Paul Rowley. Senior herpetologist at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. Again, you got my PM. You should have read the link to the other forum where I tried to argue live feeding was lawful. Unfortunately I was proved wrong. 

You've convinced yourself it's legal. And that's the problem. If a keeper feeds a rat to his burm live in front of others for entertainment when the burm was eating frozen defrost and he was brought to court. Do you honestly think he'd get away with it? A precedent would then be set.


----------



## Mynki

Natrix said:


> The animals listed on Appendix 1 are totally protected. You can be prosecuted for just disturbing their habitat, never mind using them for live food.


I see the point you're trying to make. I meant that prey species have no more rights if fed to a predator. 




Natrix said:


> I'm not ........DEFRA is. They are the law makers, it's their ball they just let us play with it.
> 
> I'll post this again
> 
> Several years ago a copy of a letter from DEFRA was passed on to me (as Vice Chairman of the FBH) from an FBH member answering a number of questions they had raised. One of these questions was about the legalities of live feeding in the UK. The following answer is from the letter.
> 
> Finally, the protection of Animals Acts 1911 to 1964 *do not prohibit the feeding of animals with live prey*, although the live feeding of vertebrate prey should be discouraged and avoided apart from in exceptional circumstances and then preferably only under veterinary advise.
> Where live prey must be used, feeding must be observed and its welfare must be considered as well as any potential injury which might be caused to the predator.
> 
> The letter is signed by the MP Ben Bradshaw who was the minister in charge of the work on the new Animal Welfare bill at the time
> It is worth pointing out that the bit that says
> although the live feeding of vertebrate prey should be discouraged and avoided apart from in exceptional circumstances and then preferably only under veterinary advise
> is not actually a legal requirement and is purely how DEFRA currently would prefer things to take place. This interestingly may be the way that any future secondary legislation may be worded, in which case this may become future law.


The animal welfare act 2006 superceeds those outdated pieces of legislation you refer too. A prosecution would be made under the new law. This has already been pointed out by a policeman in this very thread!


----------



## Natrix

Mynki said:


> The animal welfare act 2006 superceeds those outdated pieces of legislation you refer too. A prosecution would be made under the new law. This has already been pointed out by a policeman in this very thread!


That is incorrect and the policeman needs to go back and check his facts.

The new Act is an amalgamation of many seperate pieces of existing (old) legislation, some re-worded old legislation and some new legislation, all brought together under one new heading "The animal welfare act 2006". 

As Chris and myself have both now pointed out DEFRA were very careful not to change any laws relating to live feeding in any of the new legislation and they made it very clear to all stake holder groups involved that they considered live feeding had always been legal. (please remember that the FBH was present at these meetings and heard it first hand)

I have now read the 15 pages of discusion on PFK and can tell you that despite his best efforts, their reporter is simply wrong. He is trying to prove live feeding is illegal by taking assorted bits of legislation, glueing them together and making them fit his requirements. Sorry but that's not how the law works and is the reason that APA keep loosing in the courts. The legislation relating to private keepers is set out by DEFRA not the Home Office and DEFRA keep saying it is legal. Any law enforcement group that tried to take a case to court purely on live feeding would loose because of DEFRA's position on this, hense none of them have or will try.

He also makes great issue of Paul at the LSTM (sorry my brain didn't twig who you was talking about last night) having an excemption from prosecution from the Home Office. This would have no baring on the legislation we are talking about. The Liverpool School of tropical Medicine is a proffesional laboratory and would come under Home Office regulations (Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986) as well as DEFRA's legislation. Due to Animal Rights activity everything done by some where like the LSTM is controlled by the home office and Paul would indeed need clearance from the Home Office to proceed with live feeding. As a proffesional he would also need clearance and a licence to kill live mice himself but none of these regulations relate to private keepers, they are purely to protect and control what goes on in proffesional laboratorys and this is made clear many times as you read through the various sections (and I have read through them).

Despite claims by lots of people about this being a grey area it simply is not. DEFRA have made it very clear that live feeding is legal and that nothing in the older legislation or the new legislation makes any difference to this. 

At some point hopefully, DEFRA will set out a code of practice on this. This will act as a piece of enabling legislation that will end all these debates but until then my bet is that these debates will continue.

Gordon Glasson
FBH VC


----------



## Natrix

*I would suspect that Paul doesn't have an excemption from prosecution. What he has is a Home Office Licence to practice live feeding. This would count as a Procedure and would need a licence. Without it Paul would be in trouble from a proffesional point of view. None of this legislation would apply to private hobbiests.*

*Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986*

The use of animals in scientific procedures is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which requires a three-level licensing system - personal licence, project licence and certificate of designation.
*Granting licences*

Under the 1986 Act, project licences are only granted for specified permissible purposes:

where there are no non-animal alternatives
when the benefits expected from the programmes of work are judged to outweigh the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned 
the number of animals used and their suffering must also be minimised


----------



## Mynki

Thanks for taking the time to read that. I know you'll have a much better understanding of my thoughts now.

Feel free to write to Jeremy Gay and Nathan Hill at PFK pointing this out. I'd be happy if you did! Their magazine article contradicts what you're saying as you'll have now seen.


----------



## Chris Newman

This is a debate that regularly surfaces and it is a complex and emotive issue. However, the facts are this, *it is not nor has it ever been illegal to feed a live vertebrate animals to another* - that is the end of the strictly legal argument. Under the Animal Welfare Act it was proposed to make such an act unlawful but is was dropped from the legislation. 

The Animal Welfare Act bestows protection to all vertebrate animals equally, except man. So it is correct that a snakes is as protected as the mouse [can we please stop using the word ‘rights’ animals do not have rights under law they are protected]. 

If I feed that mouse to the snake I could be prosecuted under Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act, Unnecessary Suffering. The operative word is unnecessary. Therefore if it was necessary to feed the snake a live mouse because it would otherwise not feed then the suffering, if indeed the mouse did suffer, was necessary, therfoure you have not committed an offence. 

There has been at least one prosecution under the old 1911 Act which has now been superseded by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, under which to the very best of my knowledge there has been no prosecutions.

To sum this up if you feed a live mouse to a snake for no legitimate reason then you are exposed to being prosecuted. If on the other hand you feeding a live mouse to a snake that will not accept dead then you have a robust defense to any change. Ultimately it is for a Court to decide, and each case would be tested on its merits.


----------



## Natrix

I was just working on something else and was going through the RSPCA 2010 Policy document when I noticed this

_-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_

_ 5.2.2 The RSPCA is opposed to the feeding of live vertebrate prey to captive animals._​ 
_Leading zoo collections no longer regard the practice of live feeding as a necessity and __many specialist texts recommend the feeding of dead prey. _
_The feeding of live prey *may* __be viewed as illegal under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006._​

_Apart from the distress caused to live prey the predator itself can be damaged in the __process of catching and ingesting the prey._
​​*--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​ 
As already discussed in other posts above, DEFRA have made it quiet clear to all groups involved (including the RSPCA) that live feeding has never been illegal in the past and nothing in the new bill has changed that. ​

It has also been mentioned that there* MAY* be situations such as live feeding for entertainmant purposes were live feeding *MAY* be considered illegal. With all that in mind it is interesting that the opening statement (heading) in the RSPCA policy document states that they are opposed to it not that it is illegal. In other parts of the policy they clearly state when something is illegal.​

I know it's reading between the lines and the statement has been worded very carefully but the one thing they haven't said is that basic live feeding is illegal and even they can't start dragging people through the courts just becuase they don't like something.​ 
Gordon Glasson
FBH VC​


----------



## henry415

The RSPCA are a bunch of fools. In essence they are opposed to all forms of animal ownership.

It used to be a good organisation, but today it's been infiltrated by the weirdo animal rights movement and they seem to be steering the ship.:whistling2:
Shame they cant spend more time caring for animals and less time sticking their noses in where it isnt wanted. How many thousands of healthy dogs are PTS every year because they cant afford to keep them>?:bash:


----------

