# RSPCA – Memorandum of Understanding



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

I am uncertain if this information has been place in the public domain in its entirety before. Whilst the RSPCA will be displeased I think it is time this was made public and people are aware of the facts. In 2004 at the height of its political campaign to restrict/prohibit private ownership of reptiles, and at the height of its persecution of reptile keepers by means of private prosecutions we were working behind the scenes with the RSPCA to try and find solutions. 

At one meeting a very senior member of the RSPCA accepted some of our criticisms, and suggest that the RSPCA enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with reptile keepers to improve reptilian welfare. The RSPCA proposed this memorandum and there legal department drafted the document (below). However, the RSPCA Ruling Council refused to allow the RSPCA Inspectorate to sign up to this document, despite the overwhelming majority of the Inspectorate wishing to do so! Why, well here is the text of the letter:

_The RSPCA Council met on 25th January _(2005)_ and decided that the RSPCA should not enter into the Memorandum of Understanding with the Federation of British Herpetologists, International Herpetological Society, British Herpetological Society and the UK Reptile Trade Association_. 

No other reason was given, so we can only draw our own conclusions. My own conclusion is the RSPCA Ruling Council did not want the RSPCA to sign up to this as they did not wish to any improvement in reptilian welfare as it would be detrimental to there objective of seeing a total ban on private ownership of reptiles, just as they are do today in terms of private ownership of primates. Perhaps others have a different interpretation, if so I would be very interested to hear!




*Memorandum of Understanding*


This is a memorandum of understanding between the Federation of British Herpetologists, the International Herpetological Society, The British Herpetological Society, the UK Reptile Trade Association and the RSPCA Inspectorate.

*AIMS*

The aim of the document is to outline a constructive relationship between us all, which reflects our mutual desire to work together to improve the welfare of reptiles in England and Wales.

1:1 The number of reptiles owned as pets in England and Wales continues to rise.

1:2 Due in part to the diverse and specialist nature of some reptiles, RSPCA Inspectors are increasingly facing challenges which they are not fully equipped to deal with.

1:3 There is a clear need and opportunity for us to co-operate to improve the:

A. Rehabilitation of sick reptiles
B. Re-homing of species specific reptiles to knowledgeable keepers
C. Boarding of reptiles in appropriate environments with knowledgeable keepers
D. Dispensing of appropriate advice and information to the public, especially at the point of sale.
E. Development of a robust register of independent expert witnesses who are prepared to appear for both defence and prosecution sides without bias.

*Initiatives*


*2:1 Telephone Advisors*

Working together we will develop and co-ordinate a national list of experienced reptile keepers who are capable and prepared to give species specific telephone advice to members of the public, when referred to them by an RSPCA Inspector.

*2:2 Carers and Re-homers*

We will develop a national network of individuals who are capable and equipped to receive healthy stray or unwanted reptiles from Inspectors and Animal Collection Officers, for the purpose of re-homing. When re-homing animals we will exploit the existing network of people within the wider reptile community. No animal will re-enter the retail trade or be sold for profit. The RSPCA will not fund this activity other than exceptionally. The RSPCA will enter into a formal agreement with each establishment.

*2:3 Boarding and Rehabilitation*

We will work together to develop a national network of expert keepers who, with appropriate veterinary assistance, will receive unwell animals from Inspectors, including those animals subject to pending prosecutions. The RSPCA will fund this activity at an agreed daily rate. Veterinary costs will be covered. The RSPCA will enter into a formal agreement with each establishment.

*2:4 Expert Witnesses*

We will aim to develop a national register of qualified experts in the field of herpetology, who are prepared to offer their independent opinion in court. These experts must be prepared to appear for both sides, embracing the true and independent nature of an expert witness. It is desirable to have experts available to cover both the clinical and husbandry aspects of herpetology. Whilst it is accepted that qualified veterinary surgeons who posses significant reptile experience are most desirable, it is acknowledged, due to the nature of the hobby, that experts may become established based on experience and therefore without formal qualification.

*2:4 Public Information*

We will work together to improve the information available to the public at the point of sale. In accord with the recommendations outlined in the proposed Animal Welfare Bill we will develop species specific care sheets which describe the minimum care and equipment requirements for each animal. We will seek industry sponsorship for this activity.

Signed for and on behalf of:


*Federation of British Herpetologists*


*International Herpetological Society*


*The British Herpetological Society*


*UK Reptile Trade Association*


*RSPCA*


----------



## htf666 (Jun 23, 2007)

How can an organisation that is set up to prevent animal cruelty not take on the memorandum of understanding which would do so much good for both sides.The only possible answer is that politically they want to keep the antagonism between themselves and reptile keepers going.As their decisions are getting so far away from animal welfare I would suggest a campaign directed to the charities comission to question these dubious decisions and ask that their status as a charity be looked at. Harry


----------



## Scott W (May 19, 2007)

lol....I remember this Chris when Mr Wass was at all the meetings. I'm suprised you have never posted this earlier.


So has Tim moved up the ranks now?

It's very telling to see the Ruling Councils response to what was drafted by their own team. I completely agree with your thoughts on why they would not sign to it.

Still, I think it's for the better as it demostrates quite clearly what their long term objective is....and that's NOT to help pet reptiles.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Scott W said:


> lol....I remember this Chris when Mr Wass was at all the meetings. I'm suprised you have never posted this earlier.
> 
> 
> So has Tim moved up the ranks now?
> ...


Well, I haven’t posted this in its entirety before because foolishly I had hoped the RSPCA would reconsider and implement this document, which would have been instrumental in improving welfare for reptiles. What has prompted me to post now is the support shown for the RSPCA from a couple of police officer. I was quite shocked at there views that we (keepers) were the ones being unreasonable!

As for Tim, well as of the 5th March he is now head of the Inspectorate. I have a lot of time for Tim, but sadly I suspect nothing will change. The Ruling Council are responsible for the direction of the RSPCA and I simply cannot see the Animal Rights agenda replacing a ‘welfare’ agenda in the foreseeable future…..


----------



## pam b (Mar 3, 2005)

htf666 said:


> How can an organisation that is set up to prevent animal cruelty not take on the memorandum of understanding which would do so much good for both sides.The only possible answer is that politically they want to keep the antagonism between themselves and reptile keepers going.As their decisions are getting so far away from animal welfare I would suggest a campaign directed to the charities comission to question these dubious decisions and ask that their status as a charity be looked at. Harry


I've said this for years Harry, never have been able to understand why someone hasnt yet!!!


----------



## pam b (Mar 3, 2005)

Rory, what is your opinion on the Memorandum of Understanding?
You seem to be political the same as Chris is, i just wondered what your take on it was?


----------



## slither61 (Nov 18, 2006)

htf666 said:


> How can an organisation that is set up to prevent animal cruelty not take on the memorandum of understanding which would do so much good for both sides.The only possible answer is that politically they want to keep the antagonism between themselves and reptile keepers going.As their decisions are getting so far away from animal welfare I would suggest a campaign directed to the charities comission to question these dubious decisions and ask that their status as a charity be looked at. Harry


Hi all,

If the above is true, then the RSPCA are political and should not have charitable status.

I feel sorry for the many people in the RSPCA that do a good job and are beign waisted by a few in power with political motives

I belive an investigation into the RSPCA has just beign stopped.

I wonder if Chris knows anything about this investigation.

slither61 :snake::snake::snake::snake:


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

pam b said:


> Rory, what is your opinion on the Memorandum of Understanding?
> You seem to be political the same as Chris is, i just wondered what your take on it was?


Hi Pam, 

Yes, l too am fully aware of the M.O.U, and all that it implicates.

It shows the RSPCA in bad light, there is no denying it.

My recent thread, just simply requires people to explore further and ask questions in a deeper mode.

But my take on this as you so say, is the same as those who read it here.

R


----------



## Fangio (Jun 2, 2007)

Was there any formal response detailing why they wouldn't accept this? If there's some written response I'd love to see it!

They shot themselves in the foot big style not accepting this offer of help IMO.


----------



## Cyberlizard (Apr 1, 2008)

The RSPCA could of course try to help themselves by "stating their reasons for the answer given", as they used to say in school essays..... :lol2:


----------



## bronzeyis200 (Jan 25, 2008)

Cyberlizard said:


> The RSPCA could of course try to help themselves by "stating their reasons for the answer given", as they used to say in school essays..... :lol2:


 
I agree, they could get "extra marks" for showing their working out!!:lol2:


----------



## Cyberlizard (Apr 1, 2008)

Yeah, I'm sure we'd all like to see how they "arrived at the answer"! :lol2:


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Cyberlizard said:


> Yeah, I'm sure we'd all like to see how they "arrived at the answer"! :lol2:


 
Here is the letter in its entirity:

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

28 January 2005



Dear Mr Newman,

The RSPCA Council met on 25th January and decided that the RSPCA
Should not enter into the Memorandum of Understanding with the Federation of British Herpetologists, International Herpetological Society, British Herpetological Society and the UK Reptile Trade Association. 

However, we still believe that there could be practical animal welfare benefits if we continue to meet and discuss the various relevant issues identified and hope the meeting on Friday can go ahead.

Yours sincerely



John Rolls
Director of Animal Welfare Promotion


----------



## htf666 (Jun 23, 2007)

This bunch of animal rights plonkers should be forced to explain why they do not want to improve the welfare of captive reptiles.A disgraceful decision most likely due to political reasoning which is in conflict with their charitable status.Harry


----------



## Issa (Oct 13, 2006)

Did they ever state an "unofficial" reason why not? And did the groups attempt to contact the RSPCA individually? Only reason I ask is that if they are as beuracratic as most corporations 1 problem with 1 group would have probably been enough to reject the lot.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

The only explanation give was that above. In terms of problems with any of the other organisations involved, the answer is no. Whilst it’s true to say the IHS was uncomfortable with this, ALL the originations backed me with this initiative. The rejection was purely down to the Ruling Council, the RSPCA Inspectorate voted overwhelmingly in favour of signing the MoU.


----------



## Cyberlizard (Apr 1, 2008)

Chris, could you remind us again what proportion of the Ruling Council have also signed up for membership of Animal Aid?


----------



## Storm Python (Jan 10, 2008)

Cyberlizard said:


> Chris, could you remind us again what proportion of the Ruling Council have also signed up for membership of Animal Aid?


*Id like to know this also.*
*Further more Chris could you or Rory clarify what the ban is likely to involve as ive been told by my local councilor its a total ban. *
*I.e no keeping at all.*
*Then was told by an rspca animal collector at an rspca rescue centre that were going to be allowed to keep the reptiles we have but not buy anymore.*
*Also there is a petition on the pro keeper lobby about the ban which I've signed & in hindsight now come to realise that everyone who's signed that petition has given the ''powers that be'' our addresses.*
*So they now have a list of reptile/exotic keepers.*


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Cyberlizard said:


> Chris, could you remind us again what proportion of the Ruling Council have also signed up for membership of Animal Aid?


Taken from the Minutes of a meeting held on the 4th January 2005. 

*Mr Newman* asked for confirmation, if at all possible, that 18 members of Council were members of Animal Aid. There was, he said, much circumstantial evidence that the RSPCA was following their direction.

*John Rolls* pointed out that the trustees are there to represent the Society alone; that they had made a strategic decision. Whether trustees were also members of Animal Aid did not affect their membership of the RSPCA.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

StormTrooper said:


> *Id like to know this also.*
> *Further more Chris could you or Rory clarify what the ban is likely to involve as ive been told by my local councilor its a total ban. *
> *I.e no keeping at all.*
> *Then was told by an rspca animal collector at an rspca rescue centre that were going to be allowed to keep the reptiles we have but not buy anymore.*
> ...


 
Hi Storm, 

Your post is the most intriguing one here.

First off , to the signing of petitions.

All informations processed to this government site are covered by the data protection act, and as such are not to be passed onto other bodies. When you sign these petitions you are showing your support to that particular petition - and to them [eyes that view] you are a legal signature. They do not know if you keep animals or if you are just supporting the argument.

Looking at the talk of a ban:

If we look at petition one:

Captive care keepers in the United Kingdom believe that they have the right to maintain exotic animal species within their collections. Many oppose the keeping of animals, many more oppose the keeping of exotic species, be these, mammal, primate, avian, reptile, aquatic or invertebrate.

With increased legislation under the new animal welfare act such as codes of practice, enforcement, education, regulation, communication and awareness there should be no genuine reasons for the government to encourage the opposition to continue their campaigns to cease this. 
Responsible ownership and husbandry, promotion of both keepers and animals rights also feature very heavily upon the minds of those that do keep animals privately. All keepers therefore call for support from the government rather than condemnation.

This is asking for the government to support all keepers of animals, with the predominance on exotic keepers. We are basically saying that under the new legislation with improved husbandry and supportive legislation, there is no need to prevent keepers from maintaining exotics by supporting the calls for a ban from the opposition.

Whilst the second petition is in fact for primates specifically:

Responsible private keepers are calling for the introduction of the code of practice for primates.

Genuine primate keepers in the United Kingdom believe that they have the right to maintain this beautiful species within exotic collections. 

Private keepers believe that if a code of practice is introduced for primate keeping, then there should be no reason why responsible keepers of this species can not maintain them. For far too long, primate keepers have been under the scrutiny of those that oppose the keeping of exotics. If there is a strict code of practice in place under the new animal welfare act, then this will – we believe bode well for private keepers and show to those whom do oppose, and are calling for a ban on the keeping of primates in private hands, that exotics keepers can keep and maintain this species not only well, but extremely well.

This petition focuses on the fact that this is a group of animals -primates- that is under fire from the opposition, this group is a group that they do want to see prohibited from keeping by private keepers. So an outright ban on private ownership is something they seek, and yes there are raised petitions by the opposition currently running which end in 2009 to see this happen.

What l do find interesting is that your local councillor pays heed to a total ban, yet the RSPCA make reference to a ban on future buying?

These two statements alone l find more than slightly disturbing, for there is nothing specifically definitive and set in foundation as of yet, but we have two views of difference. This shows how some councillors are thinking and also to boot how the RSPCA are thinking in certain ways. I can answer no more differently than l have done at present.

Bans are something they are looking at, but nothing is set in concrete as of yet.

R


----------



## Cyberlizard (Apr 1, 2008)

Going back to the Animal Aid link, Chris, would it be fair in your opinion to say that Mr Rolls completely evaded the question?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Cyberlizard said:


> Going back to the Animal Aid link, Chris, would it be fair in your opinion to say that Mr Rolls completely evaded the question?


I took from the meeting he simply did not deny that 18 out of the 25 members of the RSPCA Ruling Council, rather that it didn’t mater that they were! I had anticipated a firm denial. So one assumes that the RSPCA are entirely comfortable with being associated with Animal Aid, and they share the same objectives.


----------



## Storm Python (Jan 10, 2008)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> Hi Storm,
> 
> Your post is the most intriguing one here.
> 
> ...


*Thanks for clarifying this Rory.*
*My local councilor has informed me that she is of the understanding that councils are going to have the deciding decision as to allowing & enforcing the keeping of exotics. *
*Kind of on the same way the DWA issued.*
*Steve*


----------



## Cyberlizard (Apr 1, 2008)

If that is true then that is most alarming. 

If you live in a borough that is a safe seat for one party, and that party happens to be fielding delegates who are fellow travellers with the ARs, then you may find it impossible to keep exotics.

This situation is not unknown in the US where laws are made locally and thus the situation can vary state by state or even city by city. Herpers in New York have had a difficult time recently. 

I suppose some will say that half a glass is better than an empty glass (ie a complete nationwide ban), but firstly, who can afford to move house for the sake of their animals, and secondly and more importantly, why should we have to put up with self-appointed ideologues telling us we have no right to follow a law-abiding and constructive hobby?


----------

