# Shows - Déjà vu [2003]



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*THE BIO VETERINARY GROUP.*

Integrated biological, veterinary and behavioural consultancy in association with the Roundwood veterinary centre, 
176a, Church Road, 
Willesden,
London NW10 9NP, tel: 08700801937.
website: www.bioveterinarygroup.org. 
Email: [email protected].

Consultations, Professional training, Research, Surveys, Reports, Scientific opinions, Media statements, Editorial, Legal, Expert witness statements, Animal health, Public health, Animal behaviour, Captive animal issues, Animal welfare, Wildlife biology, Environmental conservation, Biological conservation, Epidemiology, Alternative treatments.


*Commentary*​


*For circulation only within Animal Aid and within Winchester City Council and Wickham Parish Council.*​


RE: PROPOSED “SALE OF CAPTIVE-BRED ANIMALS” WICKHAM COMMUNITY CENTRE, MILL LANE.​

At the request of Animal Aid, we are required to consider matters related to the above proposed event and to advise on both the legitimacy or otherwise and the appropriateness or otherwise of the event in question. Key issues are: public health and safety, animal welfare, and legality. We can confirm that The Bio Veterinary Group’s Partners, Associates and affiliates possess substantial qualified and experienced backgrounds salient to the above, and indeed comprise national inspectorate and expert witness duties concerning the enforcement of the Pet Animals Act. Members of the Bio Veterinary Group have also attended many “reptile shows/sales”. Videotaped evidence of the event that preceded the proposed event has also been viewed, and written accounts examined. This commentary is, by instruction, concise because we have been requested to provide this material at short notice. A fuller report can be prepared subject to further instruction. In consideration of these various matters, we offer the following professional views as guidance to Animal Aid and to Winchester City Council and Wickham Parish Council.

_Animal welfare._

It is our firm view that material conditions and ‘husbandry’ practises and reptile shows (generically) and in the example of the previous Wickham event specifically fall well below acceptable standards of animal welfare. As specialists in the assessment of reptile welfare through observable behavioural measures, we are confident that substantial confinement and other management stress occur in animals at reptile shows generally and the Wickham event specifically. Recognising and interpreting complex behavioural signs is neither the qualified domain of the local authority inspector nor the domain of almost all veterinarians. It is our firm view that should animals be present at the Wickham event then insurmountable welfare problems and consequential suffering would result. Furthermore, events that involve the selling of reptiles and other ‘exotics’ incur considerably greater potential and unacceptable animal stress than those where no animals exchange hands. Unlike conventional petshops (although there are many problems with these) reptiles sold at ‘shows’ and ‘market sales’ do not ‘benefit’ from limited environmental settlement – ie animals at shows are unable to physiologically stabilise before being passed on or re-handled, re-transported and so on. Such factors impose unacceptable stress on animals with biologically low adaptive thresholds in artificial and restrictive captive environments. 

_Public health and safety._

There is absolutely no doubt that reptiles present a significant and major threat to public health and safety. There are now volumes of data that demonstrate that reptiles are a disproportionate threat to public health especially, but not exclusively, through exotic salmonella serotype infections (leading to salmonellosis). Despite growing public health information in this regard, reptile-related salmonellosis continues to occur more frequently and with (at least on two recent occasions in the UK) fatal consequences. In addition, educators (including some formal sources) frequently mis-state preventative protocols and consequently mislead the public into practising deficient hygiene methods. This is an issue that we have also worked on and have published information in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. As we noted in the above major medical paper, reptile shows and market sales are a particularly hazardous source of salmonella due to the manner in which the animals, cages, and stallholders interact – all of which are potential sources of incidental transmission and infection. Measures such as hand washing alone, the provision of disinfectant ‘wipes’ and so on are not sufficient safeguards against zoonotic infection. 

_Legal_

While there are clearly potential legal issues of local authority/corporate culpability should any visitor to this reptile show/sale or subsequently to the venue become sick or die, violations of the Pet Animals Act (1951/1983) (P.A.A.) are also probable should any sale of an animal take place. The broad legal view (including specialist legal counsel opinion) of experienced lawyers, local authorities, enforcement groups and governmental associations is that reptile shows are unlicensable under section two of the 1983 amendment of the Pet Animals Act, which prohibits the sale of pets in the market place or at a stall or barrow (or any public place)/ The commercial selling without a licence of pets is also unlawful and thus sales such as that proposed for Wickham cannot lawfully take place under any circumstances. It is also our experience, and this is also supported by several professional colleagues, that stallholders at reptile shows and sales routinely misrepresent their actual status as commercial animal dealers by misinforming local authorities that they are merely exercising a hobby, or that their stocks are captive-bred when in fact very many (90 – 95%) are wild caught. 

_Conclusion_

Having considered key points related to the proposed reptile sale it is our firm view that such an event would present a potentially serious public health matter, involve unacceptable levels of stress in animals, and may lead to contraventions of the law. It is extremely unlikely that adequate measures would be available to avoid the problems outlined above. 

Clifford Warwick M.I.Biol.I.,EurProBiol.,F.R.S.H.,C.Biol.,F.I.Biol. Partner
Catrina Steedman, B.Sc.(Hons.),G.I.Biol Associate
Philip Arena B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D Associate
14thApril 2003


*Partners*


Trevor N Duckham BSc BVSc MRCVS GIBiol * Clifford Warwick MIBiol EurProBiol CBiolFIBiol


*Associates*


Philip C Arena BSc(Hons) PhD * Susan Corning BA MSc BVSc MRCVS


Greg Glendell BSc(Hons) * Angelo J L Lambris NHED MSc PhD CBiol MIBiol


Samantha Scott BVSc MRCVS * Catrina Steedman BSc(Hons) GIBiol​


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Reptile Fare, Wickham Community Centre, Sunday 4 May 2003*
[Internal Council briefing]

Members will be aware from various recent communications from “Animal Aid” that Wickham Community Centre has again been booked for the purpose of holding a “reptile fair” on Sunday 4 May 2003. Animal Aid are seeking action from the Council to prevent the event from taking place.

When a similar event was held in October 2002 officers visited the fair whilst it was underway with the aim of gathering evidence to consider prosecution proceedings under the Pet Animals Act 1951. One of the EH officers carried out covert surveillance for which he had Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act authorisation. As part of this action he was obliged to join the Portsmouth Reptile and Amphibian Society (PRAS) before he was allowed entry. Our observations were that the majority of stallholders were hobbyists and were keen to talk about their animals and their care. Our undercover officer tried to buy from one of the stallholders who appeared to be in business but the stallholder refused. It was noted too that all the stallholders used anti bactericidal handwash or handwipes after handling their stock.

*The legislation*

There are mixed opinions on the law which applies to these sorts of events. The Pet Animals Act 1951, as amended by the Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Act 1983, sets out some controls but there are arguments as to the extent to which these controls apply to the sort of event which is planned to take place. In deciding on the most appropriate course of action I have examined the various opinions and guidance from various sources including the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

In essence, the 1951 Act requires anyone keeping a pet shop (i.e. carrying on a business from premises (including dwelling houses) selling animals as pets) to have a licence. Section 2 of the Act prohibits anyone carrying out 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.

When faced with these fairs, some Councils have granted a licence in respect of the premises where the fair is being held, as a “pet shop”. In one case (Teignbridge), the Court held that the Council had no power to grant such a licence in similar circumstances. The CIEH consider that this is a correct view of the law.

Other opinions differ. One opinion which has been passed (from the legal director of the RSPCA) suggests that a licence is required (although it then goes on to suggest that a council could not lawfully grant it). In this particular case, this aspect is not at issue at present, as no licence has been applied for. If the event took place and should have a licence, the person keeping the premises could be prosecuted.

The Council could seek an injunction to prevent the event happening, if it could persuade the court that the event would be unlawful, and that the criminal penalties would be unlikely to deter the event from taking place. Given the limited evidence, and the conflict of opinions, I would not recommend that the Council take such action at this stage.

The CIEH seems to take the view that pet shops should be in premises where the carrying on of the business should be carried out on a regular basis, rather than a temporary one. This would certainly accord with the apparent thrust of the legislation, and the provision of Section 2, which rules out any sales in certain “transitory” situations, i.e. markets and public places. It seems to me that the most likely basis for action by the Council in this case would be under these provisions.

In order for a successful prosecution to be brought under Section 2, it would have to be shown that:-


the defendant was carrying on a business of selling animals as pets:
this activity was taking place in a (street or) public place, or a stall or barrow in a market.
These fairs are typically organised so that entry is restricted to members only, and membership costs more than a token subscription. In this way, organisers claim that the event is not taking place in a public place (because it is effectively private). In the Acid House cases in the early 1990s, the Courts held that an event where the status of people attending the event did not change from being members of the public simply because they joined a club set up to avoid the rules on public entertainment. It may well be possible to argue that unless the membership scheme is a genuine one (and not simply a device) the venue would still be a public place, and therefore one part of the second element of the offence would be met.

A better argument may well be that the event is de facto a market, regardless of how entry is achieved, given the purpose of the “meeting” and the layout of stalls, etc. If this is the case, the second element would be fulfilled.

The most difficult part to prove is the carrying on of a business. The organisers argue that “members” are a group of like-minded individuals pursuing a legitimate hobby. If this is truly the case, the event is perfectly lawful (at least so far as the Pet Animals Acts are concerned), as no business is being carried on. However, there is anecdotal evidence (in terms of the people attending these events, the way animals are sold, the values of the transactions and the rules applicable for the events etc), which suggests that in many cases, attendees are carrying on a business. A successful prosecution would require as much evidence as possible, but I do not consider that at this stage, we can say with any certainty that this particular event will be unlawful.

Obviously it is a matter for management of each venue to decide on whether to take bookings for such events, but following last year’s event I wrote to all the Parish and Community Halls in the District alerting them to these type of fairs and the problems that can arise.

*Health Issues*

Animal Aid make various claims with regard to the Health issues associated with Reptile fairs. I have consulted Dr Richard Gabb, SCMO (Communicable Disease Control) who states *“from a public health point of view I can find no reason to deny it – provided simple precautions of washing hands after handling of reptiles is taken and that the Hall is cleaned thoroughly after use.* After last years event there was *no evidence *of transmission as shown by a rise in the salmonella rate. Salmonellae excreted by snakes are usually restricted to one particular type, there was certainly no rise in that type nationally after this fair. Basically clean just as you would do after a dog or cat show in the Hall. There’s little difference you can get salmonella from a dog or cat, basic good hygiene is all that’s required”.

I trust clarifies the position regarding this event. If the event proceeds then covert surveillance will take place and for obvious reasons this should be kept confidential at this stage.

If you need any information please contact me or Tony Waitt.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*High Court action to save reptile fair*
by Clare Kennedy Southern Daily Eco
_Date Published: Wednesday 23 April 2003_

REPTILE enthusiasts will apply to the High Court today to hold a fair of snakes, lizards and other animals in Wickham.

The action comes after Wickham Community Association confirmed it would not let the May 4 show go ahead after pressure from animal rights campaigners

Chairman David Jones said he felt he had been "cajoled" by Animal Aid into cancelling the fair but that he had no other option.

He said the safety of people using the centre was paramount and any risk identified by Animal Aid of reptiles carrying the salmonella bacteria had to be taken seriously. 

"We cannot prove that Animal Aid is correct or incorrect," he said. "But they are prepared to take direct action and the association feels that if Animal Aid carries out its threat to leaflet every home in Wickham, our association will be slurred."

Animal Aid has branded the treatment of the reptiles as "cruel" and the show a risk to public health. The group sent an undercover investigator to a reptile fair at the centre in October and claimed that reptiles were being illegally sold.

Spokesman Elaine Toland said: "The animal's welfare is always compromised. You see lizards and snakes in margarine tubs with inadequate space, ventilation and temperature control."

One of the fair's organisers, Chris Newman, chairman of The Federation of British Herpetologists, vigorously denied Animal Aid's claims. He said: "These are perfectly lawful events.

"They have attempted to cause public panic with unfounded and untrue claims about the dangers reptiles pose to the public. Reptiles pose significantly less danger to human health than more familiar animals and the food we eat." 

He said he had no other option now but to get a court injunction forcing the community association to honour its contract.

Martin Eustace, a member of the Portsmouth Reptile and Amphibian Society, said he was disappointed that the future of the show looked in doubt. 

Winchester City Council sent an environmental health officer undercover to the last fair who found no cause for concern about the treatment of the reptiles. 
The officer also tried to buy reptiles but was unsuccessful. He pointed out the show did not breach the 1951 Pet Animals Act banning breeders from selling animals on at such events. 

The undercover officer also found all stallholders used anti-bacteria hand-wash or handwipes after handling their stock.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*Reptile Fair wins right to go ahead*
by Clare Kennedy Southern Daily Eco
_Date Published: Wednesday 30 April 2003_

A controversial reptile fair in Wickham is to go ahead after a change of mind over the venue.

Last week Wickham Community Association announced it would not let next Sunday’s fair go ahead following pressure from animal rights campaigners.

Animal Aid claimed the event would pose a threat to health because some reptiles may carry the salmonella bacterium.

They also labelled the treatment of reptiles at the show as cruel.

But solicitors acting on behalf of The Federation of British Herpetologists insisted the Mill lane venue could not be cancelled at the last minute.

In a letter to the Community Association they threatened to apply to the High Court for an injunction forcing the centre to honour its contract with them. 

Now Wickham Community Association has agreed that the show can go ahead.

Chris Newman, FBH Chairman, said he was delighted reptile enthusiasts belonging to the Portsmouth Reptile and Amphibian Society could now stage the show.

“I am absolutely delighted the show is going ahead but it is a hollow victory and leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

“We did not want to take this action against the Community Association which is an innocent party. 

“They felt forced to cancel the event because of the pressure put on them by Animal Aid.

“It was wrong to cancel this event when it is perfectly legal.”

One of the organisers, Martin Eustace, of Bishop’s Waltham, said: “We are expecting around 300 people throughout the day. It is very beneficial for reptile keepers to meet each other and share information…”

Animal Aid spokeswoman Elaine Toland said: “For the past few days we have been trying to chase the fair up, thinking it might have gone underground. 

We are very disappointed the Community Centre has given in.”

The last time the organisers held a fair at the centre in October, Winchester City Council sent an environmental health officer to carry out undercover investigation.

He found no cause for concern about the treatment of the animals or any illegal trading going on.

Wickham Community Association Chairman David Jones declined to comment.


----------



## LiamRatSnake (Jul 3, 2007)

Fascinated. If I read it right the council behaved very fairly in this situation.


----------



## Lil_nightmare (Feb 26, 2011)

This was most illuminating, many thanks


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chris

I'm a very keen aquarist and have been a member of an aquatic society that holds numerous meetings were the sale of fish and auctions take place.

These are club events, but the public can join on the day. Are OATA and the FBAS aware of the challenges you are facing?. We never had issues with antis. 

P.S after your very rude comments about fish keepers at the convention, be advised I may slap you around the chops with a wet kipper at the next one! :lol2:


----------



## Pete Q (Dec 4, 2007)

I remember all this, but it goes to show they won't give it up, this has been a long and on going battle.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Mynki said:


> Chris
> 
> I'm a very keen aquarist and have been a member of an aquatic society that holds numerous meetings were the sale of fish and auctions take place.
> 
> ...


Outrageous, suggesting that I would be rude to fish keepers, or anyone come to that:gasp:

I work closely with OATA and FBAS, they are aware of the issues


----------



## Mynki (Mar 24, 2010)

Chris Newman said:


> Outrageous, suggesting that I would be rude to fish keepers, or anyone come to that:gasp:
> 
> I work closely with OATA and FBAS, they are aware of the issues


To be fair the club I used to be a member of, SVAS did hold a guppy league event once upon a time. I did know where you were coming from on the judging front......

Somebody very close to me works for one of the largest importers of ornamental fish in the UK. A company I worked for once upon a time. They also sell a very limited number of reptiles and amphibians on a wholesale basis. They have a contract to sell fish through a well known major UK retailer in the north and this family run business which has been operating for decades has very close links with OATA and OFI.

Yet their staff are completely unaware of the threats made to the industry by antis. Despite considering selling more reptiles in the future, they have no idea about the problems of invasive species and legislation which may prevent their sale in the future. I know as spoke to them today (I'm a customer of theirs too). 

Sorry to be negative, but bearing in mind how closely intertwined the aquatics and reptile industry are, it goes to show that the pet industry in general needs a massive boot up the backside. 

I appreciate this is all anecdotal evidence, but it seems like OATA could do more to raise awareness.


----------



## Geomyda (Aug 11, 2008)

Mynki said:


> To be fair the club I used to be a member of, SVAS did hold a guppy league event once upon a time. I did know where you were coming from on the judging front......
> 
> Somebody very close to me works for one of the largest importers of ornamental fish in the UK. A company I worked for once upon a time. They also sell a very limited number of reptiles and amphibians on a wholesale basis. They have a contract to sell fish through a well known major UK retailer in the north and this family run business which has been operating for decades has very close links with OATA and OFI.
> 
> ...


I too, have been frustrated by the attitudes in OATA. It is their members, whom are largely responsible for the mass import of hatchling "green terrapins", and it is these that represent one of the greatest areas of criticism, due to unregulated trade. The issues surrounding these, with the attendant problems of re homing and release into the wild are very well documented and to their credit the wholesale Reptile importers have curtailed the number that they supply. However, the Aquatic pet trade at times still seem oblivious to the problems and piles of newly hatched " green terrapins" are still frequently displayed and sold as mere "pocket money" pets.
This is contrary to the responsible attitude many retailers have taken to the "tank busting" fish species.
In broad terms, I am very happy with progress made by the reptile trade in recent years, as the hobby continues to grow in popularity, the species selection, quality of advice and improved knowledge from the retailers can be commended.
indeed, only yesterday I saw a London Bus in Kingston, with a huge display add covering its entire side advertising a recent addition to the retail offering for the hobby. A new and very impressive reptile shop in Surbiton; well worth a visit!
I think, we can all be proud of the "grown up" reptile trade, but we do need to be vigilant and continue to improve public image by promoting responsible attitudes.


----------

