# Goverment Petition



## marcgroovyge (Apr 3, 2008)

Myself and friends are looking to forward a petition to the goverment regarding reptile welfare in shops. Many reptiles are not properly looked after and also sold as healthy when they are not. We are trying to make all shop have certain policies in place, adequate training and veternary check on all pets to be sold to be placed in order to keep a licence. I'm am looking to see how many people would back us in protecting reptile welfare : victory:


----------



## Captainmatt29 (Feb 28, 2009)

It needs 200 minimum to be worth of action from the government.


----------



## Gaboon (Jun 20, 2005)

Really good idea! Im sure there are many reasons why this will not work butyour right! Im sure you can get way more than 200 sigs from here. 

I went to a local shop today and it sickened me! 

Best of luck!! I wish I could help but it really is not my area.


----------



## ukreticnut (Jan 4, 2008)

marcgroovyge said:


> veternary check on all pets to be sold to be placed in order to keep a licence. : victory:


 in theory this would be great.... in reality it would kill the trade.
a vet checking all livestock say once a week for 4 or so hours would be a massive increase in outgoings for the business owner and as a result prices will go sky high.
Say a shop has a normal leo gecko and it needs to be vet checked, average £20-£40 vet consultation on top of normal price. so now normal leo gecko that was say £30-£45(retail average) is now anywhere from £55-£95. no-one would buy it.
at the moment a AW visit every 6months with a qualified vet (THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE EVEN ON ABOUT) for guidence and opinion is about all they will get.


----------



## rum&coke (Apr 19, 2009)

wont that just give ammo to the people who want all rep keeping banned, a few nasty letters and bricks thru the window may work better:lol2:


----------



## paulrimmer69 (Oct 26, 2008)

its a great idea but just be careful you dont give the rspca more reason to push for a ban on keeping exotics, they winge enough as it is, i do agree with you though that some shops are a disgrace, maybe inspections for all pet shops in general would be a better idea?


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Just a quickie, 

You actually need a lot more than 200 sigs for action

R


----------



## Captainmatt29 (Feb 28, 2009)

Well RFUK has 23000 members, more than 200 should be easy....


----------



## marcgroovyge (Apr 3, 2008)

ukreticnut said:


> in theory this would be great.... in reality it would kill the trade.
> a vet checking all livestock say once a week for 4 or so hours would be a massive increase in outgoings for the business owner and as a result prices will go sky high.
> Say a shop has a normal leo gecko and it needs to be vet checked, average £20-£40 vet consultation on top of normal price. so now normal leo gecko that was say £30-£45(retail average) is now anywhere from £55-£95. no-one would buy it.
> at the moment a AW visit every 6months with a qualified vet (THAT KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE EVEN ON ABOUT) for guidence and opinion is about all they will get.


I agree but Normal leos are sold for £60-£80 around here! Its stupid


----------



## fishboy (Aug 7, 2007)

messengermatt said:


> Well RFUK has 23000 members, more than 200 should be easy....



i'm sure 20,000 of those are multiple accounts from spammers scammers and trolls :lol2:


----------



## Danny_mcr (Oct 22, 2008)

will certainly get my vote, good luck with the petition m8:2thumb: same with dogs i wouldn't buy from shops only breeders , only time i go rep shops now is for rodents:whip:


----------



## bladeblaster (Sep 30, 2008)

the word 'self' 'foot' and 'shoot' spring to mind..........


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

marcgroovyge said:


> Myself and friends are looking to forward a petition to the goverment regarding reptile welfare in shops. Many reptiles are not properly looked after and also sold as healthy when they are not. We are trying to make all shop have certain policies in place, adequate training and veternary check on all pets to be sold to be placed in order to keep a licence. I'm am looking to see how many people would back us in protecting reptile welfare : victory:


There is already legislation covering this.

It is called the "Pet Animals Act 1951".

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1951/cukpga_19510035_en_1


----------



## bronzeyis200 (Jan 25, 2008)

This is a good idea in principle but would only give the relevant anti's ammunition against us!!


----------



## retic lover (Sep 23, 2008)

Dont do it this could just open a huge can of worms, the Antis will love It Its all extra ammo for them:bash:


----------



## laura1486 (Apr 13, 2007)

Same as a post not too long ago that received some heated debate as to whether such measures were needed. Was titled '_sign this petizion_' or something like that, just remember it from the _petition_ being spelt wrong.
Running theme of that one seemed to be that legislation was already in place and was more than efficient and that nothing more need be done, only suggesting that we as keepers ought to report poor conditions to the _authorities_.
I'll say what i said on that thread that the problems mentioned DO EXIST and that current legislation DOES NOT WORK!
It is in place, hbut is less than efficient to see that REPTILES are kept in decent condition whilst in _pet shops_.

Need evidence? http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/293351-t-leeds-absolute-disgrace.html
Problems are reported, and still, receive minimal assistance. Something more does need to be done legislation wise, as what currently is in place does not fully cater for the needs of various reptiles. If it did, then the person that was sent to assess the problem in the mentioned thread, would have had full training about the needs of Bearded Dragons, at the very least, enough so to understand the issue with offering such an animal HORSE FOOD as a diet, and would have seen the danger in this animal not receiving ANY fruit &/or veg.
Problems exist, if you do not see them, or believe them to be handled successfully without any further adjustment whatsoever, then you must be blind!


----------



## laura1486 (Apr 13, 2007)

retic lover said:


> Dont do it this could just open a huge can of worms, the Antis will love It Its all extra ammo for them:bash:


'Constructive Criticism' mean anything to you? If the _antis_ where faced with a response of '_yes we are aware of these issues, more to the point Mr/s Anti, these issues are currently being sought to be addressed by the herpetocultural society itself as it is these people that have raised the flag on this issue_', then is that such a bad thing?


----------



## laura1486 (Apr 13, 2007)

bronzeyis200 said:


> This is a good idea in principle but would only give the relevant anti's ammunition against us!!


The _ammunition_ exists anyway, reported, petitioned against or not, and more to the point is blatently obvious to anyone who opens their eyes wide enough, or who sees the condition that some animals are kept in and knows that this is incorrect.
The "_us_" part only relates back to '_us_' if we all are reptile shop owners.


----------



## andy_771 (May 8, 2009)

it is just my opinion but is it a good idea to stop buying anything from these bad pet shops supply and demand if there is no demand they will stop stocking reptiles or better still in the case of the bad ones they will go bust.:blowup:


----------



## krazykayaker (May 28, 2008)

i have signed up but only 31 so far ...come on RFUK


----------



## marcgroovyge (Apr 3, 2008)

krazykayaker said:


> i have signed up but only 31 so far ...come on RFUK


Cheers for signing it.

Just wish some people could get off their pedistools and actually admit something needs changing!


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

Marc, we do not need new laws. What we need is better *enforcement *of the two laws that *already *exist.

What you're asking for is amply covered by the following two pieces of legislation:

*Pet Animals Act 1951
Animal Welfare Act 2006*

If there is a problem with a pet shop in your area please report it - in writing - to your local council, explaining EXACTLY what is wrong with each issue you're describing, why it is wrong and what could be done to fix it - and ask that their Animal Welfare Inspector and the Environmental Health Officer check the shop out. 

What we don't need is more laws that will make it difficult or impossible to buy reptiles in GOOD shops, because those will be the shops penalised by any new law... not the bad ones that don't give a flying flip!


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

laura1486 said:


> It is in place, hbut is less than efficient to see that REPTILES are kept in decent condition whilst in _pet shops_.
> 
> Need evidence? http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/293351-t-leeds-absolute-disgrace.html
> Problems are reported, and still, receive minimal assistance. Something more does need to be done legislation wise, as what currently is in place does not fully cater for the needs of various reptiles.


Incidentally, the thread you linked to does NOT refer to a* pet shop*. It refers to a *zoo *and butterfly house. 

Are we now going to say there need to be new laws about keeping reptiles in zoological collections? Where do we draw the line from "personal collection" to zoo? I know a LOT of people who have more than twenty reptiles (and probably more than I know of people who have less than three!). Does that make them a zoo? What about forty? Sixty? Eighty?

I can guarantee you I have more reptiles of more species than the zoo you've linked to the post about.


----------



## laura1486 (Apr 13, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> Incidentally, the thread you linked to does NOT refer to a* pet shop*. It refers to a *zoo *and butterfly house.
> 
> Are we now going to say there need to be new laws about keeping reptiles in zoological collections? Where do we draw the line from "personal collection" to zoo? I know a LOT of people who have more than twenty reptiles (and probably more than I know of people who have less than three!). Does that make them a zoo? What about forty? Sixty? Eighty?
> 
> I can guarantee you I have more reptiles of more species than the zoo you've linked to the post about.


I draw the line, personally, when greedy fat-pocket profits come in way over the welfare of the animals they are selling/showing. Oh i do apologise, silly me, you were refering to the collection/zoo age old arguement that some people use to discourage the idea of such new legislatory additions to settle these issues....does it say ZOO above your door at home? Do you run your home establishment as a ZOO? Is it registered as such? No? Oh well in that case i suppose (don't quote me) that you will be fine having a thousand snakes and being free from the legislation proposals, you will only have the RSPCA to worry about, is your husbandry in order? Then you have no need for concern and that suggestion of what constitutes a zoo is entirely irrelavent.
I guess that in some peoples opinion it is ok to sit back and watch a few animals take the brunt end of the treatment stick whilst they sit on the phone chin-wagging to the so-called _authoroties_ about the welfare of some animals in a shop or worse still, a zoological establishment that for all intents and purposes SHOULD KNOW BETTER FROM THE FIRST FRICKING STEP!
Never mind eh, you get on your blower when you see something untoward, and you get that chin shaking and ranting about the condition some animals are kept in, and then feel sad when you see it posted that a leo is dangerously skinny, or a beardy has missing limbs, or a snake has no water and still has shed attached, because it happens everyday near enough on one forum or another, and the reasoning behind it in 9/10 cases comes down to poor husbandry and the owners not knowing any better, and every now and again, due to them just not caring because some kid'll come in and take it away soon anyway, but hey, don't feel too bad, you have your phone right? Yea, you have your phone, get those fingers dialing, everything will be A-ok in rose tinted glasses land, where _authorities_ give a sh!t and officers recognise the issues they are faced with and appropriately deal with them utilizing the full weight of the legislation at hand.

Problems exist, said it before i'll say it again, you must be blind to not see them and see that further action over and above, possibly simply additional to, the legislation that currently exists needs to be taken.

Suggestion, a qualification council led licence, attainable through completion of a basic reptile husbandry course, self studied, and assessed by way of multiple choice examination sat in your local town hall, again, council led, taking no-more than 10 minutes. Not only would this ensure that basic knowledge was there rattling around somewhere, but it would also eleviate those who do care "_the GOOD shops_" from the actions/ommissions of those that evidently do not. Failure to provide the correct husbandry would see the revocation of the reptile keeping licence, and as such, the pet shop would be only able to sell furries, until another examination is passed, this time more deatiled. That or a 3 strikes and you're out scenario? I don't make the rules, i am only suggesting some for the benefit of those that cannot see any solution other than to slander the suggestion that more needs to be done, only managing to quote current legislatiory title, and claiming that everything is fannytastic already.
No possible threat could come of further legislation to see that shops and zoo's afford the correct welfare to their stock.

NB: _when i refer to 'you' i do so with intent to refer to all those oppossed to new legislation, with good reason or without. Not just to 'Ssthisto'._


----------



## corn snake king (Apr 14, 2009)

rum&coke said:


> wont that just give ammo to the people who want all rep keeping banned, a few nasty letters and bricks thru the window may work better:lol2:


i am way ahead of you


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

laura1486 said:


> I draw the line, personally, when greedy fat-pocket profits come in way over the welfare of the animals they are selling/showing.


Fair enough. I must admit that I do not go to places where the profits outweigh the welfare of the animals - I do not spend my money there, I do not give them any profit. No profit = no shop ... 



> Oh i do apologise, silly me, you were refering to the collection/zoo age old arguement that some people use to discourage the idea of such new legislatory additions to settle these issues....


Actually, not specifically. I just wanted to point out that:

The establishment you linked to is not a shop, therefore the proposed new legislative body that this post and this petition refer to still wouldn't make a darn bit of difference to what that establishment's conditions are like.

However, thinking about it, I *am* concerned that shoehorning in new laws where old laws exist and do suffice IF ENFORCED could create a lot of nasty new problems for all sorts of keepers.



> I guess that in some peoples opinion it is ok to sit back and watch a few animals take the brunt end of the treatment stick whilst they sit on the phone chin-wagging to the so-called _authoroties_ about the welfare of some animals in a shop or worse still, a zoological establishment .... Yea, you have your phone, get those fingers dialing, everything will be A-ok in rose tinted glasses land, where _authorities_ give a sh!t and officers recognise the issues they are faced with and appropriately deal with them utilizing the full weight of the legislation at hand.


What, instead of sitting back and putting your text signature on a petition that will get just as much consideration as a piece of litter blowing across the 10 Downing Street doorstep?

At least I report bad treatment to *the appropriate authorities who have the power to do something about it*. Whether they do it or not is nothing I can affect - but at least I'm not sitting on my bum thinking that signing an e-petition is doing good for the world. E-Petitions are worth only and exactly the paper they're signed on... i.e. NOTHING.



> Suggestion, a qualification council led licence, attainable through completion of a basic reptile husbandry course, self studied, and assessed by way of multiple choice examination sat in your local town hall, again, council led, taking no-more than 10 minutes.


Additional cost to the council (that's paperwork, staff to deal with the paperwork, plus time that the room in the town hall isn't available for something else) - which means additional cost to the shops that bother to take the qualification. Penalise the shops that DO bother - and it still doesn't make a difference to the animals themselves.

I am certain I could answer a multiple choice examination about the care of, say, marine aquariums (which I have only the faintest interest in) ... but that doesn't mean I could keep the fish in one alive!



> Failure to provide the correct husbandry would see the revocation of the reptile keeping licence, and as such, the pet shop would be only able to sell furries, until another examination is passed


Ahh, so it's ok to badly keep the furries, but heaven forfend a shop should muck up caring for a reptile.

I have NEVER seen a shop that had woefully inadequate care for reptiles but had adequate care for all other types of animals in the shop - they're generally either _universally_ good, _universally_ adequate, _universally_ poor or _universally_ abysmal.



> i am only suggesting some for the benefit of those that cannot see any solution other than to slander the suggestion that more needs to be done, only managing to quote current legislatiory title, and claiming that everything is fannytastic already.


Can you specify to me EXACTLY which parts of the Animal Welfare Act do NOT cover what you're talking about, please?


----------



## laura1486 (Apr 13, 2007)

Ssthisto said:


> Fair enough. I must admit that I do not go to places where the profits outweigh the welfare of the animals - I do not spend my money there, I do not give them any profit. No profit = no shop ...


 *No, it equates to poorer than is evidenced already husbandry, as they have even less cash to not want to spend on the animals they wish to sell*



Ssthisto said:


> Actually, not specifically. I just wanted to point out that:
> 
> The establishment you linked to is not a shop, therefore the proposed new legislative body that this post and this petition refer to still wouldn't make a darn bit of difference to what that establishment's conditions are like.


 *Don't be so childish, discrediting an opinion or view using such peunie points*



Ssthisto said:


> However, thinking about it, I *am* concerned that shoehorning in new laws where old laws exist and do suffice IF ENFORCED could create a lot of nasty new problems for all sorts of keepers.


 *'Do suffice' in your OPINION, not fact i'm afraid. Furthermore to that, many examples showing how these laws can be perceived not to suffice exist allover*




Ssthisto said:


> What, instead of sitting back and putting your text signature on a petition that will get just as much consideration as a piece of litter blowing across the 10 Downing Street doorstep?


 *'Just'? Did i give any reason to suggest that that is all i do? No, i did not. I put my name to that petition IN ADDITION to other actions
* 


Ssthisto said:


> At least I report bad treatment to *the appropriate authorities who have the power to do something about it*.


 *Have the power yes, utilize it? No.*


Ssthisto said:


> Whether they do it or not is nothing I can affect - but at least I'm not sitting on my bum thinking that signing an e-petition is doing good for the world. E-Petitions are worth only and exactly the paper they're signed on... i.e. NOTHING.


 *See above*




Ssthisto said:


> Additional cost to the council (that's paperwork, staff to deal with the paperwork, plus time that the room in the town hall isn't available for something else) - which means additional cost to the shops that bother to take the qualification. Penalise the shops that DO bother - and it still doesn't make a difference to the animals themselves.


 *Maybe you misunderstood, my suggestion would be a licence to keep reptiles for sale in a shop, or for show in a zoo. Not 'bothering' would see that you as a shop do not get to legally sell reptiles, same applies to a zoo showing them. Penalisation does make a difference if you have the ability to see past your own ignorance, for example a three strike rule would see that poor husbandry is penalised through the removal of such a licence, thus the freedom to sell/show such reptiles as a shop or zoo*



Ssthisto said:


> I am certain I could answer a multiple choice examination about the care of, say, marine aquariums (which I have only the faintest interest in) ... but that doesn't mean I could keep the fish in one alive!


 *See above*




Ssthisto said:


> Ahh, so it's ok to badly keep the furries, but heaven forfend a shop should muck up caring for a reptile.


 *The care of reptiles differs greatly from that of domestic furries, and as such the expectation would be that the current legislation affords the 'furries' enough protection already, whilst added legislation affords similar protection to reptiles*



Ssthisto said:


> I have NEVER seen a shop that had woefully inadequate care for reptiles but had adequate care for all other types of animals in the shop - they're generally either _universally_ good, _universally_ adequate, _universally_ poor or _universally_ abysmal.


 *Lucky you huh, everyone else that HAS seen such disgrace must be wrong then as YOU have NEVER seen this?*





Ssthisto said:


> Can you specify to me EXACTLY which parts of the Animal Welfare Act do NOT cover what you're talking about, please?


 *Please quote the reptile specific partitions of the Acts, that refer primarily to the good husbandry of reptiles, in all their guises and subsequently differing husbandry requirements*

Look, if you do not get it then i cannot help you. 
You are, from what i can see, an established and well thought of member of this forum and and such should maybe set an example instead of openly slandering without due regard to further thought on the topic.
Furries are furries, reptiles are considerably different. I did not suggest that furries be kept badly, or can you not comprehend what i had written?
By discouraging any further addition to legislation, and making however many calls per day, you are actively limiting the assistance that some animals are in dire need of, if you are comfortable with this, hey, your call.
You have picked what i have said to pieces, and very well, only with your responses you have answered them whilst weraring blinkers, being very focused on what YOU believe to be correct. Yours is only that of an individuals opinion, it does not and never will no matter how hard you push, make it correct and factual.

All in all, it is a petition, if as you have said it receives little acknowledgement by the Government, then you and those alongside your view have nothing to be concerned about.
This petition relates to shops only, and does not hold any position over yourself as a keeper whatsoever, unless you wish to sell your animals from a licenced pet shop of your own.
'Shoehorned' legislation happens every single day in this country, like it or not, and the reason that this exists as a FACTUAL going on, is that, again believe it or not, the climate of this country changes and evolves all the time. Due to the rigidity of statute law, '_shoehorning_' new legislation in to rectify obvious legal issues is a necessity, not something to pass the time and look busy. 
You are a female, maybe you should appreciate the '_shoehorning_' of new legislation, without this practice seen in action in _R v A (2001) UKHL 25_, it would today be a legal position to rape your own wife as to strip apart the 'at the time' current legislation and re-write it classifying the rape of your own wife as a criminal action, would take some 10+years. Ok so that is a bit of an extravagant example, but it hopefully gets the point across.
We as the UK have an unwritten constitution allowing this practice to swiftly change the law. Don't like it, move to the USA or somewhere with a written codified constitution where stupid laws still exist and cannot be overridden.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

laura1486 said:


> *No, it equates to poorer than is evidenced already husbandry, as they have even less cash to not want to spend on the animals they wish to sell*


If the shop can't afford to buy more animals in because people do not buy them, it will go out of business. It's the entire point of not "rescuing" animals with your wallet from a shop - because the shop will learn it cannot sell animals in abysmal condition, either by not being able to sell them at all because they are dying or by councils forcing them to obtain expensive veterinary treatment.



> *'Do suffice' in your OPINION, not fact i'm afraid. Furthermore to that, many examples showing how these laws can be perceived not to suffice exist allover*


It's not that the *laws* are insufficient, it is the **enforcement** of those laws that is insufficient. I am not disagreeing that councils are not doing their job - I agree they do not do enough - but it isn't through lack of laws regulating it. It's because the councils do not have specialist inspectors and in many cases are relying on the untrained-in-exotics RSPCA inspectorate.

If anything it is the *council *that should be required to retain independent inspectors that have been trained in basic aspects of animal care across the board.



> *Have the power yes, utilize it? No.* *See above*


So the problem isn't the laws governing the pet shops, it's the council's enforcement of the existing animal welfare legislation. 




> *The care of reptiles differs greatly from that of domestic furries*


Not substantially.* All animals* require the correct environment, food, shelter, water and care. Just because (gross oversimplification) a reptile needs a specific kind of UV-producing light doesn't mean that a domesticated guinea pig _doesn't_ need a diet with the appropriate amount of Vitamin C and that rabbit food is a suitable diet for them or that a goldfish is perfectly suited to living in a foot-diameter glass bowl.




> *Lucky you huh, everyone else that HAS seen such disgrace must be wrong then as YOU have NEVER seen this?*


Not at all lucky me. I go to a bad pet shop and I see ALL of the things they do wrong, not just what they're doing wrong to the reptiles. 

A shop that gets the lighting and heating wrong for the reptiles is probably getting the substrate wrong for the rodents and the diet wrong for the parrots. If they don't care about the expensive requirements of one type of animal, why would they pay any attention to the expensive requirements of any of the other animals in their care?

I've seen just as many shops keeping small rodents in pitiable conditions - and parrots plucked down to oven-ready chickens - as I have seen badly kept reptiles.



> *Please quote the reptile specific partitions of the Acts, that refer primarily to the good husbandry of reptiles, in all their guises and subsequently differing husbandry requirements*


Here you go:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060045_en.pdf


The act refers to *all vertebrate animals* (reptiles are vertebrates).
Protected animals include: Domesticated animals, *Animals under the control of man and Animals that are not living in a wild state.*
A person who *owns or is in possession of an animal is responsible* for it.
The responsible person is guilty of an animal welfare offense if their actions or failure to act cause suffering to an animal unnecessarily.
There is also a duty of care listed as follows:



> *9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare*
> (1) A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable
> all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he
> responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
> ...


So there you go - a pet shop owner is ALREADY legally required to provide appropriate conditions (including appropriate environment, diet, companionship, medical care and ability to express natural behaviour) to all of the animals in the care of the shop regardless of type.

*Any shop that doesn't is already violating an existing law.*

Do we really need another law that does the same thing?



> This petition relates to shops only, and does not hold any position over yourself as a keeper whatsoever, unless you wish to sell your animals from a licenced pet shop of your own.


Well, all things considered I'd PREFER not to have to register as a licenced pet shop ... but my local council seems to think that having two clutches of corn snake eggs this year - and the intent to breed corns and royals in the future - MIGHT mean I need a pet shop licence. I intend to argue that it's not being done in the course of a business (it won't even "break even" - we'll still be spending an obscene amount of money per year on food, electricity and housing/equipment for the animals) ... but the council might not see it that way.

And in that respect, if they say I *do* have to have a PSL to sell two clutches worth of corns a year, then the legislation you're proposing does affect me more than the AWA 2006 already does.



> We as the UK have an unwritten constitution allowing this practice to swiftly change the law. Don't like it, move to the USA or somewhere with a written codified constitution where stupid laws still exist and cannot be overridden.


You've obviously not lived in the USA (and haven't read many of my posts, or you'd know I'm American born and bred!) ... laws change like the tides over there too.


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

Laura, the new AWA was contributed too by every reptile group in England and Wales, the consultation period lasted several years and the result was the new AWA.

There are many parts that have not come into force yet, the official care sheets for example, when, eventually these are written, every one who keeps an animal will, mostly have to follow the care guide lines, including as far as I know, petshops.

The reason for this not coming into effect is because DEFRA have run out of money.

Also in the bill was the setting up of a local authority inspectorate, originally to be the RSPCA and we stopped that idea.

Again the problem is money.

So as Ssthisto says it is all covered under the new bill and it is lack of money that's stopping its progress.

Until these parts of the bill become live, then the better for animal welfare.
Did you consult with anyone, like the FBH,FOCAS, Pet Care trust, IHS etc.
These are the groups that DEFRA consults where reptilian welfare is concerned.

So supposing DEFRA takes notice of your petition, it will go for consultation to those groups to get their opinion on it.
It may have been better if perhaps you'd written to one of them asking for advice and perhaps support. There are political links between these groups and DEFRA and they know who to speak to.

These petitions, as Ssthisto says, are mostly a waste of time and rarely achieve much, in this case especially as what you are asking for is already covered by the new AWA and there is no new money!

By coming on the forum you were asking for opinions and people have given you theirs.

cheers arthur


----------



## laura1486 (Apr 13, 2007)

Not my petition, i did not create it.
I simply put forward a view point to the effect that the need still exists (for what the petition is pushing for - better care of reptiles in pet shops, catered for by additional legislation) even though as you guys have pointed out, legislation does exist to protect animals in captivity on the whole.
I have not called for a halt to people giving their opinions, nor shunned them when given. I have taken them on board, and given my view on the topic area as a response.
End of.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

An interesting discussion, l must say.

Having been away from this particular field for a short while for various reasons, l do intend to return to this forum under the 'new political me' and try and alleviate certain issues.

In itself the AWA was a masterpiece for it was set to replace an act of some 100 years out of date.

However we have problems in England with this infamous act, personally l think the act is an absolute waste of space, good intentions, splendid intentions, but at present about as worthess as a petition.

Petitions are only good if they have the correct amount of identified recognition - meaning that in order for it to be recognised as qualifiable, you need in excess of 100K worth of signatures.

Seeing as only 5% of the industry actually use forums as a form of communication, we have a staggering 95% that are not even aware fully of the e - petition.

The AWA is primary legislation - it was to be backed up by secondary legislation but as Arthur [hi mate] has correctly stated, DEFRA are penniliess and are standing behind those who do have considerably more clout than DEFRA were accustomed to. As once proud regulators, they are now nothing more than yes men to those groups.

The laws do need to be addressed and corrected, but this can not happen, when we live in a governing power that wish to de-regulate everything including pet shop licences.

Pet vending legislation talks are supposed to commence next year, but l serioulsy doubt that these will amount to anything valuable, and nothing exciting to write home and tell mum about!

The codes of practice, best care guides whatever you wish to call them, for cats and dogs have already been withdrawn from the market place of public opinion.

The primate code, will probably never see the light of day let alone a new dawn.

The Animal Welfare Act at this present time is just a complete waste of time and resource that was spent in its creation, design and development.

R


----------



## Natrix (Dec 9, 2006)

I'm with Ssthisto, Arthur and Rory (Hi guys and girl) on this one. 
Having spent more hours than I care to add up over the last six or so years researching information and writing up papers for the FBH to use in the defence of our hobby and it's supporting net work (the pet trade) I'm very much of the opinion that the necessary level of regulation is in place (possibly even too much) but it does need the finishing touches putting to it (which isn't happening at the moment) and it does need the appropriate authorities to get their collective butts into gear and start enforcing the new regulations. 
I can’t help feel a little annoyed that the OP and their supporters have jumped on a perceived band wagon and begun making a fuss that could if it got enough backing cause problems for the whole of the hobby and destroy a lot of good work done by others over the past few years. Plus they have done it without speaking to any of the groups that represent us at Government level or it would appear without checking up on what the current law is or what is hopefully in the pipe line for the future.
Where were these people six years ago when many of us were fighting for this hobbies rights against an army of animal rights loonies and a government body (DEFRA) that didn’t think we were big enough to be worth bothering with.
Gordon
Ex Vice Chairman of the FBH and still researching and writing 
various papers for the FBH


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

Hi all, Totally agree with the last couple of posts. Natrix also makes a good point, where were all these people when we needed them.
I would be worried that we would be handing animal rights more ammunition to close herping down and as one of those who remember how nasty these people can be.
Closing down our shows, threats, intimidation, do we really want this all over again.

The trade is a part of the herping community, it's not some separate entity that we can target, they are us and we ought to be able to sort out our own problems without involving animal rights and government.

Over the last ten years or so I have seen a great improvement in the trade, many petshops nowdays take a great deal of care that the reptiles they sell are in good condition and try to give the best advice they can.

There are, of course some bad ones, so does that mean that we should punish the good because of the bad, doesn't feel very fair to me.

Like many who've posted on this thread I would like to know why there has been little in the way of consultation with all the groups that are acting on our behalf and working hard to make animal welfare better.

The most obvious solution to bad shops is to boycott them, if you think it's a bad shop, don't use them.

cheers arthur.


----------



## Fixx (May 6, 2006)

arthur cooke said:


> Hi all, Totally agree with the last couple of posts. Natrix also makes a good point, where were all these people when we needed them.
> I would be worried that we would be handing animal rights more ammunition to close herping down and as one of those who remember how nasty these people can be.
> Closing down our shows, threats, intimidation, do we really want this all over again.
> 
> ...


Possibly because we very rarely get told about anything you guys get up to, and when you go to the FBH website what do you see...very little. Is the FBH defunct now?


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

Hi Fixx, the FBH is now a part of the F.O.C.A.S group. Which represents all of the animal keeping groups.
So no it's not defunct.

F.O.C.A.S - Announcements - Government 3-year Duck Study - News

cheers arthur.


----------



## LFBP-NEIL (Apr 23, 2005)

The Reptile industry could be better served by having its own Visible trade association, I know we have REPTA which is apparantly working for us, thats not meant sarcastically as i know people involved with repta are on here, but its more of a secret society than a trade association. 

what the reptile industry needs is a trade association on the same lines as the OATA Ornamental Fish 

They actively pursue and get illegal traders shut down, i.e all the dodgy back room sellers, have codes of practice for there members to adhere to, etc, etc, etc (have a look at the site) 

REPTA wheres ours? or does there need to be a seperate entity created for this purpose?


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

Would yet another group do any good. For example you have a petshop, which as far as the authorities are concerned is trading legally, no group would have the power to close them down and being thrown out of a group would mean nothing to them and if the organisation announced they were being thrown out for X reason, they could then sue.

The only thing a trade body can do is protect it's members and represent them to the authorities.

It's also worth pointing out that an organisation to be able to operate like oata would need money and quite a bit of it and where the trade are concerned it's like squeezing blood out of a stone.

What the FBH found was that we were expected to work on a shoestring and that is difficult if you have to engage lawyers and experts etc.

I remember REPTA being set up and altho I am out of touch with them now, I bet that they are a dedicated bunch working for nothing quietly behind the scenes and that is so with most of the reptile groups.

cheers arthur.


----------



## oakelm (Jan 14, 2009)

I honestly think that what you propose especially the vet checks just wouldnt work. The acts and ragulations already in place 'should' ensure any animal is kept in an appropriate way and sold in good health. If people have issues with rep shops they should go to the local authority of that shop and report them. With things like this the only way you can deal with them is to deal with each rep shop individually. What about some of the better shops out there, why should they be forced to add this expense on top of everything when the average vet (because there isnt enough rep vets) would probably know less than them on the specialist animals. I personally would love for reps to only ever be sold by breeders but I know that the way you get people into the hobby is by them seeing them. A rep shop is one of the few ways to do it. I brought my very first snake from a rep shop and if that rep shop wasnt there I wouldnt have known where to get one.


----------



## LFBP-NEIL (Apr 23, 2005)

arthur cooke said:


> Would yet another group do any good. For example you have a petshop, which as far as the authorities are concerned is trading legally, no group would have the power to close them down and being thrown out of a group would mean nothing to them and if the organisation announced they were being thrown out for X reason, they could then sue.
> 
> The only thing a trade body can do is protect it's members and represent them to the authorities.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you say and dont doubt for one minute there are people working away behind the scenes for no reward, And I imagine blood out of a stone is a very good analogy of the wholesalers in this industry. 

But there is a whole new generation of dedicated reptile shop keepers out there now, who i am sure if they are as dedicated to pushing this industry forward as I am and some of the other shop keepers on here then a yearly subscription to a trade body would be no real big issue, especially if it meant there would be a fighting fund in place for the likes of C Newman to help our cause.

I personnaly would like to see a trade body that is available for all exotic pet retailers to join and pay a yearly subscription - those funds being used to administer the organisation and for promoting and furthering the industry. Have the ability to act and help get the unliscenced traders shut down, have codes of conduct and practice available for members to work to and adhere to..

or maybe im just an optimist!

At the moment we have the FBH slogging it out behind the scenes, working with defra etc etc, Repta collecting funds from wholesalers and doing whatever they do behind the scenes, But the front line of the industry the reptile shop owners up and down the country have no way of contributing to this effort and no way of saying, yes i am a good pet shop, I support this industry and work to the highest standards.

perhaps this is something i should look into setting up but wouldnt want to duplicate efforts already in place..


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

Pink, I totally agree with what you say, a group of dedicated reptile shops with high standards would be a very good thing to do and I'm pretty sure that there would a lot of support from keepers for such a scheme.

I think that keepers, in general are looking for a way to ensure that they only buy from decent companies with high standards.

I imagine that such a scheme would require that shops be inspected and if they fell below the standard there would need to be a system of punishment and this, in my view would be the most difficult bit. Mainly because it would be voluntary.

cheers arthur


----------



## Natrix (Dec 9, 2006)

REPTA, just like OATA is a group of individuals working together to protect and improve the reptile hobby and associated trade. 
Neither REPTA or OATA have any kind of special legal powers to prosecute individuals within the hobby that are not keeping within the groups guide lines. 
OATA has been around a lot longer than REPTA and has built up a strong following within the fish related retail and hobby sector. It can and does jump on members that trade in a way that brings the hobby into disrepute but the best it can do (without expensive private prosecutions) is expel the member in question. This just means they can’t display the OATA membership sticker on the door as you go in. How many people actually check for the OATA logo before buying a pet fish? In fact how many members of the general public actually know OATA exists?
Like Arthur, I’m not that involved in the REPTA side of things but I do get to hear a certain amount and I’m sure that eventually REPTA will grow to be OATA’s equal. Before that great day we should also remember that the law is already in existence with regards pet shops meeting certain standards etc and it is the duty of local councils to enforce these regulations. Sadly this doesn’t seem to happen in some areas. 
As for these groups not giving out much information concerning what they are doing, there are three main reasons for this.
1) The Antis.... I know some people don’t believe in them and others hate to hear about them but the fact is we have a number of groups trying very hard to end our hobby. They don’t broadcast what they are up to as they don’t want us getting wise to their next angle of attack and like wise it is not in the interests of our hobby to let the opposition know what we are doing to protect it. 
2) DEFRA.......The FBH, REPTA, FOCAS etc are all now able to communicate directly with DEFRA. This gives them a lot of power regarding the destiny of the hobby. The problem is Government officials really don’t like any one but themselves telling the world what has been going on at these meetings. I know this from first hand experience as I did a full write up of one meeting that I attended and posted it on a web site for all hobbyists to see. Three days later I received a letter giving me 24 hours to remove it from public view and the biggest written rollacking ever. Basically if you upset the likes of DEFRA they take their ball back and won’t play with you any more so it pays not to shout about what’s happening.
3) You lot......The old saying about not pleasing all of the people all of the time is very true. What ever information is given out will lead to heated debates. Those that disagree will go into long debates that require lots of our time to answer. Others declare we are scare mongering, and a few will accuse us of being paranoid. Basically what ever we do or say some one will go on the attack and a lot of time will be spent defending the actions taken.
I personally have taken a few steps back and just help out around the edges these days but I have a lot of respect for people like Chris Newman who are in the thick of it every day, fighting for the rights of everyone that wants to keep a reptile.

Natrix


----------



## Natrix (Dec 9, 2006)

arthur cooke said:


> Pink, I totally agree with what you say, a group of dedicated reptile shops with high standards would be a very good thing to do and I'm pretty sure that there would a lot of support from keepers for such a scheme.
> 
> I think that keepers, in general are looking for a way to ensure that they only buy from decent companies with high standards.
> 
> ...


In the ideal world this sounds great but in the real world it’s not that easy.
Here’s some of the angles that I remember being covered when this was discussed.
Firstly who gets to make the rules and standards? Who ever does it will fail to get the backing of everyone. If they are set by Government you can be sure that certain animal rights groups will have a good amount of negative input. If they are set by a group such as the FBH they just become club rules and have no standing in law.
Secondly who gets inspected? Is it just shops or do private individuals have to expect the odd knock on their door?
Thirdly, who does the inspecting? Should I (an untrained amateur) be able to walk into some bodies reptile room and start telling them what they are doing wrong. Should it be some highly trained jobs-worth, who’s never actually kept a reptile himself, from some independent accessing agency. Or worse still would the RSPCA get the job 
Fourthly, and this is a biggy, who is going to pay the wages of all these bods wondering around the countryside, checking up on their fellow reptile keepers? 
Finally, what punishment are they going to hand out? If this is done at Government level we could see individuals being dragged through the courts because their boa looked sad. 
If monitored by the hobby at a lower level you are only looking at offenders being expelled from the group but still trading. Do something to stop a trader from trading and you could be looking at a legal claim being made against the group by the trader for lost earnings, slander etc. 
It’s a lovely idea but an absolute mine field to set up.

Natrix


----------



## LFBP-NEIL (Apr 23, 2005)

I personnally feel this only need be as complicated as its made to be, what I think would be a good idea would be an alliance of like minded shop owners simply saying this is who we are and what we stand for, I am fed up with being tarred with the "all pet shops are evil" brush, an alliance of shop keepers need not lay down hard and fast rules that must be obeyed such as you must use this substrate, give this care sheet etc etc, as all of us our different and all have our own way of doing things. But if we could stand together and say when you are buying a reptile from one of these stores it will be Healthly, the displays will be clean, we will adhere to and comply all relevent legislation, we will not mislead the public, you will be dealt with courtesly, information will be freely available in the form of a care sheet etc, such an alliance would be self governing - if any complaints are received about a fellow shop then the only punishment would be removal from the group if improvements could not be made - big deal - but better than nothing?

If it took off it could result in better exchange of knowledge, standards and a good example to set for others to follow. As well as benefits for the independent retailers in joining together (no not price fixing) 

its just an idea, probably wont go anywhere, but soon I think Livefoods By Post is going to stand up and say - this is who we are, these are the values we hold and these are the standards we work to in selling reptiles does anybody want to form an alliance of like minded business up and down the country, and if nothing comes of it - well we've not lost anything apart from a bit of time and an opportunity.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Damn, this thread just gets better!

Was it not a similiar thread to this that practically started ww friggin 3 on this forum sometime last year lol?

This group says this, that groups says that.... and it goes on and on!

This industry needs to gets its entire act into unison - once achieved anything would be possible, until that happens and a cohesive front is formed, nothing can progress - l like the idea truly l do Pink, and l seemed to recall you coming up with valuable suggestions previously.

Where did it actually get you?

No where.

There are way too many regulations in place now that have little success to them, that the introduction of something - basic or not - would still further create more administrations, when we already have groups in place that can action the required needs of all reptile keepers desires.

R


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

laws...

be very careful.

aren't there any industry standards there like pijac that we have here?

law makers know nothing about most industries or situations.

start your own reveiw board for standards and practices in shops and get a few to be reviewed maybe... they'll love some fancy, official looking sticker on their window, then other shops will want a sticker and inspection too..

then get the word out to hobbyists and whoever, not to shop in shops that refuse reasonable standards and inspections.

... i don't know. it's different here than there... but i know this:

no crappy, stinking shop here, with the intense competion will long survive when quality shops are around for comparison.

... never mind. i still can't figure out how a pet shop devoted to just herps can even survive there... you can't really make it them work here in the states...

so-called exotic pet keepers are so rare anyway and now with this economy...

... take care of your critters... a law maker can solve pet shop cruelty in a heartbeat... ban it all and then the animal welfare folks and reptile haters and everyone will be happy because there will be no shops and thus cruelty...only the hobbyists will be unhappy...

soon in the U.K., there won't be much else to ban... you will all be safe from those DWA animals...

no guns, cameras everywhere... DWA... jeez! where does it end?

beware of the worms!!!










pay me no mind... i'm a yank you know... and used to the wild, wild west!:lol2:


----------



## LFBP-NEIL (Apr 23, 2005)

Hey we got a traders forum for about a week....:bash:

this is probably something im going to have a go at myself, its probably going to start out as nothing more than a list of retailers who are already working to a certain standard - and then if it grows into something - great - if it doesnt - oh well at least i tried!

The long term vision is an association of retailers gaining benefits from standing together and being an effective source of funding for those already fighting our corner. who knows - might work, but probably wont!


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

Hi all, for those that might think that the animal rights groups have gone away, have a look at the campaign against Hamm.

AC.TV - A Far Cry from Nature - Part 1

Joe public watching this video will, because they don't understand reptiles, be convinced that the show should be banned.
Bit by bit they erode our right to keep reptiles and they keep plugging away year after year after year.

ARs view of this show is also their view of pet shops, so anything that gives petshops a more responsible look has to be a good thing.
Like Natrix I'm on the fringe of things now, mainly because I'm moving to Italy and also, tbh, I was worn out, ran completely out of steam, so to speak.

If Pink were to decide to do something my advice would be to talk to the groups already doing some thing so that we present a united front and don't duplicate our efforts.

cheers arthur.


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

here is what they say about petshops.

APA - Hands Off Exotics

cheers arthur.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

LOL Arthur, 

Indeed, all exotics keepers are part of the long unwashed line. God, you have got to love the APA, they certainly know how to spin a good yarn!!

Most of the literature they produce is fantasy, sadly however at times through lack of responsibility from the trade, they can hit a raw nerve, because there is an element of truth.

Worse still we dont have any good yarners of our own, because they are never believed even when telling the truth! 

R


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

Hi Rory, yep, they sure do.
Accordint to our friend Elaine, we should all be very ill or dead from all these deadly diseases reptiles carry.

You're right their half truths can be convincing and some times to present a defence sounds like an excuse.

Look at all those big snakes in their tiny cages and we say but they like it and they say we would say that wouldn't we.

Most reptiles are wild caught, how do you disprove this, almost impossible. Many of us can look at a reptile and think that's a captive bred but to joe public it's a snake or lizard.

cheers arthur


----------



## Natrix (Dec 9, 2006)

pink said:


> Hey we got a traders forum for about a week....:bash:
> 
> this is probably something im going to have a go at myself, its probably going to start out as nothing more than a list of retailers who are already working to a certain standard - and then if it grows into something - great - if it doesnt - oh well at least i tried!
> 
> The long term vision is an association of retailers gaining benefits from standing together and being an effective source of funding for those already fighting our corner. who knows - might work, but probably wont!


Pink
You make it all sound so simple. Sadly I can think of three other attempts to do this sort of thing that all ran into trouble. The problem you will have is getting other retailers to join forces with you. If you put ten retailers in a room, you will get twelve different ideas on how things should be set up plus none of them will want to work with people that they see as their competitors. I can still remember the battles involved in just getting the top wholesalers to join forces and create REPTA. 
In truth I think what you are suggesting is a brilliant idea that can only strengthen and improve pet shops involved in the scheme and I really do hope that it will work this time.
What I would suggest is that you contact Chris Newman and discuss it all with him (he doesn’t bite, honest plus he hasn’t got that many teeth left anyway). It's important that you work with and not clash with existing projects and Chris may well be able to offer advice and contacts that will help you.

I wish you good luck
Natrix


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

Hi Habu, I think there's going to be a quiet revolution come this Thursday and also at the next general election.
Boris Johnson will be the next prime minister, he intends to rename England London and nuke Liverpool. He won't be a very good prime minister, but at least we'll have a laugh as we go down the plughole.
cheers arthur.


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

Hi Pink, I'd be interested to hear what ideas you have regarding the sort of scheme you think would work.
Natrix is right, have a chat with Chris and see what help he can give you.
cheers arthur.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)

arthur cooke said:


> Hi Habu, I think there's going to be a quiet revolution come this Thursday and also at the next general election.
> Boris Johnson will be the next prime minister, he intends to rename England London and nuke Liverpool. He won't be a very good prime minister, but at least we'll have a laugh as we go down the plughole.
> cheers arthur.


 
haha!... hey, i'm not dissing the U.K.... you should hear what i say about the U.S. here! i never cut them any slack! they're suppose to be educated, proffessional and serve the people... honorably i might add.:whip:


----------



## marcgroovyge (Apr 3, 2008)

Is this still actually going? The deadline passed in may.......


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

It progressed


----------



## PSYCHOSIS (Sep 23, 2008)

Il back it up what do i have to do . : ) 

Im sick of going into shops and seeing G.Rosea On soaking Wet substrate , Lizards without the right lighting Ect....


----------



## marcgroovyge (Apr 3, 2008)

PSYCHOSIS said:


> Il back it up what do i have to do . : )
> 
> Im sick of going into shops and seeing G.Rosea On soaking Wet substrate , Lizards without the right lighting Ect....


Thank you!


----------

