# Risks of buying a pet online exposed



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

*RISKS OF BUYING A PET ONLINE EXPOSED *
*Animal charities launch Minimum Standards for UK websites with Defra backing *

A puppy offered in a ‘swap for a mobile phone’ and a ‘fighting dog with big teeth’ are just two examples of the worst online pet advertisements being highlighted today by the Pet Advertising Advisory Group (PAAG). The group is comprised of representatives from the UK’s leading animal welfare groups and specialist agencies who have to deal with the fall out of inappropriate advertising on a daily basis. 

PAAG is today launching a set of Minimum Standards for websites offering pets for sale. They have been developed to improve the welfare of the pets and to protect members of the public from the risk of ending up with sick, dangerous or even illegal animals. The standards have also been endorsed by Defra, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Lord de Mauley, the Minister for Animal Welfare, who gathered the leading online pet classified websites together today to discuss the need for urgent improvement. 

Some of the worst online ‘pet’ adverts include: 
· Puppy offered for swap with a mobile phone 
· Arctic fox for sale 
· Very rare Zonkey (Zebra x Donkey) for sale 
· Six week old Staffie puppy – a puppy shouldn’t be separated from its mother until it is a minimum of eight weeks old 
· Male skunk for sale 
· 4 Marmoset monkeys
· Pitbull puppy for sale – Pitbulls are illegal to sell in the UK
· A cat for sale in need of severe veterinary treatment due to a badly damaged eye 
· An advert offering a ladies watch in exchange for a tortoise 
· Golden Retriever wanted for swap with a Chihuahua 

From underage animals, banned breeds, illegally imported or endangered species to animals offered in exchange for inanimate objects – online pet advertising in its current form appears to allow almost anything. PAAG members hope the standards will help improve the quality of websites’ systems to try to filter out unscrupulous advertisements. 

People turn to their computers when looking to buy or sell almost anything, including pets. PAAG is working with the Government to remind consumers and websites that an animal is not a commodity like a washing machine or a car, and should not be advertised or bought in the same way. Websites in compliance with the standards will be identifiable to consumers on the PAAG website as the ethical and safer choice when deciding to find a pet online. The group is encouraging the public to stay vigilant to ensure that websites meet the standards consistently, and not to use sites that don’t apply the Minimum Standards. 

Clarissa Baldwin, Chairman of PAAG says: 

_“Whilst we recognise that pets are commonly advertised online, it is still shocking to know that there are between 100,000 and 120,000 pet advertisements appearing on UK websites each day. The research undertaken by PAAG has revealed some truly terrible examples where animal welfare was clearly the last thought in the mind of the advertiser. Every day we hear from people who have bought an animal online only for it to fall sick or die soon after. _

_“We hope that the Minimum Standards will be just that, a minimum standard that a website must reach before posting advertisements for pets. In an ideal world we would prefer people not to buy pets online but would advise that if you are doing so that you check the website adheres to PAAG’s Minimum Standards.” _

Lord de Mauley, Minister for Animal Welfare at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, says: 

_“It is vitally important that advertising websites do all they can to ensure the welfare of animals sold on their sites and to prevent the sale of banned breeds. I fully support PAAG's Minimum Standards and would encourage all advertising websites to sign up to these."_

The Minimum Standards are just the first step on the road to improving how pets are advertised online. PAAG will work closely with the websites including Gumtree, Loot and Preloved to provide support on the reporting of suspicious adverts and the moderating of such ads. A team of volunteer moderators will also be created to provide further support for the websites and ensure that if anyone is turning to the internet to buy an animal they can do so with more confidence that they are buying a healthily bred pet. 

PAAG has compiled a video of case studies showing the shocking impact of inappropriate online advertising on members of the public, the veterinary profession and animal welfare authorities. Please go to the following link: http://paag.org.uk/standards/launch/

-ENDS- 

*Notes to Editors: *

PAAG, which comprises representatives from the UK’s leading animal welfare groups, was created in 2001 to combat the growing concern amongst animal welfare organisations regarding the unethical classified advertising of pets. 

*PAAG comprises: Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Blue Cross, British Veterinary *
*Association, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust, The Kennel Club, Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association (OATA), One Kind, PDSA, RWAF, Raystede, Reptile and Exotic Pet Trade Association (REPTA), Wood Green the Animals Charity, World Horse Welfare. *

www.paag.org.uk#petsforsale


*MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ONLINE CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING WEBSITES *

*Websites must: *

1. run automated checks for 'blacklisted' words/terms such as banned breeds and filter for misleading or inappropriate adverts
2. require all vendors to include a recent photograph of the animal that they are advertising and monitor for suspicious usage of images. 
3. require that all adverts display the age of the animal advertised. No pet should be advertised for transfer to a new owner before it is weaned and no longer dependent on its parents. 
4. permanently ban vendors – on a three strikes and you’re out basis – who attempt to post illegal adverts, and take down illegal/inappropriate adverts within 12 working hours of notification 
5. ensure that every view item page includes prominent links to PAAG advice on buying and selling a pet (and specific advice for commonly advertised species), including “pop ups”
6. label clearly on each ad whether it is a private sale, commercial sale or from a rescue/rehoming centre
7. not include adverts for farmed animals or adverts specifying that the animal is to be used for working, hunting, or guarding in the pet section 
8. monitor for multiple mobile/telephone numbers and email addresses in private sales and investigate and potentially ban frequent/repeat breeders. ‘Frequent’ is defined as the same vendor offering a third different animal in a twelve month period. 
9. ban adverts of live vertebrate animals as food 
10. ban adverts offering stud animals, animals in season or animals ‘for rent’ or ‘loan’ in pet section. Note that adverts offering horses or donkeys for loan are acceptable
11. ban adverts offering pregnant animals for sale
12. ensure that no pets are advertised for swapping with other pets, services or goods
13. ensure that species scheduled by the Dangerous Wild Animals Act are clearly marked as such and make clear to vendors that it is an offence to offer a species covered by EU Wildlife Trade Regulations Annex A and listed by CITES for sale without a valid Article 10 Certificate. Non-human primates should not be offered for sale.
14. exclude any advert where there is a reasonable concern for the health and welfare of the animal involved
15. provide a clearly visible function for purchasers to report illegal or inappropriate adverts 
16. ensure that no live vertebrates are advertised for sale as deliverable through the postal system, national or international
17. require all vendors to state the country of residence from which the animal is being sold
18. require all commercial vendors to provide Local Authority licence information when submitting an advertisement


----------



## SublimeSparo (May 1, 2013)

About time, I do think its a bit disheartening to see all the ads for swaps, the only bits I have issue with are:
9. ban adverts of live vertebrate animals as food 
10. ban adverts offering stud animals, animals in season or animals ‘for rent’ or ‘loan’ in pet section. Note that adverts offering horses or donkeys for loan are acceptable

especially number ten, isn't it in the interest of captive species to be able to reproduce, with as many different blood lines as possible to create healthy gene pools for further captive breeding and thus reduce impact on WC, also why should donkeys and horses be exempt ?


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Most of these "rules" seem to be good, and are already incorporated in many cases - for example with Preloved, there is a declaration that must be completed for Annex A species - I had a nightmare trying to get radiated ratsnakes on there, as the site identified "radiated" and wouldnt allow the advert to be posted due to radiated tortoises being Annex A!

However, rules 8 and 12 could prove to be a sticking point, certainly for this and other forums. Many people who advertise surplus livestock breed more than 3 species, and certainly more than three individual animals - so one person who has bred, for arguments sake, a single clutch of hognoses with an average of 10 hatchlings can only advertise and sell 3 of that clutch in 12 months or be banned from the site? 

Equally the trade issue - when reptiles were first being bred in captivity, surplus offspring weren't sold, they were traded with other breeders to allow them to build up more varied collections. And this is often still what happnes, with private breeders preferring to exchange their surplus offspring with breeders of other species/morphs. I don't really see the issue with this. I can see its relevance for the numerous "I want to swap my phone/games console/stereo/car for some snakes" adverts but not for those who simply want to expand their collection by trading offspring with others.


----------



## tarantulabarn (Apr 21, 2005)

16. ensure that no live vertebrates are advertised for sale as deliverable through the postal system, national or international

this one will never be sorted. TNT are getting away with breaking this rule and have been for years, a rule that has already been in place in the uk for as long as i can remember, just because they are not the post office the service they offer is exactly the same as the po next day service


----------



## Dragon Farm (Aug 7, 2009)

tarantulabarn said:


> 16. ensure that no live vertebrates are advertised for sale as deliverable through the postal system, national or international
> 
> this one will never be sorted. TNT are getting away with breaking this rule and have been for years, a rule that has already been in place in the uk for as long as i can remember, just because they are not the post office the service they offer is exactly the same as the po next day service


Are you saying that TNT are breaking UK laws ?

I see no reason why a national courier service shouldn't be allowed to transport reptiles, just as you do. Its a shame that one or more of the couriers doesn't offer a decent service to the general public. Transporting reptiles is simple. Keep them at temps around 21c, deliver within 24 hrs, and don't handle roughly. Any healthy reptile will be unharmed if very basic conditions are met. 

Ironically, there are poor africans being paid peanuts to collect reptiles in the wild, and these are kept in poor conditions for weeks until they have enough to be worth shipping thousands of miles, but apparently that should be encouraged, not discouraged (FBH/Repta policy).


----------



## tarantulabarn (Apr 21, 2005)

The tnt overnight service is no different to any other postal service

colected from you
taken to the local depot and unloaded,
reloaded onto the night trunker and taken to the hub
reloaded onto the trunker to be delivered to the local depot unloaded
reloaded onto the delivery truck

4 or 5 different vechicles all with differing temperatures/drivers/handlers, which is no different to any other postal system.
TNT are not couriers. 

The service offered by TNT is no different to Amtrack, Dhl ,Apc, Ups, Parceltogo, Inter Parcel, My Hermes etc etc and none of those would even entertain the idea, 

They used to run a courier service, TNT sameday, but at a charge of over £1.40 a mile i doubt anyone would be willing to pay this, local,ish distances maybe but not for the majority


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

tarantulabarn said:


> *The tnt overnight service is no different to any other postal service*
> 
> colected from you
> taken to the local depot and unloaded,
> ...


It isn't a PUBLIC postal service, which is what the legislation refers to. So they are different to Royal Mail.


----------



## tarantulabarn (Apr 21, 2005)

ian14 said:


> It isn't a PUBLIC postal service, which is what the legislation refers to. So they are different to Royal Mail.


So why should the legislation be any different just because they only offer trade accounts, when the whole point is for the care of the animals


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

tarantulabarn said:


> So why should the legislation be any different just because they only offer trade accounts, when the whole point is for the care of the animals


Because the legislation doesnt apply to them! The Postal Services Act 2011 relates specifically to Royal Mail and public postal services. Private mail firms such as TNT are couriers, not a public postal service.
The prohibition of sending live vertebrates by post is to do with the safety of teh workers, not the care/welfare of the animals.


----------



## tarantulabarn (Apr 21, 2005)

The Postal Services Act 2011, whilst containing a lot regarding the 'Royal Mial' specifically, it also applies to any other postal service, ownership be it public or private is not a subject of the act.

It most definitely does not provide legislation regarding the movement of animals. Postal Services Act 2011 feel free to take a look.

The issue of animal movements is dealt with by way of Royal mails terms and conditions, regarding prohibited animals and restricted animals, not by any UK law.

This is demonstrated by the recent (well near recent) trial of two men from Kent. Pet shop owner admits animal cruelty after sending live fish in the post | Mail Online contains the full details, but its noted that charges were regarding animal welfare, not breaching T&C. Interesting to note the company involved was in fact TNT.

TNT also list live or dead animals on thier list of restricted items, but they do hold a transporter authorisation, unlike the Royal Mail.

However, even the logistics Director admitted last year, that thier staff do not have special training to handle animals, contary to the requirements of the transporter authorisation they operate under. 

Yes, of course I have a vested interest, as do all my customers. Sentient animals do not belong in sealed boxes without welfare, often water, and being handled on and off vans, pallets and trucks, often in cold warehouse, by people who often have no perception of whats inside. 

There is no difference in the service offered by TNT express for vertibrates and that offered by Royal Mail Special delivery, other than a Transporter Authorisation sitting in a folder somewhere.


----------



## Dragon Farm (Aug 7, 2009)

Are you suggesting that reptiles ought to have water available while they are travelling for journeys around 24 hours ?


----------



## vukic (Apr 9, 2010)

This could get interesting... Is it number 10 about stud animals?? That will encourage inbreeding... 
And how are breeders going to sell surplus young if your only allowed ti sell 3 animals??

Tiger

Sent from my LT18i using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

tarantulabarn said:


> The Postal Services Act 2011, whilst containing a lot regarding the 'Royal Mial' specifically, it also applies to any other postal service, ownership be it public or private is not a subject of the act.
> 
> It most definitely does not provide legislation regarding the movement of animals. Postal Services Act 2011 feel free to take a look.
> 
> ...





> On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..) sent by post a postal packet, namely **(..SPECIFY..), enclosing a
> 
> (A)_[creature, namely **(..SPECIFY CREATURE..)]_
> (B)_[article, namely **(..SPECIFY ARTICLE..)]_
> ...


My understanding of this legislation was that it was intended for Royal Mail rather than private courier firms as this isnt "post" in the true sense - you are paying someone to collect a package from you and deliver directly to someone else.


----------



## tarantulabarn (Apr 21, 2005)

]My understanding of this legislation was that it was intended for Royal Mail rather than private courier firms as this isnt "post" in the true sense - you are paying someone to collect a package from you and deliver directly to someone else.[/QUOTE]

I Know, i dont think the exact rulings are realy as clear as they should be, thing is tnt and other parcel companies dont deliver direct, the packages are unloaded and reloaded many times, exactly the same as the royal mail and parcel force, in fact tnt were one of the companies bidding for taking over the uk mail a few years back


----------



## Berber King (Dec 29, 2007)

At least with TNT the animals go securely packaged,not sat on vans for days whilst enough collections are made to make the trip financially viable,and above all,not over-heated by well-meaning couriers who cant understand that reptiles travel better slightly cooler.Most wholesalers use TNT with very few problems (although if a better service was available at a reasonable price,im sure most would switch!)


----------



## Dragon Farm (Aug 7, 2009)

I would like to be able to use a courier who did not think it was sensible to check on the reptiles on an hourly basis while in transport. It is pointless and just adds extra time to the journey and unnessarily disturbs the animals. Cool, but not cold temps, gentle treatment, short journeys (less than 24 hours), NO water (that can create problems), and all healthy reptiles should arrive in excellent condition.


----------

