# European Council Adopt EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species



## Chris Newman

*European Council Adopt EU Regulation on Invasive Alien Species *

Yesterday the council adopted the ‘Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species’. This legislation will have a profound effect on keepers as a number of species currently kept will become completely banned from private ownership. 
http://www.nonnativespecies.org/news/index.cfm?id=159


----------



## chalky76

Doh!! Very frustrating considering cats and other commonly kept animals cause bigger issues. As they say a little knowledge is dangerous. 

Dreading what will be banned


----------



## ian14

Article 4(3) is the crucial bit. A species must cover every paragraph in that section to be listed. I can't imagine there will be many species, given the wording of that Article. Most, I suspect, will be plants.


----------



## Ben W

Will be interesting to see how they are going to enforce it.
im not going to give up my animals just cos some people in a suit in a swish office somewhere I Europe decides what we can and cant keep


----------



## Chris Newman

The list of species that will be banned is due to be published in January 2015 and come into force January 2016. The list was originally capped at 50 species, at the last moment that was removed so the list of species that can be banned is open-ended. Anyone with a little intellect that has actually taken the trouble to read the document will be able to read between the lines to see at least a few of the species that will be banned from private ownership.


Enforcement will be passive as there is no funding being made available. That aside a huge number of people are likely be turned into criminals for simply owning a pet, which is rather unpalatable. 

So let’s look at just one species red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans), the legislation works at species level so we are looking at (Trachemys scripta) being banned, not just (Trachemys scripta elegans) – this makes a huge difference. How many (Trachemys scripta) are kept in the UK, in fact lest say the EU….? Some 100,000 (Trachemys scripta scripta) have been imported into the EU this year, approximately 10,000 into the UK. Here in the UK alone there must be several hundred thousand (Trachemys scripta) kept as pets, across the EU the number will be colossal. 

The legislation will permit you to keep animals that are in your ownership prior to the prohibition coming into place, subject to meeting some criteria that as yet has not been published. During the various meeting discussions around microchiping, neutering and having ‘secure facilities’ were discussed. You will also have to register your animals with the competent authority and will be subject to inspection.

Registering your animals will like other legislation such as the Dangerous Wild Animals Act not be open-ended it will be restricted, most likely it will be 90 days enactment of the legislation. After that the animals become illegal in your possession, I cannot see any retrospective registrations being permitted.

The implications for welfare are colossal, putting aside your rights to enjoy your personal property, i.e. your ability to keep and breed your slider if you so wish, the bigger issue is welfare of the animals. Some people will register their animals, the vast majority are unlikely to do so for an array of reasons, the most prominent being they did not know about the legislation? How is government going to reach all of the people that simply keep them as a pet…!!


----------



## Khonsu

Chris Newman said:


> The legislation will permit you to keep animals that are in your ownership prior to the prohibition coming into place, subject to meeting some criteria that as yet has not been published


Assuming you're a good boy & have registed your animals therefore are allowed by some twat in Brussles to keep them what if they breed, can you you subsiquently register them as legally bred captive offspring form legally registered animals, will you have to be able to prove them as cvaptive bred from etc, etc or will breeding be them be illegal irrevelavent of the parent status.

For that matter will you be able to sell/barter/gift legally registed animals.

Another reason to remove oursels from Europe me thinks.

We could of course simply ignore the legislation as do most of the rest of europe !


----------



## Chris Newman

Khonsu said:


> Assuming you're a good boy & have registed your animals therefore are allowed by some twat in Brussles to keep them what if they breed, can you you subsiquently register them as legally bred captive offspring form legally registered animals, will you have to be able to prove them as cvaptive bred from etc, etc or will breeding be them be illegal irrevelavent of the parent status.


In a word no. It will be illegal to bred, sell or otherwise move a species scheduled on the List of EU Concern, other than to a place of eradication.


----------



## ian14

Chris Newman said:


> In a word no. It will be illegal to bred, sell or otherwise move a species scheduled on the List of EU Concern, other than to a place of eradication.


This has reared its head before, the end of the hobby etc etc. The truth is that the EU published a list of banned species which contained plants. Nothing else. Check the DEFRA site, the banned list is on there.


----------



## DW2013

ian14 said:


> This has reared its head before, the end of the hobby etc etc. The truth is that the EU published a list of banned species which contained plants. Nothing else. Check the DEFRA site, the banned list is on there.


 
Quite right Ian. I have a strong interest in this topic, particularly on the issue of Emydid turtles. Nation states are being urged to draw up a list of species of national concern, and, as things stand, there is no legislative machinery in place in order to enforce this. For another perspective, from earlier this year;

The implications of new invasive species EU regulations | British Ecological Society

The EU will be assessing the application of this legislation in June 2021.


----------



## Chris Newman

ian14 said:


> This has reared its head before, the end of the hobby etc etc. The truth is that the EU published a list of banned species which contained plants. Nothing else. Check the DEFRA site, the banned list is on there.


This list you refer to is *not* _the list_ ('the Union list') as you very well know..? List of invasive alien species of Union concern is due to be published in January 2015 and scheduled to come into effect in 2016. In reality the timescale is likely to drift, certainly in terms of UK implementing legislation.


----------



## ian14

Chris Newman said:


> This list you refer to is *not* _the list_ ('the Union list') as you very well know..? List of invasive alien species of Union concern is due to be published in January 2015 and scheduled to come into effect in 2016. In reality the timescale is likely to drift, certainly in terms of UK implementing legislation.


You claimed that the Invasive Species legislation would result in a swathe of species including corns being banned from being kept in the UK. Yet all that happened was a handful (5 species I think) of aquatic plants that got banned.
I really cannot see this being any different. 
In addition, the UK is a special case as we are an island. So there is no way that anything here could accidentally travel and spread to mainland Europe.


----------



## Chris Newman

ian14 said:


> You claimed that the Invasive Species legislation would result in a swathe of species including corns being banned from being kept in the UK. Yet all that happened was a handful (5 species I think) of aquatic plants that got banned.
> I really cannot see this being any different.
> In addition, the UK is a special case as we are an island. So there is no way that anything here could accidentally travel and spread to mainland Europe.


No, I did not, as you know full well. What I said is the legislation _could_ prohibit such species, and it still _could_. As yet we do not know what will or will not be listed. I am uncertain as to why you are endeavouring to mislead people by suggesting that the list has been published when it clearly has not…?


----------



## DW2013

The list will be determined by the nation states, according to the online material I have read. This makes sense, as I remember earlier concerns being linked to the banning of animals which could survive in Southern Spain or similar areas but would be unlikely to be a problem in the highlands of Scotland, for example. I would hope that relevant organisations, such as the BHS, will be consulted on the constitution of such a list.

Perhaps this might be an opportune time to seriously consider which, if any herpetological taxa could or do pose a threat to the UK from an invasive point of view. The following offers useful points to consider:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/22173289

Given the recognition by the NNSS that not all such species are a problem, and this list has yet to be devised, any panic regarding overnight criminalisation is premature at best;

http://www.nonnativespecies.org//index.cfm?sectionid=25


----------



## Chris Newman

DW2013 said:


> The list will be determined by the nation states, according to the online material I have read. This makes sense, as I remember earlier concerns being linked to the banning of animals which could survive in Southern Spain or similar areas but would be unlikely to be a problem in the highlands of Scotland, for example. I would hope that relevant organisations, such as the BHS, will be consulted on the constitution of such a list.
> 
> Perhaps this might be an opportune time to seriously consider which, if any herpetological taxa could or do pose a threat to the UK from an invasive point of view. The following offers useful points to consider:
> 
> BBC Nature - The alien animals and plants helping UK wildlife
> 
> Given the recognition by the NNSS that not all such species are a problem, and this list has yet to be devised, any panic regarding overnight criminalisation is premature at best;
> 
> Frequently asked questions - GB non-native species secretariat


The list of EU Concern will be derived from a compilation of existing Member State legislation and existing EU legislation, e.g. 338/97. The national list will be proposed by the NNSS, so is unlikely to be so significant concern. The BHS have not played any direct part of the legislation other than representation through the FBH.


----------



## ian14

Chris Newman said:


> No, I did not, as you know full well. What I said is the legislation _could_ prohibit such species, and it still _could_. As yet we do not know what will or will not be listed. I am uncertain as to why you are endeavouring to mislead people by suggesting that the list has been published when it clearly has not…?


Chris, you posted numerous comments relating to the Invasive Species legislation, which came across in a way that you were saying numerous species would be banned. 
Secondly, I am not endeavouring to mislead people in the way you have suggested. What I am saying is that you have gone down this road before, pronouncing doom and gloom, the end of the hobby, species being banned, and yet the reality is, none of that has actually happened. Crying wolf has been mentioned by others, and sadly that is what seems to be the case. 
I also read with interest your remark about how those involved in this know far more than has been made public. Again, a common remark made in your many posts about impending negative legislation. But as yet, these "the end is nigh" claims have simply not materialised. 
The Invasive Species legislation (an EU wide issue if you recall) is a perfect example.


----------



## Chris Newman

ian14 said:


> Chris, you posted numerous comments relating to the Invasive Species legislation, which came across in a way that you were saying numerous species would be banned.
> Secondly, I am not endeavouring to mislead people in the way you have suggested. What I am saying is that you have gone down this road before, pronouncing doom and gloom, the end of the hobby, species being banned, and yet the reality is, none of that has actually happened. Crying wolf has been mentioned by others, and sadly that is what seems to be the case.
> I also read with interest your remark about how those involved in this know far more than has been made public. Again, a common remark made in your many posts about impending negative legislation. But as yet, these "the end is nigh" claims have simply not materialised.
> The Invasive Species legislation (an EU wide issue if you recall) is a perfect example.


What I have said and what remains the case is some species, as yet unknown, will be banned from private ownership that is simply a fact. As yet the list has not been published and until it is we can all speculate what it will or will not be. The UK has never banned private ownership of any animal, it regulates that by licensing i.e. DWAA. I personally find any prohibition unpalatable, beyond that there are significant welfare implications for species that do become banned, and that could be on an epic proportion. I agree that it is likely the central list will contain many animals, however, we simply don’t know.


----------



## DW2013

Chris Newman said:


> The list of EU Concern will be derived from a compilation of existing Member State legislation and existing EU legislation, e.g. 338/97. The national list will be proposed by the NNSS, so is unlikely to be so significant concern. The BHS have not played any direct part of the legislation other than representation through the FBH.


What part has the FBH played in the current legislation and the make-up of the pending lists? So, what you are saying is that the NNSS will be the prime body in deciding what, if any species of reptile and amphibian will go on this list which is unlikely to be enforced in any meaningful (so a "passive") way? There is no suggestion of criminalising ownership of RES under the convention you site is there?

In summary, some species (we don't know which) may be subject to some restrictions (we don't know which -maybe breeding, maybe keeping or whatever) over the next few years (by 2021 maybe) in ways that Britain has to decide to enforce (which it probably won't in any meaningful way). Have I got it right? Sounds like EC clarity!


----------



## cherryshrimp

I address this to those who seem to have buried their heads in the sand and state that the hobby, as a whole, is not under attack from legislators/council/government/animal 'rights' extremists.

Why are there so few reptile exhibitions/shows?

Why do councils cancel shows? Why do you think the IHS spends so much money and time trying to defend the hobby? 

To anyone that enjoys Doncaster or Kempton or the like (Even Hamm) think twice before criticising those that defend our hobby. There are politicians and legislators and animal rights extremists that are trying to curb reptile and amphibian keeping. This is not just the UK but across Europe. Look at Belgium for example. Very recent and restrictive. 

Example - Anyone reviewed the 'proposed' positive list of reptiles you will be able to keep in Belgium!? 

Is it not time to team together as reptile keepers and fight with those that threaten our hobby rather than those that work hard to protect it?


----------



## Iulia

In a thread I posted elsewhere about wild caught animals, Chris N posted some very interesting information about sales of vivariums (vivaria?  )

It was a staggering statistic

The number of people who keep reptiles in the EU is a number we don't know ... but its a lot. Maybe more than we suspect. 

Its a big enough number probably to have some effect in decisions if we all worked together.

Sadly a significant proportion of them would rather bicker and find fault. Perhaps its just the nature of people drawn to this that they are maverick. 

I don't agree with everything the IHS says or does, but I believe they are trying to work for the best of the hobby, and I think arguing on a public forum does nothing but undermine confidence and credibility.

What exactly are you trying to achieve? There is ample evidence in the recent past of attacks on our hobby (Doncaster, Lush, spa, the guy prosecuted for selling geckos sorry can't remember his name)

Why not try to focus on the big picture rather than nit picking the details?


----------



## Chris Newman

DW2013 said:


> What part has the FBH played in the current legislation and the make-up of the pending lists? So, what you are saying is that the NNSS will be the prime body in deciding what, if any species of reptile and amphibian will go on this list which is unlikely to be enforced in any meaningful (so a "passive") way? There is no suggestion of criminalising ownership of RES under the convention you site is there?
> 
> In summary, some species (we don't know which) may be subject to some restrictions (we don't know which -maybe breeding, maybe keeping or whatever) over the next few years (by 2021 maybe) in ways that Britain has to decide to enforce (which it probably won't in any meaningful way). Have I got it right? Sounds like EC clarity!




The FBH have been involved with the legislation right back to the inception around 2004. The UK government has a policy of stakeholder involvement thus we will be consulted on any draft legislation including that may impact keepers or industry. The List of Concern will be drafted by the Commission with impute from Members States, we would be consulted on the list at some stage. 

The important point to bear in mind is any species scheduled on the List of Concern will become illegal to possess. There is provision that people who lawfully keep specimens prior to them being listed will be granted grandfather right to keep them subject to meeting as yet undefined criteria. However, you will not be able to breed them, transport them (other than to a place of eradication), sell them etc. On this point at the 2013 FBH Conference the head of the NNSS gave a presentation on the legislation, he was asked was the grandfather right open ended, i.e. His view was there would be a time limit as long lived species posed a problem…!!

The UK will have to introduce enabling legislation or amend current legislation, not sure which at the moment. The list is due to be published in 2015 and come into effect in 2016. However, UK legislation will take longer to be implemented, at a guess 2018.


----------



## Chris Newman

Iulia said:


> In a thread I posted elsewhere about wild caught animals, Chris N posted some very interesting information about sales of vivariums (vivaria?  )
> 
> It was a staggering statistic
> 
> The number of people who keep reptiles in the EU is a number we don't know ... but its a lot. Maybe more than we suspect.
> 
> Its a big enough number probably to have some effect in decisions if we all worked together.
> 
> Sadly a significant proportion of them would rather bicker and find fault. Perhaps its just the nature of people drawn to this that they are maverick.
> 
> I don't agree with everything the IHS says or does, but I believe they are trying to work for the best of the hobby, and I think arguing on a public forum does nothing but undermine confidence and credibility.
> 
> What exactly are you trying to achieve? There is ample evidence in the recent past of attacks on our hobby (Doncaster, Lush, spa, the guy prosecuted for selling geckos sorry can't remember his name)
> 
> Why not try to focus on the big picture rather than nit picking the details?


The UK has been much more proactive in gathering data on the size and scale of the reptile hobby/industry in the UK. This is something the rest of Europe desperately needs to do. I produced this document: Reptiles and Amphibians as Companion Animals for a meeting in Brussels back in 2012. I have been trying to get each Member State to do something similar on establishing data, but its proving a challenge.


----------



## Iulia

seems a bit shortsighted doesn't it?


----------



## DW2013

Chris Newman said:


> The FBH have been involved with the legislation right back to the inception around 2004. The UK government has a policy of stakeholder involvement thus we will be consulted on any draft legislation including that may impact keepers or industry. The List of Concern will be drafted by the Commission with impute from Members States, we would be consulted on the list at some stage.
> 
> The important point to bear in mind is any species scheduled on the List of Concern will become illegal to possess. There is provision that people who lawfully keep specimens prior to them being listed will be granted grandfather right to keep them subject to meeting as yet undefined criteria. However, you will not be able to breed them, transport them (other than to a place of eradication), sell them etc. On this point at the 2013 FBH Conference the head of the NNSS gave a presentation on the legislation, he was asked was the grandfather right open ended, i.e. His view was there would be a time limit as long lived species posed a problem…!!
> 
> The UK will have to introduce enabling legislation or amend current legislation, not sure which at the moment. The list is due to be published in 2015 and come into effect in 2016. However, UK legislation will take longer to be implemented, at a guess 2018.


 
This is really helpful Chris, thankyou.

My point should have been phrased "That does, indeed, sound like the EC's version of "Clarity"!

The member states will not have the efficacy of their measure tested until 2020/2021, no?


----------



## DW2013

Iulia said:


> In a thread I posted elsewhere about wild caught animals, Chris N posted some very interesting information about sales of vivariums (vivaria?  )
> 
> It was a staggering statistic
> 
> The number of people who keep reptiles in the EU is a number we don't know ... but its a lot. Maybe more than we suspect.
> 
> Its a big enough number probably to have some effect in decisions if we all worked together.
> 
> Sadly a significant proportion of them would rather bicker and find fault. Perhaps its just the nature of people drawn to this that they are maverick.
> 
> I don't agree with everything the IHS says or does, but I believe they are trying to work for the best of the hobby, and I think arguing on a public forum does nothing but undermine confidence and credibility.
> 
> What exactly are you trying to achieve? There is ample evidence in the recent past of attacks on our hobby (Doncaster, Lush, spa, the guy prosecuted for selling geckos sorry can't remember his name)
> 
> Why not try to focus on the big picture rather than nit picking the details?


 
No, let's try an focus on the details of the proposal at hand, and not bring animal rights protestors and the like into it; nor is this an attack on the FBH. I have met Chris before, and heard him speak knowledgeably on this and other topics. We are talking about the impact of a specific piece of legislation which has yet to be implemented. It demands attention, resolve and data, not panicking and confusion.

Unfortunately, it is indeed the details that will have the greatest impact here (incubation temperatures, what consitutes a sale etc)


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Sorry but I'm really struggling to see that there's anything to say any reptile is going to be banned? Am I missing something?
It seems to me that someone is just scaremongering AGAIN.
Let's face it in the UK we have had bans on keeping automatic rifles,hand guns and pitbulls but we managed the country is still here we get over things that's what we do being British.


----------



## Iulia

rest my case


----------



## ian14

Jabba the mentor said:


> Sorry but I'm really struggling to see that there's anything to say any reptile is going to be banned? Am I missing something?
> It seems to me that someone is just scaremongering AGAIN.
> Let's face it in the UK we have had bans on keeping automatic rifles,hand guns and pitbulls but we managed the country is still here we get over things that's what we do being British.


The documents relating to this new legislation are online, and were most recently updated on the 3rd October. It makes clear that American bulldog and red eared terrains WILL be on the Union list of concern. However it also says there will be a maximum of 50 species. The likelihood is that most of these will be plants and aquatic invertebrates, freshwater molluscs, etc.


----------



## colinm

Do you mean American Bullfrog Ian?


----------



## Chris Newman

ian14 said:


> The documents relating to this new legislation are online, and were most recently updated on the 3rd October. It makes clear that American bulldog and red eared terrains WILL be on the Union list of concern. However it also says there will be a maximum of 50 species. The likelihood is that most of these will be plants and aquatic invertebrates, freshwater molluscs, etc.


As I have pointed out to you before the 50 cap was removed in the final draft, it is now an unlimited number of species can be banned from private ownership/keeping. That aside I am pleased that you final concede that some species of reptiles and amphibians will become illegal to be kept. Even if it was only red eared terrapins and American bullfrogs (it won’t be) that become banned many people, including myself, will find that unpalatable.


----------



## Chris Newman

Ian I believe this is the latest draft of the Regulations that are in the public domain:

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species

I have not read this version yet but I think you will find there is no mention of the 50 species cap that you referee to?


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> Ian I believe this is the latest draft of the Regulations that are in the public domain:
> 
> Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species
> 
> I have not read this version yet but I think you will find there is no mention of the 50 species cap that you referee to?


I would say you should read it first


----------



## mitsi

Just wondering, when this list is published next year, what happens if say, corn snakes for example are on the banned list, then, as this comes into force the corns have already mated, or eggs are due to hatch. What happens then, does this mean that the owner will have to keep all the babies?


----------



## Chris Newman

Jabba the mentor said:


> I would say you should read it first


I have read the latest draft (not in the public domain) so it would be a little pointless reading an older version.


----------



## Chris Newman

mitsi said:


> Just wondering, when this list is published next year, what happens if say, corn snakes for example are on the banned list, then, as this comes into force the corns have already mated, or eggs are due to hatch. What happens then, does this mean that the owner will have to keep all the babies?


The list of concern is due to be published in early 2015, until that has happened we will not know what species are going to be prohibited. If the list is published on schedule (and that is if) then at the earliest this would come into effect in 2016. I hope that corn snakes will not be listed, but there is a small chance they could as they are already prohibited in parts of the EU. Those who are in possession of species that become banned will, subject to meeting certain provisions, will be permitted to keep them. However, you will not be able to breed them, sell them or move them.


----------



## mitsi

Thanks, only used corns as an example, I hope they wont be, my daughter would be gutted.


----------



## Chris Newman

mitsi said:


> Thanks, only used corns as an example, I hope they wont be, my daughter would be gutted.


I think a lot of people would be ‘gutted’..? 

I sincerely hope that corns would not be listed, however, both corn snakes and kingsnakes _could_ potential be candidates as they are restricted in other parts of the EU.


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> I have read the latest draft (not in the public domain) so it would be a little pointless reading an older version.


So why are you not posting the latest draft?


----------



## colinm

Probably because it's not in the public domain,


----------



## Jabba the mentor

colinm said:


> Probably because it's not in the public domain,


But if I was supposedly helping the hobby I would share with everyone keeping something to yourself and expecting everyone to believe what your saying when your just scaremongering by posting old drafts is a bit out of order


----------



## Pete Q

Chris Newman said:


> I think a lot of people would be ‘gutted’..?
> 
> I sincerely hope that corns would not be listed, however, both corn snakes and kingsnakes _could_ potential be candidates as they are restricted in other parts of the EU.


 Chris, thanks for keeping us up dated.

Could you tell me what the FBH are doing to tackle this ? as my hobby is the above snakes.


----------



## colinm

If it's not in the public domain yet, as Chris says why publish it on a public forum? I am sure that once it is Chris can publish here or elsewhere.


----------



## Chris Newman

Jabba the mentor said:


> So why are you not posting the latest draft?


It would be entirely inappropriate that I would put any consolation documents into the public domain that is a matter for the relevant authority. However, I am surprised that such an outdated draft has not been amended. It is matter that I shall raise.


----------



## Chris Newman

Pete Q said:


> Chris, thanks for keeping us up dated.
> 
> Could you tell me what the FBH are doing to tackle this ? as my hobby is the above snakes.


Rights at this moment in time there is very little we can do unfortunately other than wait. The next step is for a draft list to be circulated and as the list is due to be published in January 2015 I am really surprised this has not happened yet. I can only assume things are drifting, which is not uncommon.


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> It would be entirely inappropriate that I would put any consolation documents into the public domain that is a matter for the relevant authority. However, I am surprised that such an outdated draft has not been amended. It is matter that I shall raise.


Why would it be inappropriate? Your supposed to be helping the hobby which should mean if you have inside information then surely anyone that's sticking up for the hobby should share any info they have with the hobby? You seem to be able to share your information with your good friend that owns a filthy full of WC reptile shop in Belgium.


----------



## Chris Newman

Jabba the mentor said:


> Why would it be inappropriate? Your supposed to be helping the hobby which should mean if you have inside information then surely anyone that's sticking up for the hobby should share any info they have with the hobby? You seem to be able to share your information with your good friend that owns a filthy full of WC reptile shop in Belgium.


If you need to ask that question then there is probably little point in me trying to explain the reason why it would be inappropriate to put confidential documents into the public domain?


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> If you need to ask that question then there is probably little point in me trying to explain the reason why it would be inappropriate to put confidential documents into the public domain?


So another fob off Chris come on man up and share I really don't understand why everything is so top secret with you? Your not helping the hobby your ruining it. Grow some and tell everyone what your real agenda is


----------



## Chris Newman

Jabba the mentor said:


> So another fob off Chris come on man up and share I really don't understand why everything is so top secret with you? Your not helping the hobby your ruining it. Grow some and tell everyone what your real agenda is


Quite clearly you don’t understand why confidential document cannot be put into the public domain before the relevant authority see fits to publish them. It is quite straightforward, the function of the FBH is as a stakeholder is to seek views from the sector, i.e. reptile hobby on issues and feed those views back into any consultation documents. If we leaked such document before they were due for publication then we would be removed from the process.


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> Quite clearly you don’t understand why confidential document cannot be put into the public domain before the relevant authority see fits to publish them. It is quite straightforward, the function of the FBH is as a stakeholder is to seek views from the sector, i.e. reptile hobby on issues and feed those views back into any consultation documents. If we leaked such document before they were due for publication then we would be removed from the process.


But the FBH is nothing you get ignored most of the time at meetings you have no power over any thing


----------



## Geomyda

Jabba the mentor said:


> But the FBH is nothing you get ignored most of the time at meetings you have no power over any thing


Is this another example of "jabberish"?:whistling2:


----------



## Pete Q

Jabba the mentor said:


> But the FBH is nothing you get ignored most of the time at meetings you have no power over any thing


Which meetings have you been to and seen this for yourself ?


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Pete Q said:


> Which meetings have you been to and seen this for yourself ?


You on the pay roll are you Pete Q?


----------



## Pete Q

Jabba the mentor said:


> You on the pay roll are you Pete Q?


 Nope, and your answer would also be nope, you have never been to any meetings.


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Pete Q said:


> Nope, and your answer would also be nope, you have never been to any meetings.


You might be surprised by what I know and where I've been so don't assume you know I've never been to any meetings.


----------



## Pete Q

Jabba the mentor said:


> You might be surprised by what I know and where I've been so don't assume you know I've never been to any meetings.


 Ok, so be honest, after all your saying that's your problem you have with the FBH, what meetings have you been to ? the ones you say nobody takes any notice of the FBH ?


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Pete Q said:


> Ok, so be honest, after all your saying that's your problem you have with the FBH, what meetings have you been to ? the ones you say nobody takes any notice of the FBH ?


You really want to start this on here? Think very carefully about it and ask the rest of the tuffty club first just in case I really do know more than you give me credit for.


----------



## Pete Q

Jabba the mentor said:


> You really want to start this on here? Think very carefully about it and ask the rest of the tuffty club first just in case I really do know more than you give me credit for.


 I really don't know what you mean,I don't know you, not interested in starting anything or arguing with you, I have my opinion and who I'd like to trust and you have yours, it's a shame it's split and we spend so much time fighting each other, but I do respect those that fight against AR groups that want to shut down our hobby.


----------



## Tarron

I know someone else who says very similar things as Jabba, Pete. I believe you know the gentleman too.
Loads to say but the evidence is very hush hush, speaking to people behind the scenes etc.

Hmm


----------



## ian14

Jabba the mentor said:


> You might be surprised by what I know and where I've been so don't assume you know I've never been to any meetings.





Chris Newman said:


> It would be entirely inappropriate that I would put any consolation documents into the public domain that is a matter for the relevant authority. However, I am surprised that such an outdated draft has not been amended. It is matter that I shall raise.


Erm, the most up to date document publicly available, which includes a list of a maximum of 50 species, is dated 3/10/14. I'm rather sceptical that another version has suddenly been published privately.


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Tarron said:


> I know someone else who says very similar things as Jabba, Pete. I believe you know the gentleman too.
> Loads to say but the evidence is very hush hush, speaking to people behind the scenes etc.
> 
> Hmm


A bit like Newman then


----------



## Geomyda

Jabba the mentor said:


> You might be surprised by what I know and where I've been so don't assume you know I've never been to any meetings.


"As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." 
Donald Rumsfeld.

Take out the punctuation and I see many similarities in the content of a typical "Jabba" post.


----------



## Pete Q

Jabba the mentor said:


> A bit like Newman then


 That's twice you have relied like a 5 year old.

Grudges, pass full outs and arguments, trying to get one up, prove I'm right and your wrong, it's all very childish really. 

Not interested, the only thing that interested me is what meetings you have been to that you say " no one takes any interest in what the FBH has to say " you couldn't give examples without a threat of future arguments, which will only look like another grudge anyway. 

Why some people have to go all out to prove I'm right and your wrong just amazes me, following across forums, just a bit sad really. 

Carry on poking the stick if it makes you feel better, but it's not helping is it.


----------



## Chris Newman

ian14 said:


> Erm, the most up to date document publicly available, which includes a list of a maximum of 50 species, is dated 3/10/14. I'm rather sceptical that another version has suddenly been published privately.


The downside to forums is the presence of trolls and buffoons who disrupt threads for their own amusement, but it completely eludes me what you could conceivably think I would have to gain by misleading people on the development of this important piece of EU Regulation? 

For those who are interested in development of this and other legislation I will continue to make such information available on my Facebook page.


----------



## ian14

Chris Newman said:


> The downside to forums is the presence of trolls and buffoons who disrupt threads for their own amusement, but it completely eludes me what you could conceivably think I would have to gain by misleading people on the development of this important piece of EU Regulation?
> 
> For those who are interested in development of this and other legislation I will continue to make such information available on my Facebook page.


Chris, 

You have misled people. I do not believe for one minute that you have access to EU documents other than those already publically available. I have already copied, pasted, and quoted, Article 4. From the document updated o. 3/10/14. That states a maximum of 50 species. So already you have mislead people. The voice of the hobby?? Only if you follow on Facebook.
Chris you are wrong on this, as you have been wrong on everything else. Stop trying to create fear amongst herp keepers.


----------



## Geomyda

ian14 said:


> Chris,
> 
> You have misled people. I do not believe for one minute that you have access to EU documents other than those already publically available. I have already copied, pasted, and quoted, Article 4. From the document updated o. 3/10/14. That states a maximum of 50 species. So already you have mislead people. The voice of the hobby?? Only if you follow on Facebook.
> Chris you are wrong on this, as you have been wrong on everything else. Stop trying to create fear amongst herp keepers.


Ian,
Having read the document, I too am struggling to see the reference of a "maximum list of 50 species". 
Are you referring to the quote 3% of 1500 species mentioned in Article 4, section 10?
Having attended a couple of the stakeholder meetings, held at DEFRA in the last couple of years, my concern about the proposed directive is that the cost to the hobby of keeping reptiles and amphibians could be very troublesome. For instance, a species in trade, will I believe require a risk assessment and from the meetings at DEFRA such assessments cost approx £30,000.00 at current levels of resource. Who will bare such cost in the future?
This recent document does seem to highlight some specifics:
"(13) Some invasive alien animals are included in Annex B to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein[17], and their import into the Union is prohibited because their invasive character has been recognised and their introduction into the Union has a negative impact on native species. These species are: Callosciurus erythraeus, Sciurus carolinensis, Oxyura jamaicensis, Lithobates (Rana) catesbeianus, Sciurus niger, Chrysemys picta, Trachemys scripta elegans. To ensure a coherent legal framework and uniform rules at Union level on invasive alien species, those invasive alien animals should be considered as a matter of priority for listing as invasive alien species of Union concern."
Furthermore:
"Will pet shops and owners of exotic pets be affected?
The restrictions may affect some traders or breeders, although their concerns will be duly considered when lists are drawn up, and in most cases an alternative non-invasive species is available. If an invasive alien animal deemed to be of Union concern is being kept as a pet, the owner will in any case be able to keep the animal until the end of its natural life. Under no circumstances would pets be destroyed."


----------



## Chris Newman

Chris Newman said:


> The downside to forums is the presence of trolls and buffoons who disrupt threads for their own amusement, but it completely eludes me what you could conceivably think I would have to gain by misleading people on the development of this important piece of EU Regulation?
> 
> For those who are interested in development of this and other legislation I will continue to make such information available on my Facebook page.


Ian as I have posted on the Captive Bred Forum the fact of the matter is you are wrong the 50 cap has been dropped from the final draft and that is simply a fact. You can continue to dispute this as much as you like ultimately you will only embarrass yourself.


----------



## ian14

Chris Newman said:


> Ian as I have posted on the Captive Bred Forum the fact of the matter is you are wrong the 50 cap has been dropped from the final draft and that is simply a fact. You can continue to dispute this as much as you like ultimately you will only embarrass yourself.


Unless the document published by the EC has suddenly changed since 3/10/14 then no, I have not embarrassed myself as it clearly states a maximum of 50 species. I will look at it again later today to confirm that is the case. The problem is that you posted a link on CB to the document that I had already quoted from. The one that was dated 3/10/14. The one that clearly states the list of concern will be restricted to a maximum of 50 species. This link, you said, was the most recent update, which does not say an unlimited number! In fact you said you had not read that update!
And after this was highlighted you then decided to announce that updates would only be on your FB page.
I will clarify the current EU document, if I am wrong I will be the first to hold my hands up.


----------



## phoenox

The EU are alienating groups of people all over the country. Pushing us to vote to leave the union. If the referendum that is promised by some party's actually goes ahead we very well could see the UK out of the EU and therefore not part of this legislation. Use your vote wisely that's all I can say.


----------



## Chris Newman

*New EU Regulation to address invasive alien species*

The new Regulation on Invasive Alien Species was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 4th November 2014. (see link) It will enter into force on 1 January 2015. This is for information only and I will not post further on the issue. 

Please note the restriction on the numbers of species that can be placed on the List of Concern has been removed.


----------



## Jabba the mentor

Chris Newman said:


> *New EU Regulation to address invasive alien species*
> 
> The new Regulation on Invasive Alien Species was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 4th November 2014. (see link) It will enter into force on 1 January 2015. This is for information only and I will not post further on the issue.
> 
> Please note the restriction on the numbers of species that can be placed on the List of Concern has been removed.


So now your not going to post further on the issue as it says NOTHING about anything you have been scaring people with


----------



## Caz

So Ian was right then.
Oh no, wait.. time to get those hands up.




Jabba the mentor said:


> So now your not going to post further on the issue as it says NOTHING about anything you have been scaring people with


 
_The risks and concerns associated with invasive *alien species represent a cross-border challenge affecting the whole of the Union. It is therefore essential to adopt a ban at Union level on intentionally or negligently bringing into the Union*, reproducing, growing, transporting, buying, selling, using, exchanging, keeping and releasing invasive alien species of Union concern in order to ensure that early and *consistent action is taken across the Union to avoid distortions of the internal market* and to _*prevent situations where action taken in one Member State is undermined by inaction in another Member State.*


_Article 4_
_1. The *Commission shall adopt, by means of implementing acts, a list of invasive alien species of Union concern* ('the Union list'), on the basis of the criteria laid down in paragraph 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27(2). *The draft implementing acts shall be submitted to the Committee referred to in Article 27(1) by 2 January 2016*._


_Article 7_
_1. *Invasive alien species of Union concern* shall not be intentionally:_
_(a)_
*brought into the territory of the Union, including transit under customs supervision;*
_(b)_
_kept, including in contained holding;_
_(c)_
_bred, including in contained holding;_
_(d)_
_*transported to, from or within the Union,* except for the transportation of species to *facilities in the context of eradication*;_
_(e)_
_placed on the market;_
_(f)_
_used or exchanged;_
_(g)_
_*permitted to reproduce, grown or cultivated*, including in contained holding; or_
_(h)_
_released into the environment._


_Article 31_
_1. *By way of derogation from points (b) and (d) of Article 7(1), owners of companion animals not kept for commercial purposes that belong to the invasive alien species included on the Union list shall be allowed to keep them until the end of the animals' natural life, provided the following conditions are met:*_
_(a)_
_the animals were kept before their inclusion on the Union list;_
_(b)_
_the animals are kept in contained holding and all appropriate measures are put in place to ensure that reproduction or escape are not possible_


So no, nothing to be concerned with here. FFS.


----------



## ian14

Caz said:


> So Ian was right then.
> Oh no, wait.. time to get those hands up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The risks and concerns associated with invasive *alien species represent a cross-border challenge affecting the whole of the Union. It is therefore essential to adopt a ban at Union level on intentionally or negligently bringing into the Union*, reproducing, growing, transporting, buying, selling, using, exchanging, keeping and releasing invasive alien species of Union concern in order to ensure that early and *consistent action is taken across the Union to avoid distortions of the internal market* and to _*prevent situations where action taken in one Member State is undermined by inaction in another Member State.*
> 
> 
> _Article 4_
> _1. The *Commission shall adopt, by means of implementing acts, a list of invasive alien species of Union concern* ('the Union list'), on the basis of the criteria laid down in paragraph 3 of this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 27(2). *The draft implementing acts shall be submitted to the Committee referred to in Article 27(1) by 2 January 2016*._
> 
> 
> _Article 7_
> _1. *Invasive alien species of Union concern* shall not be intentionally:_
> _(a)_
> *brought into the territory of the Union, including transit under customs supervision;*
> _(b)_
> _kept, including in contained holding;_
> _(c)_
> _bred, including in contained holding;_
> _(d)_
> _*transported to, from or within the Union,* except for the transportation of species to *facilities in the context of eradication*;_
> _(e)_
> _placed on the market;_
> _(f)_
> _used or exchanged;_
> _(g)_
> _*permitted to reproduce, grown or cultivated*, including in contained holding; or_
> _(h)_
> _released into the environment._
> 
> 
> _Article 31_
> _1. *By way of derogation from points (b) and (d) of Article 7(1), owners of companion animals not kept for commercial purposes that belong to the invasive alien species included on the Union list shall be allowed to keep them until the end of the animals' natural life, provided the following conditions are met:*_
> _(a)_
> _the animals were kept before their inclusion on the Union list;_
> _(b)_
> _the animals are kept in contained holding and all appropriate measures are put in place to ensure that reproduction or escape are not possible_
> 
> 
> So no, nothing to be concerned with here. FFS.


Try reading the entire Regulation. Especially the bit about which member state can ban which species. Based on neighbouring biogeographical regions. As an island, we are isolated from the rest of Europe. So, no, no hands being raised.


----------



## Caz

ian14 said:


> Chris,
> 
> You have misled people. I do not believe for one minute that you have access to EU documents other than those already publically available. I have already copied, pasted, and quoted, Article 4. From the document updated o. 3/10/14. That states a maximum of 50 species. So already you have mislead people. The voice of the hobby?? Only if you follow on Facebook.
> Chris you are wrong on this, as you have been wrong on everything else. Stop trying to create fear amongst herp keepers.





ian14 said:


> Unless the document published by the EC has suddenly changed since 3/10/14 then no, I have not embarrassed myself as it clearly states a maximum of 50 species. I will look at it again later today to confirm that is the case. The problem is that you posted a link on CB to the document that I had already quoted from. The one that was dated 3/10/14. The one that clearly states the list of concern will be restricted to a maximum of 50 species. This link, you said, was the most recent update, which does not say an unlimited number! In fact you said you had not read that update!
> And after this was highlighted you then decided to announce that updates would only be on your FB page.
> I will clarify the current EU document, if I am wrong I will be the first to hold my hands up.





ian14 said:


> Try reading the entire Regulation. Especially the bit about which member state can ban which species. Based on neighbouring biogeographical regions. As an island, we are isolated from the rest of Europe. So, no, no hands being raised.


Your personal gripes with Chris Newman are of no concern to me. However I find it disappointing that you seemingly lack the integrity to hold your hands up when you were clearly wrong regarding the '50 cap.'

Re your comment to me regarding biogeographical regions and reading the Regulation as a whole, I have read it Ian. Now I suggest you re-read it in context.

The UK is an island BUT it is not an 'outermost region.' To save you looking these are: Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion (the four French overseas departments), the Canaries (Spain), and the Azores and Madeira (Portugal).
The Regulation clearly defines all species placed on the list to be controlled at Union Level. There is no provision within the Regulations for Member States to 'opt out.' The only exceptions would apply to the 'outermost regions' listed above and certain exceptional cases listed in Art'9.
While the Regulations still allow for individual Member States to give species 'invasive alien species of Member State concern' status, these are effectively separate from this Regulation UNLESS that species is adopted as a listed species.
As a GUESS I would consider it likely that pressure groups will push to add species given Member State concern to this Union Level Regulation. 

Are you honestly suggesting that this Regulation will have little or no impact on species legally kept in the UK?


----------



## mitsi

Has the list been published yet.


----------



## mitsi

Been having a read through and i must be thick cus i cant make head or tail of it.


----------



## Iulia

If its from the EU I doubt its intended to be understood


----------



## Viqer Fell

Thank god we have people like Ian to post spurious remarks and ad homimen attacks otherwise we'd just have to read the potentially overly cautious but factual comments of Chris N on this somewhat important topic.

I delivberately included a few grammatical errors to allow for easy internet point scoring that usually comes from such discussions


----------



## ian14

Viqer Fell said:


> Thank god we have people like Ian to post spurious remarks and ad homimen attacks otherwise we'd just have to read the potentially overly cautious but factual comments of Chris N on this somewhat important topic.
> 
> I delivberately included a few grammatical errors to allow for easy internet point scoring that usually comes from such discussions


My remarks have not been spurious, but based on my very long involvement in this hobby and seeing scaremongering stories coming to nothing. This is the same. Have you read the legislation? 
He claimed that the earlier draft of invasive species regs would end reptile keeping. What happened? Nothing. The list of species banned from import consisted of plants and a few aquatic invertebrates!
How about his take on EPS legislation? That all species are covered and that proof must be provided of being CB? Again, wrong. 
I have made no attacks either, simply put across some reality.


----------



## mitsi

ian14 said:


> My remarks have not been spurious, but based on my very long involvement in this hobby and seeing scaremongering stories coming to nothing. This is the same. Have you read the legislation?
> He claimed that the earlier draft of invasive species regs would end reptile keeping. What happened? Nothing. The list of species banned from import consisted of plants and a few aquatic invertebrates!
> How about his take on EPS legislation? That all species are covered and that proof must be provided of being CB? Again, wrong.
> I have made no attacks either, simply put across some reality.


Have you read the updated one released last month, if so msybe you can shed some light on it for me, does in include anything other than red eared sliders anywhere. I cant make head or tail of it.


----------



## Pete Q

ian14 said:


> My remarks have not been spurious, but based on my very long involvement in this hobby and seeing scaremongering stories coming to nothing. This is the same. Have you read the legislation?
> He claimed that the earlier draft of invasive species regs would end reptile keeping. What happened? Nothing. The list of species banned from import consisted of plants and a few aquatic invertebrates!
> How about his take on EPS legislation? That all species are covered and that proof must be provided of being CB? Again, wrong.
> I have made no attacks either, simply put across some reality.


 He did not say that it would end ALL reptile keeping and you know this.

If you take a look at the BBC video, he clearly says a ban on reptile keeping will never happen, you know this also.

And if he is wrong about how some legislation MAY lead to bans, and it hasn't happened, then what's the harm in letting us know before hand ?

I want to know what's going on, and his opinion of what might happen, right or wrong, I'll listen to anyone's view until it gets personal, and that's what we have here.


----------



## colinm

I really dont see why Chris would scaremonger for the sake of it, it does him no good at all to do so. He is addressing people on the forums as head of the F.B.H., an unpaid post. Through working with R.E.P.T.A. and the F.B.H. he has access to more meetings and documentation than any of us.He will be paid by R.E.P.T.A. whether he does the voluntary job for the F.B.H. or not.

There are big pressures on the hobby in the iminent future with the Invasive Species legislation, the pressure on the shows, positive lists, the banning of exotics in Scotland etc. Its not going to be one piece of legislation but a combination of them all that will gradually strangle the hobby. At the moment we dont have anyone other than the F.B.H. fighting our corner , so I dont see why we cannot get behind them for a little time and put our differences to bed.


----------



## colinm

For those interested, here is the proposed E.U. list. Note the inclusion of Racoonns, Siberian Chipmunks, Ringneck Parakeets, Painted Turtle, Red Eared Sliders and American Bullfrog.

https://word.office.live.com/wv/Wor...KD9A5fBtA&title=Draft+EU+List+of+Concern.docx


----------



## Viqer Fell

Link throws up an error


----------



## colinm

*ANIMALS*
*Scientific name Common name*
_Branta canadensis_ Canada goose Should not be included as already regulated by another EU Instrument – The Birds Directive
_Callosciurus erythraeus_ Pallas's squirrel
_Caprella mutica_ Japanese skeleton shrimp
_Cervus nippon _ Sika deer
_Chrysemys picta_ Painted turtle
_Corvus splendens_ Indian house crow
_Crassotrea gigas_ Pacific oyster Should not be included as already regulated by another EU Instrument – The Aquaculture Regulations
_Crepidula fornicata_ Slipper limpet
_Didemnum vexillum_ Carpet sea-squirt
_Eriocheir sinensis_ Chinese mitten crab
_Lithobates (Rana) catesbeianus_ North American bullfrog
_Muntiacus reevesii_ Muntjac deer
_Myiopsitta monachus_ Monk parakeet
_Myocastor coypus_ Coypu
_Orconectes limosus_ Spiny-cheek crayfish
_Orconectes virilis_ Virile crayfish
_Oxyura jamaicensis_ Ruddy duck
_Pacifastacus leniusculus_ Signal crayfish
_Perccottus glenii_ Amur sleeper
_Potamopyrgus antipodarum_ New Zealand mudsnail
_Procambarus clarkii_ Red swamp crayfish
_Procambarus spp._ Marbled crayfish
_Procyon lotor_ Raccoon
_Pseudorasbora parva _ Stone moroko
_Psittacula krameri_ Rose-ringed parakeet
_Rapana venosa _ Rapa whelk
_Sciurus carolinensis_ Grey squirrel
_Sciurus niger_ Fox squirrel
_Sicyos angulatus_ Star cucumber
_Tamias sibiricus_ Siberian chipmunk
_Threskiornis aethiopicus_ Sacred ibis
_Vespa velutina_ Asian hornet
_Trachemys scripta elegans_ Red-eared terrapin/slider

*PLANTS*
*Scientific name Common name*
_Ambrosia artemisiifolia_ Common ragweed
_Azolla filiculoides_ Water fern
_Baccharis halimifolia_ Eastern Baccharis
_Cabomba caroliniana_ Green cabomba
_Crassula helmsii_ Australian swamp-stonecrop
_Eichhornia crassipes_ Water hyacinth
_Fallopia japonica_ (& F. x bohemica?) Japanese knotweed
_Fallopia sachalinensis _ Giant knotweed
_Heracleum mantegazzianum_ Giant hogweed is not eligible as no approved risk assessment has been concluded for this species.
_Heracleum persicum_ Persian hogweed
_Heracleum sosnowskyi Sosnowski's_ hogweed
_Hydrocotyle ranunculoides_ Floating pennywort
_Lagarosiphon major_ Curly waterweed
_Ludwigia grandiflora_ Water primrose
_Ludwigia peploides_ Floating primrose willow
_Lysichiton americanus_ American skunk cabbage
_Myriophyllum aquaticum_ Parrot's feather
_Parthenium hysterophorus_ Whitetop weed
_Persicaria perfoliata (Polygonum perfoliatum)_ Asiatic tearthumb
_Pueraria lobata _ Kudzu vine
_Sargassum muticum_ Japweed, wireweed
_Senecio inaequidens _ Narrow-leaved ragwort
_Solanum elaeagnifolium_ Silver leafed nightshade


----------



## Geomyda

Thanks for posting!


----------



## Markw999

colinm said:


> For those interested, here is the proposed E.U. list. Note the inclusion of Racoonns, Siberian Chipmunks, Ringneck Parakeets, Painted Turtle, Red Eared Sliders and American Bullfrog.
> 
> https://word.office.live.com/wv/Wor...KD9A5fBtA&title=Draft+EU+List+of+Concern.docx


Fair enough for the bullfrog but as for the turtles, considering any eggs won't incubate successfully, I can't see why they're seen as a risk. Even several hundred thousand across the UK will have negligible effect on native wildlife.
Stick a tax of £100 on every turtle sold and the "problem" of pet turtles being released into the wild will disappear overnight.


----------



## cherryshrimp

Markw999 said:


> Fair enough for the bullfrog but as for the turtles, considering any eggs won't incubate successfully, I can't see why they're seen as a risk. Even several hundred thousand across the UK will have negligible effect on native wildlife.
> Stick a tax of £100 on every turtle sold and the "problem" of pet turtles being released into the wild will disappear overnight.


 It's about the European Union. We, in the UK, ARE part of the European union.

If turtle eggs can and do hatch in some southern parts of Europe then they can be considered a risk to the EU and therefore be banned by the EU policy-makers. The UK (being far too cold and northerly for some of the animals to breed) is not an exception the EU bothers considering. Partly because at its heart the EU wants to run as one big superstate where one model fits all. I hate it but it seems to be the way it is!

So many people seem to be mis-understanding this point.


----------

