# Reptile Survey



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

The FBH and the Pet Food Manufacturers Association are carrying out a survey into the reptile and amphibian hobby to try to gauge the current position of the hobby. If you were at Doncaster last weekend you will probably have seen the leaflets being given around. Please spend the ten minutes it takes to fill out this survey. It's completely anonymous.




__





Free Online Survey Software by SurveyMonkey: Closed Survey


This survey is currently closed. Please contact the author of this survey for further assistance.




www.surveymonkey.co.uk


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Not quite sure why you need to know the type of job I do, the county I live in, or my age range.
The question re where I had heard about this survey missed a crucial option - online specialist forum.
Anyhow, I've completed it.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

Would love to have seen Forums listed as an option for several questions...


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

ian14 said:


> Not quite sure why you need to know the type of job I do, the county I live in, or my age range.
> The question re where I had heard about this survey missed a crucial option - online specialist forum.
> Anyhow, I've completed it.


I agree... I can not see what relevance the demographic section has. But the survey was completed, even though that section was completed with false information


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

Also, whilst its trying to gauge the amount of captive bred reptiles are kept and their length of captivity, it could have broken that down further where more than one animal is kept. For example having asked how many snakes / lizards etc are owned, and then asked the age of the oldest animal, it could have asked for the breakdown of the total in age groups. For example, I have 9 snakes 0-1 years, 5 that are 1-3 years, 1 that is 3-5 years, 2 between 5 - 10 years, and 2 that are 10 - 15 years. But the oldest snake I had lived to 22. - all captive bred


----------



## Shellsfeathers&fur (Jan 18, 2009)

Malc said:


> Also, whilst its trying to gauge the amount of captive bred reptiles are kept and their length of captivity, it could have broken that down further where more than one animal is kept. For example having asked how many snakes / lizards etc are owned, and then asked the age of the oldest animal, it could have asked for the breakdown of the total in age groups. For example, I have 9 snakes 0-1 years, 5 that are 1-3 years, 1 that is 3-5 years, 2 between 5 - 10 years, and 2 that are 10 - 15 years. But the oldest snake I had lived to 22. - all captive bred


Gosh, you're never happy - your poor wife!!!!!!!


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

I'm sure that in time the questions will be modified.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

Shellsfeathers&fur said:


> Gosh, you're never happy - your poor wife!!!!!!!


Ouch.... Since when does constructive comments deserve an attack - would have though better of a "super moderator" !!


----------



## Shellsfeathers&fur (Jan 18, 2009)

Malc said:


> Ouch.... Since when does constructive comments deserve an attack - would have though better of a "super moderator" !!


Hardly an attack. You've pointed out numerous times all the student questionnaires that request your email details amongst other things stating they are not anonymous and then one is posted that is (although you can enter the information if you want to enter a draw), and that has faults too!


----------



## 221883 (May 31, 2021)

I did fill it out... I just cringed at the job question. I still am looking for a job to spoil Sushi. So hard to get one :/

Plus, I hardly see any point to be fighting over a survey. It's a bit childish.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

The hobby is under threat. Please take time to read this and fill in the questionaire to help increase our knowledge of the reptiles and amphibians in captivity.





__





Facebook လောဂ်အင်ဝင်ရန်


သင်၏ သူငယ်ချင်း၊ မိသားစု၊ သင်သိသောသူမျာနှင့် စတင်၍ ချိတ်ဆက်ပြီ မျှဝေရန် Facebook သို လောဂ်အင်ဝင်ပါ။




lm.facebook.com


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

Colin, I was going to comment on the length of that URL, and the fact that its broken as something is not right as it takes you to a facebook redirection link, which takes you to the main Clause 19 home page rather than the survey... but last time I commented on your post about the survey I got flamed


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

It should take you to a parliamentary page showing the proposed review of keeping exotic pets. It works for me on my phone.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

So reading through the linked document, it appears that Labour tried initially to introduce a second reading of Clause 19, which would potentially introduce a licence for keeping SOME exotic animals (specifically mentioned were African dwarf hedgehogs, meerkat and racoon dogs) due to welfare concerns.
In reply the Secretary of State stated that legislation is already in place via the Animal Welfare Act, that they were waiting to see the full report from the Scottish animal rights Bill, and urged him to withdraw his request for a second reading.
Which he did.
So currently as it stands, the government have NO current plan to change the keeping of exotic animals.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

colinm said:


> It should take you to a parliamentary page showing the proposed review of keeping exotic pets. It works for me on my phone.


My mistake, from the title of the thread I thought it was a direct link to a survey


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

ian14 said:


> So reading through the linked document, it appears that Labour tried initially to introduce a second reading of Clause 19, which would potentially introduce a licence for keeping SOME exotic animals (specifically mentioned were African dwarf hedgehogs, meerkat and racoon dogs) due to welfare concerns.
> In reply the Secretary of State stated that legislation is already in place via the Animal Welfare Act, that they were waiting to see the full report from the Scottish animal rights Bill, and urged him to withdraw his request for a second reading.
> Which he did.
> So currently as it stands, the government have NO current plan to change the keeping of exotic animals.


Its funny how you can read through an email or forum post several times and interpret it in many ways. From this can we deduce that all the previous posts that may have worried those who keep reptiles have just been hype and propaganda? Or is it just an interim thing, and once the full Scottish animal rights bill has been read make the Secretary of state reconsider the request for a second reading, or now that its been withdrawn by Labour there is little chance of it being requested again, even after said report has been seen ?

On the one side we have all these posts stating sweeping changes and tightening up of "standards" regarding the keeping of reptiles in the UK, then we have your post that seems to suggest the concern is unjust and nothing will effectively change above the current legislation - Politics is so confusing !!


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Malc, have you read the document? If you click on the link it takes you to an odd page but there is, on the bottom right, a link to the document itself.
I think its a transcript from a parliamentary session. Have a read, see if you read it how i have.
The whole "the end is nigh, the antis are stopping us keeping our animals" rhetoric has been trotted out for the last couple of decades, and nothing has ever come of it.
I think that if you read the document, you'll see it for what it is.
Because to me, it reads very clearly that Labour wanted a second reading, Conservatives have said no as there is already existing legislation and that they are not doing anything until the Scottish review has been fully completed. Which is the complete opposite to an assertion that Parliament is proposing new restrictions!!


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

ian14 said:


> Malc, have you read the document? If you click on the link it takes you to an odd page but there is, on the bottom right, a link to the document itself.
> I think its a transcript from a parliamentary session. Have a read, see if you read it how i have.
> The whole "the end is nigh, the antis are stopping us keeping our animals" rhetoric has been trotted out for the last couple of decades, and nothing has ever come of it.
> I think that if you read the document, you'll see it for what it is.
> Because to me, it reads very clearly that Labour wanted a second reading, Conservatives have said no as there is already existing legislation and that they are not doing anything until the Scottish review has been fully completed. Which is the complete opposite to an assertion that Parliament is proposing new restrictions!!


 I'll be perfectly honest and admit I haven't read the document, but now you have pointed it out I'll take a look.

One thing I'm not sure about is that if the Scottish review suggests that a change be implemented which might impact reptile keepers, would that just affect those in Scotland, especially as the UK government have stated that as far as they are concerned, at least in England, the current legislation is sufficient?

I must admit, back in the 90's when the "antis" were actively getting society shows closed, there was that same "end of the world as we know it" mentality circulating.... but 30 years on we're all keeping our corns, royals, boa's and retics as we did back then. There was a similar thing in the states when the Burmese pythons were first reported as being an issue... but the leading breeders are still breeding and selling Burms and retics in many states, with only some states having specific legislation on transportation of said species.

I'm sure there will be tighter restrictions some time in the future, but whether that happens in my life time......


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

ian14 said:


> If you click on the link it takes you to an odd page but there is, on the bottom right, a link to the document itself.


This main document seems to be focused on the keeping of primates and new laws to prosecute owners of dogs that cause worry to livestock - So it may be the wrong document ?? - If it is the right document then I tried a search for "Reptile" within the document and this was the search results. 










I later found the list of amendments here 

The link includes "clause 19" - which has an open ended option - "(d) other appropriate animals identified by the review.”— 

"This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the keeping of exotic animals as pets in the England. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward legislation based on the findings of the review within 12 months of the Act being passed. "

So if I understand this correct, any inclusion of say retics or burms or large monitors etc, any such amendment (assuming clause 19 gets included in the bill, and as far as I can see there doesn't seem to be any indication that is yet the case ) any additions would only become "law" if the amendment stipulating exact species was passed within a year of this bill becoming law. After that a new application would be needed and the same drawn out process needed.

I can see how the option D of clause 19 has caused some concern. As it stands with such ambiguous wording, exotics could indeed cover anything form corn snakes through to stick insects as it could literally mean anything that is not native to the UK as defined by the Collins dictionary 

"Something that is exotic is unusual and interesting, usually because it comes from or is related to a distant country. "

What would be interesting is for those that are in the know to confirm if anyone, government or otherwise have produced a list of reptiles that are proposed to be included in item D of clause 19, otherwise we could all be worrying unduly.

Apologies' if I've got things wrong - politics was never my strong point


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Malc, irrespective of any clauses, the proposing MP agreed to withdraw the request for a second reading as the existing law covers all the points raised.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

ian14 said:


> Malc, irrespective of any clauses, the proposing MP agreed to withdraw the request for a second reading as the existing law covers all the points raised.


Like I said, politics was never my forte... So am I right in thinking that without a second reading, all those additional clauses are effectively null and void ? - If so then what's all the fuss about as reptiles are not mentioned in the original draft of the document ??


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Malc said:


> Like I said, politics was never my forte... So am I right in thinking that without a second reading, all those additional clauses are effectively null and void ? - If so then what's all the fuss about as reptiles are not mentioned in the original draft of the document ??


Exactly right. Without a second reading it's dead in the water. The Secretary of State made clear that there was existing legislation and asked the MP to withdraw the motion, which he did. 
So yet again, the doom mongers are claiming the end is nigh, yet the very document used to do so says the opposite!!
This, I'm afraid, is the biggest own goal from the FBH so far.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

ian14 said:


> Exactly right. Without a second reading it's dead in the water. The Secretary of State made clear that there was existing legislation and asked the MP to withdraw the motion, which he did.
> So yet again, the doom mongers are claiming the end is nigh, yet the very document used to do so says the opposite!!
> This, I'm afraid, is the biggest own goal from the FBH so far.


I can remember being lightly flamed when I posted a my views that we had seen this all before to one of those "this could be the end of reptile keeping as we know it" type posts that mentioned this document. The hobby has enough stigma to deal with without the body that is supposed to represent us getting is so wrong (again). Interestingly Colin hasn't come back after posting the link two days ago... so I presume the motion was withdrawn very recently ? If it was withdrawn some time ago then Colin's post is nothing more than scaremongering (sorry Colin). I'm not directing this at anyone personally, but if we are to believe the stats the forum gives us, a lot of people visit the forum and would take that at face value. Such posts could be detrimental to the hobby if its really untrue and the hobby is no more under threat than it has always been.

Colin, if Ian (and I for that matter) have got it totally wrong, can you clarify and come back with any counter arguments, ideally linking to a document that specifically states in details any reptiles such as large constrictors or monitor lizards (or all reptiles for that matter) are going to be legislated upon. I'm not trying to call you out, or stir things up, but really for the sake of anyone who reading this thread, seeking clarification.


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

The motion for a second reading had been withdrawn before the link was posted. 
It's recorded towards the end of the document.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

ian14 said:


> The motion for a second reading had been withdrawn before the link was posted.
> It's recorded towards the end of the document.


So basically, we have a two page thread with 25 + posts for no reason then....


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

Malc said:


> So basically, we have a two page thread with 25 + posts for no reason then....


Appears so!
Another pathetic attempt by the FBH to claim that the end is nigh, laws are imminent, so give us all your money to fight off a threat that isn't actually there. As it hasn't been for the last 20 odd years.
This time, they have messed up by posting a link to a document that absolutely contradicts what they still try to claim.
Going on previous experience of daring to challenge them, I would have expected some vociferous reply from Colinm or another FBH stalwart. Yet nothing. That in itself speaks volumes.
I have had pms from committee members accusing me of being "disingenuous" and lying, despite quoting and stating law.
If you look back at their various claims, and "evidence" to support them, this is a bit of a common theme.
Remember the old "the EU are bringing in law that will ban keeping all non native species as they could become invasive" claims??
Supported by links to EU documents that specifically identified the species being sought for import bans. Bar the American Bullfrog and the Red eared terrapin, guess what? 
Every species was either an aquatic plant or an aquatic invertebrate!!!!
Then there was the claim that kingsnakes will be banned from all EU member states as they have become invasive in the Canary Islands. Again, the documents posted to support this claim showed that this was not the case.
And when called out on this, I got abuse from all the FBH fan club members.
The FBH was set up to represent keepers, YET nobody can join! Membership existed by way of being a member of a herp society that paid to affiliate to the FBH. No elections for committee posts, no governance.
Perhaps the FBH should be relegated into the past.


----------



## frogeyed (Nov 8, 2012)

ian14 said:


> Appears so!
> Another pathetic attempt by the FBH to claim that the end is nigh, laws are imminent, so give us all your money to fight off a threat that isn't actually there. As it hasn't been for the last 20 odd years.
> This time, they have messed up by posting a link to a document that absolutely contradicts what they still try to claim.
> Going on previous experience of daring to challenge them, I would have expected some vociferous reply from Colinm or another FBH stalwart. Yet nothing. That in itself speaks volumes.
> ...


Just been looking at the history of the FBH and deanosexotics came up.
Have a read


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

I've just looked at their website.
The only "news" is their "concern" that the Southwest reptile show was acting outside of the Animal Welfare licencing regulations. They stated that this is because it is organised by private individuals.
However they then provide the two scenarios in which an event falls outside of the Regulations so does not require a licence, and yes, that event sat firmly in the second scenario not needing a licence.
It was very clearly written in a way that said "we know best, do it our way or not at all"
Funny that, given that the only show run by the FBH, at Kempton, only lasted a couple of years as Kempton Racecourse refused to host it due to concerns it was unlawful!!


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles (Nov 23, 2008)

ian14 said:


> In reply the Secretary of State stated that legislation is already in place via the Animal Welfare Act, that they were waiting to see the full report from the Scottish animal rights Bill, and urged him to withdraw his request for a second reading.
> Which he did.


So as I stated in my post the other month, what is happening in Scotland - although not directly impacting keepers elsewhere AT THE MOMENT - its outcome could have a wide reaching impact on all (depending on the outcome).

Oh and for the record - I am not connected to or a member of either the FBH or the IHS, in fact when approached for a united response - I declined instead preferring to provide my own independent response. 

United we stand - divided we will surely fall.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

Central Scotland Reptiles said:


> So as I stated in my post the other month, what is happening in Scotland - although not directly impacting keepers elsewhere AT THE MOMENT - its outcome could have a wide reaching impact on all (depending on the outcome).


But as Ian has stated... we've been here before... And with all due respects, if Scotland are going it alone, treating this as a countrywide rather than UK wide issue then should others in England or Wales be that concerned? Ian gives examples where just because something effected one country, the same didn't apply here, despite all the hype that it would (eg the king snake ban in the Canaries). Ian has also already pointed out that the bill is dead in the water as far as England (and wales ??) is concerned, so regardless of what the Scottish parliament bring in, it doesn't have any bearing on those south of the border as the ruling is in place.... (again, I've already mentioned my limited grasps of politics - so maybe I've got that wrong?).

Maybe things might change in years to come, but as we have been saying, if you look back over the decades, this situation keeps getting repeated and as far as I can see, other than DWA, or CITES 1 stuff, there is no licencing requirements, or restrictions on what reptiles can be kept by a private keeper.

Now I'm not saying this is totally wrong. It does peeve me off when a shop has to comply with guidelines on viv sizes etc, and then jo public can take that snake out of it's minimum size enclosure and shove it in a 6" x 24" plastic draw, so maybe having some legal minimum standards in place could be a good thing.... but looking at that paper and following Ian's guidance for the layperson that's not going to happen in the immediate future


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles (Nov 23, 2008)

You are of course correct, we have been here before (several times in fact) and since I am not one for conjecture or scaremongering, all I would ask is that you read the Scottish Governments Review and then make up your mind whether change is likely or not.

You state that 'maybe things might change in years to come' why can that change be now? Why might it be possible in years to come but not now? Is say it is possible and it is likely to be now. As someone who has been involved with this and previous government reviews I would say we are closer now than ever before to having our ability to keep heavily restricted. So with all due respect (and I do greatly respect Ian) - Ian is not the one making the decisions on whether any change in legislation is made so although I hope he is right - in that no change will be made - I do not share his confidence. 

As stated above, if I am reading this right - no change will be made in England UNTIL the review is complete in Scotland. To me that just means they will wait to see what happens in Scotland before (we are the guinea pigs) deciding on the next course of action for the rest of the UK. When my call (as a Scottish keeper) goes unanswered by my English based friends to add their weight and voice to preventing any ban or restriction - can you really expect any support from your Scottish based friends when the adverse spotlight is shone on you?

I will say it again, I am not part of any organisation so I have no agenda in terms of seeking membership or donations - my only wish is to continue keeping the animals I love. Change is coming - to what extent, that is the question but hey, don't take my word for it - read the review and let me know what YOU think.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

The Exotic Pet-demic: UK’s ticking timebomb exposed


Born Free Foundation and the RSPCA call for an urgent review of current exotic pet legislation in this joint report.




issuu.com


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles (Nov 23, 2008)

colinm said:


> The Exotic Pet-demic: UK’s ticking timebomb exposed
> 
> 
> Born Free Foundation and the RSPCA call for an urgent review of current exotic pet legislation in this joint report.
> ...


Seen that too Colin. 

Although don't worry - it won't happen!!!


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

Central Scotland Reptiles said:


> You are of course correct, we have been here before (several times in fact) and since I am not one for conjecture or scaremongering, all I would ask is that you read the Scottish Governments Review and then make up your mind whether change is likely or not.
> 
> You state that 'maybe things might change in years to come' why can that change be now? Why might it be possible in years to come but not now? Is say it is possible and it is likely to be now. As someone who has been involved with this and previous government reviews I would say we are closer now than ever before to having our ability to keep heavily restricted. So with all due respect (and I do greatly respect Ian) - Ian is not the one making the decisions on whether any change in legislation is made so although I hope he is right - in that no change will be made - I do not share his confidence.
> 
> ...


My comment about the time frame was in relation to most legal matters. Other then in emergency measures, most applications for a bill to make its way through parliament typically take two or three years before finding its way on the statute books. Normally prior to the submission there are the consultations, reviews etc that can last one or two years, so typically it can be 5 years form the matter being raised to becoming law. This "review" was first announced in 2015.. almost SIX years ago based on this report on the BBC news website.

I've read through the main document and from what I can tell (and I have stated my level of understanding on politics) it has categorised the review into five options, from doing nothing to an outright ban on import and trade in exotics, but seems to favour option 5 with a list approach, (positive rather than negative ?) . 



> “The positive list approach involves the creation of a concise list or lists of animals that may be kept in different circumstances, based on an independent assessment of their suitability."


Who would do that assessment? who would fund that assessment ? - One thing I can see happening is the argument that ALL pets need to be included not just exotics. It would seem very unfair to expect someone to come round and visit a house to make sure a 16 year old has set up a vivarium for a corn snake to an "agreed" standard, and then issue some form of documentation (and no doubt a fee) to say that the snake can be legally kept, when that same 16 year old is not vetted to confirm that his bull dog / rotty / doberman dog is suitable or being kept and exercised well.

I've not really got time to read all the cited literature, but most seem to refer to studies in Germany, Brazil and other countries. No doubt those countries have a very different culture and regimes. You only need to look at the culture in the US that tend to feed live rather then defrosted rodents. What really needs to be done is a study purely on the import, trade, and husbandry standards in the UK.

Another "news" item quoted


> The move followed pressure from animal charities including the Scottish SPCA. It rescued more than 300 corn snakes between 2016 and 2020, along with 50 royal pythons, 40 boa constrictors and more than 100 bearded dragons.


But they never contact the likes of Battersea Dogs home to see how many dogs and cats were rescued and went through their books in the same period. I'm betting it would make the stats on rescued reptiles seem pale in comparison.

Given that this review started in 2015, and that you have more connection with the champagne on behalf of reptile keepers in Scotland, can you or anyone else provide a timeline. At the start of the document its stated a 1 year plan... so I presume that their final decision will be by June 2022? - 



> This document is based on a report presented by the work group to the SAWC plenary meeting on 15 June 2021. It is being published in line with the timetable for SAWC’s year 1 work plan and to share the submitted stakeholder views while they are still up to date. The document is for information only at this stage and should not be taken as representing the final views of SAWC


I'm guessing that after that date when they publicise their proposal, that proposal too will be subject for review and further consultation as the details would need to be drilled down in relation to the definitions of species, husbandry, breeding and any trading, and how they would be actioned ?

I can remember being at a MKHS meeting in 1995 when their was a similar announcement which made a lot of people feel that the will loose their reptiles due to imposing legislation.... 26 years later I can still keep, breed and sell my snakes. I don't need to have any special paperwork, have to pay for annual inspections etc etc that was being proposed back then. Maybe this time round things will change, but until we know for sure what those changes are and how and when they will be implemented, maybe, just maybe we are worrying unduly ?


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles (Nov 23, 2008)

For me, the point is - which is the most significant aspect of this review - that we have been here before but NEVER this far along the line.

Maybe you are right, maybe it is just scaremongering BUT at least I can hold my head up and say I didn't poo poo it or turn a blind eye, I got up off my derriere and gave my input and voice against any changes. 

The review is on exotic animal welfare so would not only include snakes and lizards but by default goldfish, budgies and guinea pigs to name but a few. Even the animal rights groups know they would be onto a looser if they suggested a ban on dogs and cats.


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

The threat is very real. I'm surprised that Ian didnt twig with his knowledge of the law.
The motion was proposed and then retracted. It will be proposed again after the Scottish review and will be linked to that. A way of us in England to get more restrictions like the ones in Scotland and probably Wales. The dissolved assemblies are easier to target than Westminster.

I think people are looking at the wrong way. Rather than saying the hobby is the subject of scaremongering the hobby should thank the likes of Chris Newman, Jim Collins , the FBH and others for fighting off the pressures by the AR groups and others.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

Central Scotland Reptiles said:


> The review is on exotic animal welfare so would not only include snakes and lizards but by default goldfish, budgies and guinea pigs to name but a few. Even the animal rights groups know they would be onto a looser if they suggested a ban on dogs and cats.


Now I'm not being facetious (sp?) here, but you could include dogs or some breeds of cat in that list as they are not native to the Scotland (or UK). Using the reviews definition of "exotic" would include a lot of breeds of dogs and cats. Whilst that is a small technicality, it is none never the less, and again, something that those on the committed or review board appear to have overlooked.


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

colinm said:


> I think people are looking at the wrong way. Rather than saying the hobby is the subject of scaremongering the hobby should thank the likes of Chris Newman, Jim Collins , the FBH and others for fighting off the pressures by the AR groups and others.


Oh don't get me wrong, I think that having a body to represent those that keep reptiles is a good thing, just that they must feel that this is a case of déjà vu


----------



## Malc (Oct 27, 2009)

colinm said:


> The motion was proposed and then retracted. It will be proposed again after the Scottish review and will be linked to that.


So for arguments sake, lest suppose it is proposed again in some diluted format having been withdrawn after the Secretary of State instructed the MP to withdraw it. What happens if the Secretary of State again rejects it for a second time... then what... how many more times will they try and push things through, and how much tax payers money will be wasted in the process ?

I'm sure at some point the keeping of reptiles will be tightened up, mainly because these days there is so much politically incorrectness that you wont be able to mention the colour of someone's hair for fear of offending blonds, and some campaigners will quite possibly win the day.

That won't resolve the matter either. Lets just say that some bill gets passed and you need to register or chip every reptile owned and produced. For those who can't afford that, or simply object to it, then they will be in breach of the law, so it will either go underground, or just ignore the law and just carry on as if it didn't exist. The dangerous dogs act being a prime example, or the old dog licence another to a lesser degree.

If in few years time things have changed and the ownership of reptiles in England / UK has been tightened down to the point everybody is fearing then I will freely admit I got it wrong and my comments and opinions posted here should have been ignored and we should have campaigned harder.


----------



## Central Scotland Reptiles (Nov 23, 2008)

Malc said:


> Now I'm not being facetious (sp?) here, but you could include dogs or some breeds of cat in that list as they are not native to the Scotland (or UK). Using the reviews definition of "exotic" would include a lot of breeds of dogs and cats. Whilst that is a small technicality, it is none never the less, and again, something that those on the committed or review board appear to have overlooked.


By rights the definition of exotic would include many species - goldfish, budgies and guinea pigs for example. I don't think 'Joe Public' realise or have been made aware that this review is wide reaching and restrictions may come in before anyone even has a chance to object. 

What about the parent who works long hours who comes home and is able to destress by watching the fish swim around the aquarium? Or the elderly person who has nobody to speak too other than the little budgie or canary? What about the child who is bullied at school for being different but is able to seek comfort from their guinea pig? 

Then you have the manufacturers, distributers, pet shops, vets, exporters, importers, couriers, breeders of frozen food and breeders of live food to consider - all of which would be financially impacted so it isn't just a case of restricting the keeping of exotic pets there are many things to consider that may not be immediately known.


----------

