# Rescues



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

I've been contacted again by someone from either the FBH or IHS or whoever, I forget which, asking for an outline on our procedures, throughput and funding arrangements. I've responded to the last few threads on here suggesting that some kind of rescue directory or something is going to be established. Calendars come and go, but still there is no movement on this. 

We have 70 animals available for rehome, and the largest possible "market" for these is cut off from me because there is no official position on rescues.

Now it's fair to say that good and bad rescues exist as much as good and bad keepers do. Perhaps a measure of how good a rescue is might be its operating losses lol. 

It would be nice if there was a section within the hobby's defacto representative organisation for those of us who spend our time and money cleaning up the hobby's detritus. I don't know how it might work, how far we could become "affiliated", or what it might entail, but as we are happy to be entirely transparent in our operations, I'd expect most other honest rescues to be the same

It seems criminally unfair to me that rescues are banned from advertising here and on the RFUK Facebook page because "we can't police the good from the bad rescues" and yet any individual or company can advertise regardless of the level of animal welfare or customer care they choose to provide - noone cares if we can police the good from the bad traders, the good from the bad breeders, or even the good from the bad one time sellers. Everyone who is not a rescue gets the benefit of the doubt until they're shown to be untrustworthy, so why not us. I'm not asking for special treatment, just the same as other sellers. Never mind animals, I can't even sell a viv or ask to BUY a pulse stat! I don't bother arguing at the time because if I were to be banned personally that might reflect badly on the rescue itself.

In a moment of angst I recently accused the FBH of ignoring rescues, I'm sorry if some people were offended by that but it's difficult to form an alternative view when you look at things form our end, so I'm sticking my head above the parapet to see how we might better or move the situation along a little

Regards
Alec
Trustee, North East Reptile Rescue


----------



## Spikebrit (Oct 23, 2006)

Drop me a PM when you have 5 minutes, I have an Idea. 

Jay


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

alecwood said:


> I've been contacted again by someone from either the FBH or IHS or whoever, I forget which, asking for an outline on our procedures, throughput and funding arrangements. I've responded to the last few threads on here suggesting that some kind of rescue directory or something is going to be established. Calendars come and go, but still there is no movement on this.
> 
> We have 70 animals available for rehome, and the largest possible "market" for these is cut off from me because there is no official position on rescues.
> 
> ...


The issue of ‘rescue centres’ is one that the FBH has been looking at for quite some time, the issue are very complex as the law stands today they are entirely unregulated, this is not an entirely accurate statement as _any_ rescue centre that has fixed fees for animals should be licensed under the Pet Animals Act 1951.

The FBH is part of the Pet Advisor Committee which is an organisation that looks at issues pertaining to pet ownership from a political standpoint, we had a meeting Westminster last week to debate this very issue.

Unfortunately it is not an issue that is going to be addressed quickly, the Animal Welfare Act promised Secondary legislation for sanctuaries (rescue centres) which has not, and is unlikely to come forward in the foreseeable future, therefore self regulation is the way forward. However, meaningful self regulation is complex, as the dog and cat world have failed to be successful in this endeavour so far.

So in short its work in progress.


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

There's not one single point I raised regarding the FBH etc attitude towards rescues that's been answered in that "reply". Those politicians you hob-nob with these days are really rubbing off.

In short, the message I'm getting is "go away, I don't care, get back to sweeping up our garbage"


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

alecwood said:


> There's not one single point I raised regarding the FBH etc attitude towards rescues that's been answered in that "reply". Those politicians you hob-nob with these days are really rubbing off.
> 
> In short, the message I'm getting is "go away, I don't care, get back to sweeping up our garbage"


With all due respect you appear to have a significant attitude problem that I find rather unaccommodating to be perfectly blunt! The point that I have made, quite clearly is this is an issue that we are very keen to address but don’t have all the answers and therefore we are very keen to engage with ‘responsible’ organisations. Ultimately of course it requires a political solution, hence why we engage in that process.


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

Sorry if it appears that way, it's just an expression of frustration


----------



## cjd12345 (Nov 2, 2011)

I have the greatest respect for anyone that responsibly cares for the reptiles that become the discarded debris of this hobby. Until I read this thread I didn't realise that a rescue centre couldn't advertise their animals for re-homing on RFUK, I had assumed that was what this - Rehoming Classifieds - Reptile Forums - forum was for.

Assuming a rescue centre is properly licensed/registered/controlled (whatever is required by law or self-regulation). I don't see why they shouldn't be the same as any individual. Hell, if you wanted to just pass on the animals you could rehome them to yourself, then sell them as your personal animals - but, that would be slightly dishonest and less than transparent, so I can see why you want to be able to do everything above board.

Chris - what work is in progress within the auspices of the FBH? I can see why Alec was frustrated by your reply, you say that the FBH wants to do something and that there is work in progress, but don't say what.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

cjd12345 said:


> I have the greatest respect for anyone that responsibly cares for the reptiles that become the discarded debris of this hobby. Until I read this thread I didn't realise that a rescue centre couldn't advertise their animals for re-homing on RFUK, I had assumed that was what this - Rehoming Classifieds - Reptile Forums - forum was for.
> 
> Assuming a rescue centre is properly licensed/registered/controlled (whatever is required by law or self-regulation). I don't see why they shouldn't be the same as any individual. Hell, if you wanted to just pass on the animals you could rehome them to yourself, then sell them as your personal animals - but, that would be slightly dishonest and less than transparent, so I can see why you want to be able to do everything above board.
> 
> Chris - what work is in progress within the auspices of the FBH? I can see why Alec was frustrated by your reply, you say that the FBH wants to do something and that there is work in progress, but don't say what.


The regulation of rehoming centres is a priority for the FBH and indeed many other organisations, but we do not make laws that is for government! Government committed to making regulation for rehoming centres/rescue centres under the Animal Welfare Act, 2006. The then Labour government committed to Secondary Legislation to address the issue but left office before starting the process, we are currently pressing the incumbent government to tackle this issue, with a number of other organisations but so far without success.

Rehoming is a very import part of pet ownership, the sale of animals as pets is regulation by legislation, admittedly out of date in terms of the Pet Animals Act 1951, but nevertheless it is regulated. Rehoming is largely unregulated which is whole unsatisfactory. The changes brought in by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) actually has huge implications for rehoming bodies, the overwhelming majority of rehoming since the introduction of the AWA is unlawful! Today there are few rehoming organisations that operate within the law!!!

So this is an issue that only government can effectively regulate, and it’s an issue that needs addressing urgently, but it’s not an issue we can do on our own I am afraid, therefore all we can do is what we are currently doing is pushing for government to address this issue.


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

So you want a license system just like the pet shop license system which is a joke, surely there are much better things you could be putting lots of effort into.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Reptile Steve said:


> So you want a license system just like the pet shop license system which is a joke, surely there are much better things you could be putting lots of effort into.


Why is pet shop licensing a joke?


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

We have more bad shops than good all across the country, they turn up once a year to check after giving the shop plenty of time to sort everything for said day.


----------



## Amy2310 (Feb 28, 2011)

Reptile Steve said:


> We have more bad shops than good all across the country, they turn up once a year to check after giving the shop plenty of time to sort everything for said day.


But, if more people made complaints regarding the bad shops, the licensing authority would investigate and possibly force the shop into making changes.


I agree that rescues should be licensed in some way, even if it is just a general registry that requires a yearly check. As mentioned there are plenty of bad shops, owners and rescues, that is never going to change, but working together to investigate and advice the bad cases will certainly help to improve matters.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Reptile Steve said:


> We have more bad shops than good all across the country, they turn up once a year to check after giving the shop plenty of time to sort everything for said day.


Please provide hard evidenced that there are more bad pet shops than good, evidence not personal speculation……!! 

There is absolutely no excuse for poor standards in pet shops, the minimum acceptable is good. Local Authorities are required by law to make sure standards of animal welfare are maintained at an acceptable level. If there is a poor pet shop, and there are some, that equates to a poor Local Authority as they have all the legislation necessary to ensure a minimum standard of good in a pet shop.

On the other hand rehoming centres are completely unregulated, being devils advocate for a moment if you wanted to set up a pet shop you have to be licensed, inspected and regulated by the Local Authority. On the other hand any Tom, Dick or Harry can call themselves a “rehoming Centre” (no licensing, inspection, nothing) they can advertise they will take any animal in and simply flog them on for profit without any problems.

Which is more open to abuse…….!!


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

Chris Newman said:


> Please provide hard evidenced that there are more bad pet shops than good, evidence not personal speculation……!!
> 
> There is absolutely no excuse for poor standards in pet shops, the minimum acceptable is good. Local Authorities are required by law to make sure standards of animal welfare are maintained at an acceptable level. If there is a poor pet shop, and there are some, that equates to a poor Local Authority as they have all the legislation necessary to ensure a minimum standard of good in a pet shop.
> 
> ...


I only have personal experience of seeing bad shops and reporting them but nothing ever happened, but this year ive treated animals removed from some shops which where in disgusting conditions, I think it's a good idea to license rescues but if it would be along the lines of the pet shop license I feel it would be a waste of time


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Reptile Steve said:


> I only have personal experience of seeing bad shops and reporting them but nothing ever happened, but this year ive treated animals removed from some shops which where in disgusting conditions, I think it's a good idea to license rescues but if it would be along the lines of the pet shop license I feel it would be a waste of time


Local Authorities have a legal obligation to act on complaints, if they don’t act then a formal complaint should be made to the Local Authority Ombudsman and they will take action on the complainant’s behalf against the relevant authority. The necessary legislation is in place, people juts need to use it! 

I think there are far, far grater issues and concerns with many so called rescue centre than they are with licensed pet shops. We certainly see more prosecutions brought be the likes of the RSPCA (spit, spit,) against rehoming centres than we do against pet shops, which proves a point!

But of course as the law stands today the overwhelming majority of rehoming centres should be licensed under the Pet Animals Act anyway, they just choose not to be……!!


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

Chris Newman said:


> Local Authorities have a legal obligation to act on complaints, if they don’t act then a formal complaint should be made to the Local Authority Ombudsman and they will take action on the complainant’s behalf against the relevant authority. The necessary legislation is in place, people juts need to use it!
> 
> I think there are far, far grater issues and concerns with many so called rescue centre than they are with licensed pet shops. We certainly see more prosecutions brought be the likes of the RSPCA (spit, spit,) against rehoming centres than we do against pet shops, which proves a point!
> 
> But of course as the law stands today the overwhelming majority of rehoming centres should be licensed under the Pet Animals Act anyway, they just choose not to be……!!


Any evidence the RSPCA has prosecuted more rehoming centres than pet shops or did you read that in the daily fail....


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Reptile Steve said:


> Any evidence the RSPCA has prosecuted more rehoming centres than pet shops or did you read that in the daily fail....


Just do a Google alerted for RSPCA prosecutions, the results are very illuminating. Also at the RSPCA AGM they stated prosecutions against pet shops were down significantly. I would ask them for the stats, but they would not be forthcoming. Just as they will always be unhelpful in providing (accurate) data on how many exotics they rehome.


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

Chris Newman said:


> Just do a Google alerted for RSPCA prosecutions, the results are very illuminating. Also at the RSPCA AGM they stated prosecutions against pet shops were down significantly. I would ask them for the stats, but they would not be forthcoming. Just as they will always be unhelpful in providing (accurate) data on how many exotics they rehome.


Well this year prosecutions against reptile shops will be up, as mentioned on another thread I work for the RSPCA at there first reptile rescue in Brighton so have cared for a lot of reptiles in a bad way this year.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Reptile Steve said:


> Well this year prosecutions against reptile shops will be up, as mentioned on another thread I work for the RSPCA at there first reptile rescue in Brighton so have cared for a lot of reptiles in a bad way this year.


It would not surprise me if RSPCA prosecutions against reptile shops were up this year, as they are politically and financially motivated the RSPCA will take prosecutions which suites their agenda at the time……..!!

So, out of interest how many reptiles did you take in during 2012!


----------



## Reptile Steve (Aug 27, 2007)

Chris Newman said:


> It would not surprise me if RSPCA prosecutions against reptile shops were up this year, as they are politically and financially motivated the RSPCA will take prosecutions which suites their agenda at the time……..!!
> 
> So, out of interest how many reptiles did you take in during 2012!


And that opinion along with your paranoid conspiracy rubbish will get you nowhere, the RSPCA didnt make the pet shops go bad the owners did and the RSPCA cleared up all the mess.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Reptile Steve said:


> And that opinion along with your paranoid conspiracy rubbish will get you nowhere, the RSPCA didnt make the pet shops go bad the owners did and the RSPCA cleared up all the mess.


I didn’t say that, what I said is the RSPCA pick and choose case they take forward and it is quite clear for anyone who looked objectively at RSPCA prosecutions they do so for financial and political reasons, rather than prioritising welfare of animals. To my mind this is unsatisfactory; you are of course perfectly entitled to disagree.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Chris Newman said:


> It would not surprise me if RSPCA prosecutions against reptile shops were up this year, as they are politically and financially motivated the RSPCA will take prosecutions which suites their agenda at the time……..!!
> 
> So, out of interest how many reptiles did you take in during 2012!


Reptile Steve I fully appreciate that you would not wish to debate the merits (or otherwise) of RSPCA prosecutions again licences establishments - for obvious reasons. 

Notwithstanding I am sure I am not the only one who would be very interested to know how many reptiles and amphibians your organisation rehomed during 2012.


----------



## Janine00 (Sep 20, 2008)

I'll put money on it that it is not nearly as many as some of the members of this forum and CB do every year, and not only the one individual that previously started well and ended badly this year either. :whistling2: Not all people are in it for the money or the kudos (whatever that may be)! And most of us that do, only take in a few at a time until we can get them to their (hopefully) forever home.


----------



## MCEE (Aug 8, 2011)

Reptile Steve said:


> We have more bad shops than good all across the country, they turn up once a year to check after giving the shop plenty of time to sort everything for said day.



I am not sure there are more bad than good but I do agree that the licensing of pet shops is a bit of a farce when, as you say, the local authoities are very lax on spot checks. Even when they do vist (often only as a result of a complaint) the vet or council officer rarely has any knowledge of the husbandry requirement of each species of reptile the shop may sell. After all, they are often only trained in ensuring the welfare of the fluffy or feathered animal.


----------



## MCEE (Aug 8, 2011)

Chris Newman said:


> Local Authorities have a legal obligation to act on complaints, if they don’t act then a formal complaint should be made to the Local Authority Ombudsman and they will take action on the complainant’s behalf against the relevant authority. The necessary legislation is in place, people juts need to use it!


This is all well and good but if an investigation is carried out it is often by officers that have no knowledge of husbandry issues with regards to individual reptile species. As we all know, there are many factors involved with reptile husbandry, all dependent on the species. However, local authority officers, and even the vets they often employ, often only see the animal under the banner of "lizard" or "snake" or, even worse, "reptile".

Maybe the FBH should also be pushing for the licensing authorities to, at the very least, have knowledge of what they are policing. Issuing licenses to anywhere that deals with living animals is fine but if the welfare of those animals is compromised because of the ignorance of the policing body, what is the point?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

MCEE said:


> This is all well and good but if an investigation is carried out it is often by officers that have no knowledge of husbandry issues with regards to individual reptile species. As we all know, there are many factors involved with reptile husbandry, all dependent on the species. However, local authority officers, and even the vets they often employ, often only see the animal under the banner of "lizard" or "snake" or, even worse, "reptile".
> 
> Maybe the FBH should also be pushing for the licensing authorities to, at the very least, have knowledge of what they are policing. Issuing licenses to anywhere that deals with living animals is fine but if the welfare of those animals is compromised because of the ignorance of the policing body, what is the point?


You have raised a very valid point which applies to both Local Authority inspectors and indeed RSPCA employees (so called inspectors) and that is lack of knowledge. The fundamental falling of animal welfare legislation in the UK is the falling by government to make it compulsory for Local Authorities to ensure that it provides sufficient training for staff engaged in administering such legislation, it is truly outrageous. The argument from Local Authorities is they cannot afford to ensure such standards unless funding is provided by central government, not at all unreasonable!

This is not a role for the FBH, but it is a role for REPTA and one that we do, two years ago we ran the very first training day for Local Authorities (and wildlife police) it was very well received. The reason it stalled was due to the blocking of the revised Model Standards being published, there was no point in providing training on outdated standards! Now the new standards have finally been released we will be providing the training once again.


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

.....


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

.....


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

cjd12345 said:


> Until I read this thread I didn't realise that a rescue centre couldn't advertise their animals for re-homing on RFUK, I had assumed that was what this - Rehoming Classifieds - Reptile Forums - forum was for.


My last two adverts on there have been deleted because there is no way to know the good rescue centres from the bad - not a requirement when dealing with breeders adverts though

Facebook page is the same.

You're correct, dishonesty is the solution


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

alecwood said:


> My last two adverts on there have been deleted because there is no way to know the good rescue centres from the bad - not a requirement when dealing with breeders adverts though
> 
> Facebook page is the same.
> 
> You're correct, dishonesty is the solution


Breeders selling surplus offspring is an entirely separate issue to that of rehoming organisations (business). The purpose of a rehoming centre (which is absolutely laudable and necessary) is to take animals in (acquire) and relinquish them into the care of another for a fee (sale). This is very important work but it is a commercial activity that _must_ be regulated, just as the sale of animals from pet shops _must_ be regulated.


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

For me the difference between the two is that breeders sometimes make some money lol

End of the day I accept the decision's been made, the argument lost a long time ago, but obviously you can't expect me to be happy about that


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

alecwood said:


> For me the difference between the two is that breeders sometimes make some money lol
> 
> End of the day I accept the decision's been made, the argument lost a long time ago, but obviously you can't expect me to be happy about that


I am not sure what argument has been lost……?

Again being devils advocate here there is potentially far more money to be made from rehoming that there is from breeding! You can set up without any expense in terms of facilities, advertise (for free) you will take animals in and then simply flog them on for a profit – for me that is the fundamental problem. No regulation, no licence, no inspection, no overheads, nothing its all pure profit!

I am well aware that is not how a good rescue operates, but its how the bad ones do, so how do you define between a good rescue centre and the ones simply out to make a fast buck…….!!


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

Chris Newman said:


> You can set up without any expense in terms of facilities, advertise (for free) you will take animals in and then simply flog them on for a profit – for me that is the fundamental problem. No regulation, no licence, no inspection, no overheads, nothing its all pure profit!


And the same goes for farming high end morphs year after year. 


Anyway, things are getting circuitous so moving on, I'd love to hear about the legislative proposals, how they might be managed on the ground, who will bear the costs and how weighty they'll be. Is it possible for you to outline the current thinking or is it confidential until after the law's passed? Obviously I'm worried that an extra layer of cost and complexity might be difficult for us to bear, especially if we comply but the "get 'em free and sell 'em the next day" mob do not. Will it be in addition to a pet shop license? What safeguards are being put in place to prevent the RSPCA gaining a monopoly in the arena? I'm also slightly concerned about the absence of consultation of interested parties, even just within the IHS or FBH. I'm an IHS member but this is one aspect of the hobby I never hear discussed, which is why I raised it here in the first instance.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

alecwood said:


> And the same goes for farming high end morphs year after year.
> 
> 
> Anyway, things are getting circuitous so moving on, I'd love to hear about the legislative proposals, how they might be managed on the ground, who will bear the costs and how weighty they'll be. Is it possible for you to outline the current thinking or is it confidential until after the law's passed? Obviously I'm worried that an extra layer of cost and complexity might be difficult for us to bear, especially if we comply but the "get 'em free and sell 'em the next day" mob do not. Will it be in addition to a pet shop license? What safeguards are being put in place to prevent the RSPCA gaining a monopoly in the arena? I'm also slightly concerned about the absence of consultation of interested parties, even just within the IHS or FBH. I'm an IHS member but this is one aspect of the hobby I never hear discussed, which is why I raised it here in the first instance.


Not entirely true, you have to buy your breeding stock plus have facilities and invest in substantial running costs. This could equate to a significant amount of funding with no guarantees of a return after several years of continual investment…..!! 

That aside, when the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) came into statute in April 2007 the then Labour government committed to introducing a ‘light touch’ regulation to rehoming centres/sanctuaries, broadly speaking everyone was in agreement this was an issue long over due to be addressed. Sadly bugger all has happened since and frankly nothing will be done in the foreseeable future, there is no political will.

Therefore what you have to do is see what tools are at hand, and that tool is the Pet Animals Act 1951. When the AWA came into force it changed the situation for rehoming centres dramatically, although it took a few years for the changes to become clear. Prior to 2007 rehoming ‘adopted’ out animals, they retained the legal title to the animal and the client paid an adoption fee. With the AWA this all changed, now rehoming centres pass the title of the animal to the new keeper. If this is done for a fee, or a minimum donation that is a sale and therefore a commercial activity that requires licensing under the Pet Animals Act (i.e. a pet shop licence), I really don’t think there is any argument about this!

Now of course none of the big players like the RSPCA want this, their view is laws only apply to others not themselves (typical RSPCA arrogance). However, I think the law is pretty clear on the commercial sale of pets (charities are commercial).

What I am pushing for is a light touch regulation under the PAA, if we could legally define what is a “rehoming centre” then they could then apply for a specific licence under the aforementioned Act. I am fully appreciate that cost is an issue, and we must be mindful of this but I don’t see why a licence should cost more than £100 a year, probably less. What this would do is formally put rehoming centres on the map, we would know where they were, who is running them and what they are rehoming. Specific Model Standards could be drafted for them so minim standards of welfare are addressed.

Currently we have no idea how many rehoming centres there are, where they are what they are doing, we can’t sort the good from the bad, the honest from crooks, this would at least give us a tool to start addressing the issues……!!

As regards to the RSPCA, well as you may have noticed I am not a fan, personally I think it is a disgraceful organisation that would far rather squander vast sums of money (multy millions) on political campaigns than actually doing anything hands on for animal welfare, as can be seen by their published accounts. 

This is a mater that is regularly discussed at FBH committee meetings; it is for affiliated societies to decide if this is a mater for discussion with its membership, or dealt with by their own committee. 

As I said at the beginning, the above is my own personal view on the issue.


----------



## Janine00 (Sep 20, 2008)

Just got home following a more or less day long finance meeting where we were trying to think about where we could cut yet more money after having just managed to make the last three year savings target (more or less) - to then be told we have to make 1.5 Million £'s savings on our social care budget *this* year.... I work for a local authority.... Somewhat down in the dumps as you can imagine.

Long story short..... unless we are prepared to put in *most *of the effort regarding *working out how, where, when and why ourselves*, the government are not going to offer up much hope in the foreseeable future.

As long as I've been a manager, one of my favourite saying is don't just bring me problems, try to bring me some idea's of prospective solutions along with them where you can. I encourage all my staff to work together as part of a team to consider and share idea's around solutions -they work at the sharp end after all, and are best placed to see how the land lies : victory:

Personally I agree with Chris and think it's about time the government started taking notice of the amount of money that some supposedly 'charitable' organisations actually make out of their 'political' stances/plays :bash: However, it's no good keep looking at everyone else and saying 'they' should do something about it.... How many of us can actually be bothered to get up off our asses and actually DO something..... You only have to look at how numbers have gone down at many of the 'local branch meetings' since the advent of forums etc. Getting far too easy for too many people to expect the next person to do something.....

OK.... I really am down in the dumps now :blush: Gonna go open a box of wine!


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Janine00 said:


> Just got home following a more or less day long finance meeting where we were trying to think about where we could cut yet more money after having just managed to make the last three year savings target (more or less) - to then be told we have to make 1.5 Million £'s savings on our social care budget *this* year.... I work for a local authority.... Somewhat down in the dumps as you can imagine.
> 
> Long story short..... unless we are prepared to put in *most *of the effort regarding *working out how, where, when and why ourselves*, the government are not going to offer up much hope in the foreseeable future.
> 
> ...


I never take a problem to government, I only ever offer solutions………!! At a slight tangent to the current debate, but most certainly pertinent:


*Briefing document *​ 

*The Tortoise Garden*​ 

*Preamble* 

In the UK today 125,000,000 animals are kept as pets (or companion animals) and it is inevitable that some will require re-homing for a whole multitude of reasons. Many causes are quite legitimate, and indeed unavoidable, none more so than the death of the owner and studies have shown that over 100,000 pets need re-homing each year because the owner died without making provision for them. Dog and cats are exempt from any regulations in terms of re-homing or the operation of a sanctuary to provide for their needs but other species may be hindered legislative issues. 

*The Tortoise Garden*

The situation in which the Tortoise Garden finds its self is not unique as such situations are becoming increasingly common. Difficulties arise in two areas of legislation, namely the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, and the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997. The latter (known as COTES) underpins The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) 1975, enshrined in EU Wildlife Trade Regulations 338/97. Species commonly kept as pets may be affected by the aforementioned legislative issues and the problem is particularly prevalent with tortoises and parrots.

Permanent relief could be sanctioned under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, although this would require secondary legislation. Secondary legislation on Pet Vending and Sanctuaries was committed to by the last government on the passing of the Animal Welfare Bill, but subsequently abandoned. In lieu of secondary legislation substantial relief could be achieved by issuance of formal guidance from DEFRA.

*Zoo Licensing Act 1981* [ZLA] The Act falls under the remit of Animal Health, Bristol but the day-to-day administration of the Act falls on the relevant Local Authority [LA]. The ZLA is a very broad brush under which a zoo is defined as: 

_An establishment where wild animals (animals not normally domesticated in Great Britain) are kept for exhibition to the public with or without charge for seven or more days a year. _



Government issues some guidance on further defining if an establishment falls under the jurisdiction of the ZLA, but the final decision falls to the LA. Broadly speaking the LA needs to consider two primary issues:

Are the animals “domesticated?
Is the primary reason they are kept for “exhibition to the public”? 
*Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997* [COTES] COTES is extremely Draconian, with a reverse burden of proof and punitive punishment. In recent years several reviews of COTES have been started and subsequently abandoned and it is likely the Act is not compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998. An offence is committed under COTES when an Annex A species which does not have a valid Article 10 Certificate, is used for so-called commercial purposes, where commercial is defined as:

_Buying, offering to buy, obtaining for commercial purposes, keeping for sale, offering for sale, transporting for sale and exchange, using for commercial breeding, commercial display and actual sale are all considered commercial activities. _

*Recommendations *

Ideally Secondary Legislation would be forthcoming but in the current climate this is exceedingly unlikely in the foreseeable future so alternative measure need to be pursued. With long lived species, such as tortoises, it is inevitable a significant number of animals will need to be re-homed (or offered sanctuary) each year. The difficulties experienced by the Tortoise Garden emphasise the need for an urgent review. 

Ø The CITES Article 10 issue could be resolved by defining guidance in respect of the term ‘commercial’. Despite protestation to the contrary, Article 10 Certificates are not a conservation tool but a purely bureaucratic requirement so guidance on enforcing the legislation could be drafted. I am of the understanding that Customs & Revenue regard ‘fixed fee donations’ as sales and VAT is applied but unspecified donations are exempted. Similar guidance could surely be applied to Article 10 Certificates, thus removing the burden on sanctuaries such as the Tortoise Garden. 

Ø Issues under the Zoo Licensing Act could be relieved by more detailed and prescriptive guidance from government. Fairly recently such guidance has been issued by the Zoos Forum in respect of llamas and alpacas which has resulted in exempting them from requirements. Tortoises have been kept in the UK as pets since 1625 so surely could now also be defined as domesticated pets, removing unnecessary pressures on tortoise re-homing. 

*Conclusions*

Animal welfare is obviously a high priority and much of the legislation aimed at improving standards now actually has a negative impact. In the UK today over 50% of all households own pets, many of these being so-called exotic or non-domesticated species. Such species are fast overtaking more traditional pets in popularity, with as many reptiles kept in the UK as dogs. Statistically keepers of exotic species, such as reptiles, levy a significantly lower financial burden on government than dog owners. 

The Animal Welfare Act has been a significant step forward, although the lack of Secondary Legislation is disappointing. Re-homing Centres and Sanctuaries are largely unregulated as the law stands, which clearly raises issues. For example, more dogs which enter re-homing establishments today originated from other re-homing centres than from pet shops, yet pet shops are regulated whilst re-homing centres are not. 

The crucial issue in this case would seem to be whether the Tortoise Garden is keeping the animals primarily for exhibition to the public. The tortoises are in hibernation for a significant proportion of the year and visitor throughput through the remainder of the year is low. Some visitors also retain ownership of animals on site which they can no longer look after due to ill health or unsuitable accommodation (largely moving into residential care) and could not, therefore, reasonably be categorised as member of the public. The primary purpose is clearly to offer a place of sanctuary for the animals, not to be a public exhibit. Tortoises are likely be longer lived than their human owners and in this respect pose a unique rehoming problem as most will eventually need a place of sanctuary and centres such as the Tortoise Garden provide a very necessary and valuable service, without which animals welfare would be compromised.

The second point of consideration is that tortoises must surely now be considered domesticated pets, especially as such creatures as llamas and alpacas now meet the criteria. Bearing in mind some of the tortoises at the Tortoise Garden have been with their owners for the best part of one hundred years, they must surely qualify.

To conclude, the Tortoise Garden offers sanctuary to pets when owners can no longer look after them, largely due to reasons of ill-health, infirmity or death. The sanctuary keeps the tortoises for the rest of their natural life, allowing surviving owners of family members to visit much-loved pets, with a very high standard of care and welfare. Removing beaurocratic burden would allow the Tortoise garden to carry on with this vital work and allow owners peace of mind in their twilight years. 


Prepared by Chris Newman 07/03/2011


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

Thanks for the info Chris, it's very interesting to hear how things are progressing. I recall there was a similar private members bill in 2001, and at least it's better than Roger Gale's (a previous chair of the all party group) proposals which would have made us all subservient to the RSPCA.

Anyhoo, I agree that a single, low cost license at, say 80-100 p.a., would give some method of knowing where, who and what was about. But I don't think it would do anything at all to hinder the activities of the bad rescues out there who just collect and sell. They're beyond the law as it is now, and therefore would remain so as it changes.

It's a shame but it seems that in *all *the pet keeping hobbies, reptile, dog, cat, bird etc, it's always ended up that the breeders, who are accepted as *the *representatives of the entire hobby, and the rescues end up in opposition


----------



## MCEE (Aug 8, 2011)

alecwood said:


> Anyhoo, I agree that a single, low cost license at, say 80-100 p.a., would give some method of knowing where, who and what was about. But I don't think it would do anything at all to hinder the activities of the bad rescues out there who just collect and sell. They're beyond the law as it is now, and therefore would remain so as it changes.


As well as being licensed for animal welfare purposes, maybe all rescue centres should be registered charities, or at least affiliated to one. At least then they come under the scrutiny of the charities commission as well as the local authority's licensing regulations. That would stop most of these so called "bad" rescue centres setting up in the first place.


----------



## marie_k (Apr 21, 2006)

I fully agree that rescues should be licensed and regulated. Not just exotics, but cat/dog centres though I have to say generally these are much better organised and managed. It is too easy to set up a 'rescue' taking in animals as a hobby but not necessarily improve their conditions or long-term welfare.
The difficulty will be twofold:
1) Legislating this - it is a comparatively minor issue that is not going to be high on the agenda at local authority/government level. Without approval and statutory requirements few rescues will choose to be regulated. Though voluntary registration and demonstration of acceptable standards may confer a higher perceived status and hence greater support than those that don't take part.
2) Who will regulate the rescues? If done like pet shop licensing then a member of the LA and a vet would be the minimum for an inspection. This raises costs. Losing the vet to lower costs relies solely on a council inspector and standards are likely to be highly variable. And what if no 'exotic' vet is involved, a cat/dog vet is not going to be thorough and the inspection loses value. Exotic vets are currently pushing for pet shop licensing and equivalent to be carried out by those who demonstrate competency in the specific field, rather than 'normal' vets. However, to take a vet out of practice for several hours is detrimental to their work and the more specialised the vet, the more expensive their time will be.

My questions would be:
1) Would those involved with rescues voluntarily undergo inspections to get 'approved' status if it were not a legally requirement?
2) Would you still do so if failures as well as passes were made public?
3) What would you be prepared to pay for this?
4) If this became a legal requirement, is it going to be prohibitively expensive for small rescues?
5) Would loss of smaller rescues and dominance of larger rescues be a positive or negative move?


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

marie_k said:


> I fully agree that rescues should be licensed and regulated. Not just exotics, but cat/dog centres though I have to say generally these are much better organised and managed. It is too easy to set up a 'rescue' taking in animals as a hobby but not necessarily improve their conditions or long-term welfare.
> The difficulty will be twofold:
> 1) Legislating this - it is a comparatively minor issue that is not going to be high on the agenda at local authority/government level. Without approval and statutory requirements few rescues will choose to be regulated. Though voluntary registration and demonstration of acceptable standards may confer a higher perceived status and hence greater support than those that don't take part.
> 2) Who will regulate the rescues? If done like pet shop licensing then a member of the LA and a vet would be the minimum for an inspection. This raises costs. Losing the vet to lower costs relies solely on a council inspector and standards are likely to be highly variable. And what if no 'exotic' vet is involved, a cat/dog vet is not going to be thorough and the inspection loses value. Exotic vets are currently pushing for pet shop licensing and equivalent to be carried out by those who demonstrate competency in the specific field, rather than 'normal' vets. However, to take a vet out of practice for several hours is detrimental to their work and the more specialised the vet, the more expensive their time will be.
> ...


I agree fully that _all_ rescue/rehoming organisations should be regulated, not just exotics. Because of the changes brought in my the Animal Welfare (AWA) Act the situation is I firmly believe that any such body that rehomes for a fee, either fixed or minimum donation is already brought under the auspices of the Pet Animals Act (PAA) and therefore requires licensing. 

In terms of inspection it is not a requirement of the PAA to have a vet inspect, it is an option open to the Local Authority but is not a requirement. What we should be pushing for is Local Authority inspectors to be better trained; this is an issue I am currently pushing.

In terms of do rehoming centres want to be licences, the answer from 85% surveyed was yes! Are you aware of the dissertation study done by Julie Sanders in 2012: - AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER ANIMAL SANCTUARIES/RESCUE AND REHOMING ORGANISATIONS IN ENGLAND BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE REGULATED


----------



## marie_k (Apr 21, 2006)

Chris Newman said:


> I agree fully that _all_ rescue/rehoming organisations should be regulated, not just exotics. Because of the changes brought in my the Animal Welfare (AWA) Act the situation is I firmly believe that any such body that rehomes for a fee, either fixed or minimum donation is already brought under the auspices of the Pet Animals Act (PAA) and therefore requires licensing.
> 
> In terms of inspection it is not a requirement of the PAA to have a vet inspect, it is an option open to the Local Authority but is not a requirement. What we should be pushing for is Local Authority inspectors to be better trained; this is an issue I am currently pushing.
> 
> In terms of do rehoming centres want to be licences, the answer from 85% surveyed was yes! Are you aware of the dissertation study done by Julie Sanders in 2012: - AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER ANIMAL SANCTUARIES/RESCUE AND REHOMING ORGANISATIONS IN ENGLAND BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE REGULATED


Hi Chris,
I haven't seen the dissertation - any chance you can email it over?
Interesting about the LA inspectors getting more clued up and competent. Would improve standards somewhat, but I still think there is a role for vets to assess health/hygiene/biosecurity etc but I'm biased!
Marie


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

marie_k said:


> Hi Chris,
> I haven't seen the dissertation - any chance you can email it over?
> Interesting about the LA inspectors getting more clued up and competent. Would improve standards somewhat, but I still think there is a role for vets to assess health/hygiene/biosecurity etc but I'm biased!
> Marie


Will forward you a copy, and yes you are biased, but I guess you are allowed to be :smile: if you would be interested to sit in on one of the training days you are more than welcome!

I don’t think vets should be mandatory for such inspections, neither should they be for DWAA inspections, but that is another issue. Vets are expensive and therefore should only be used where appropriate, licensing inspectors _should_ be competent to do the job they are paid to do……!!


----------



## marie_k (Apr 21, 2006)

Chris Newman said:


> Will forward you a copy, and yes you are biased, but I guess you are allowed to be :smile: if you would be interested to sit in on one of the training days you are more than welcome!
> 
> I don’t think vets should be mandatory for such inspections, neither should they be for DWAA inspections, but that is another issue. Vets are expensive and therefore should only be used where appropriate, licensing inspectors _should_ be competent to do the job they are paid to do……!!


Thanks, on both counts! Would be interested in sitting in, let me know when you're doing any days.
I like your optimism on inspectors being competent, good luck!


----------



## Janine00 (Sep 20, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> In terms of do rehoming centres want to be licences, the answer from 85% surveyed was yes! Are you aware of the dissertation study done by Julie Sanders in 2012: - AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER ANIMAL SANCTUARIES/RESCUE AND REHOMING ORGANISATIONS IN ENGLAND BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE REGULATED


Very interesting findings. I also agree that anyone inspecting anything should have at least a very good overview knowledge of what they are inspecting, with a minimum of at least good written evidence on best practice to refer to and support them on issues they are not particularly conversant with.

Part of my role is inspecting social care provision, and I have much I can turn to for guidance where I come across issues I may have questions on where my personal knowledge may not cover the situation.

I also find it encouraging that there is interest in training for LA inspectors.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

marie_k said:


> Thanks, on both counts! Would be interested in sitting in, let me know when you're doing any days.
> I like your optimism on inspectors being competent, good luck!


The failing is the system, not necessarily those who work in the system! The problem is licensing is either devolved to EHO’s or Trading Standards. EHO’s are given very good training in food hygiene etc, Trading Standards are given ample training in their respective area, neither are given much, if any training in licensing animal establishments – you cannot expect people to do a job to a high standard if they are not given the tools to do the job, that really is the fundamental problem!

I deal with this issue day in day out and over the years I have meet literally hundreds of Local Authority employees dealing with animal related issue. The vast overwhelming majority want (try) to do the job the best they can, few are either simply incompetent or have ulterior motives (i.e. antis) - these I always endeavour to find new jobs, regardless if they wanted to or not! 

Having done a number of training days for Local Authorities I have always found those attending to be very thirsty for knowledge, so all we can do is try and help.


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Janine00 said:


> Very interesting findings. I also agree that anyone inspecting anything should have at least a very good overview knowledge of what they are inspecting, with a minimum of at least good written evidence on best practice to refer to and support them on issues they are not particularly conversant with.
> 
> Part of my role is inspecting social care provision, and I have much I can turn to for guidance where I come across issues I may have questions on where my personal knowledge may not cover the situation.
> 
> I also find it encouraging that there is interest in training for LA inspectors.


The interest for training Local Authority Licensing Officer’s is extremely high the problem is there is no budget within LA’s to fund such training! Therefore we (the industry) have been put in the somewhat curious position of providing funding for training of those who charge us (the industry) for the services they provide! As a pragmatist I don’t have an issue with this, however, some of my colleagues are somewhat less supportive it has to be said. At the end of the day my argument is poor pet shops are harmful to the pet industry; we don’t want bad pet shops. Therefore it is in our best interest to drive the bad shops out of business and the simplest way for us to do that is help raise the standards by providing training to those who hold the legal responsibility to enforce standards……….!!


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

marie_k said:


> 1) Would those involved with rescues voluntarily undergo inspections to get 'approved' status if it were not a legally requirement?


Yes, we've suggested some kind of approval scheme many times, in fact we originally suggested the hobby make its own and run it through local branches of affiliated societies such as the IHS



marie_k said:


> 2) Would you still do so if failures as well as passes were made public?


I would, not sure about others, but I think to maintain support of the hobby (as if!) and the community transparency is key



marie_k said:


> 3) What would you be prepared to pay for this?


Dependant on cost, yes. At the end of the day it would obviously be about value for money. Every penny that's spent has to be spent in the best interests of the rescue. We don't have fancy stationary with a letterhead printed or pretty business cards because between the two there's a week's food for the beardies we have in for example. An accreditation scheme though could be money well spent since it could open more doors for fundraising etc, as well as possibly providing some outlets for rehoming




marie_k said:


> 4) If this became a legal requirement, is it going to be prohibitively expensive for small rescues?


Well that's the $64,000 question isn't it. At the £80-100 mark that Chris mentioned then probably not. Add a compulsory vet onto that, especially if they're a specialist and the cost will likely get nearer the £300-500 mark and that might be.



marie_k said:


> 5) Would loss of smaller rescues and dominance of larger rescues be a positive or negative move?


For those of you unable to see outside the SE of England it probably makes no difference at all. In the world beyond Watford Gap though, small rescues dominate. The fact is that currently organisations like ours are all there is. The RSPCA don't even return calls about reptiles in this part of the country, not even to the police! That's what I don't get about the attitude of the hobby and their representative bodies, their total lack of support, hostility even; regardless of our perceived faults, or the insane idea that those of us who do it properly can make a profit, currently we're all there is. There is no other more respectable body providing an alternative service, and there's precious few organised rescues such as ours.


----------



## Janine00 (Sep 20, 2008)

Chris Newman said:


> The interest for training Local Authority Licensing Officer’s is extremely high the problem is there is no budget within LA’s to fund such training! Therefore we (the industry) have been put in the somewhat curious position of providing funding for training of those who charge us (the industry) for the services they provide! As a pragmatist I don’t have an issue with this, however, some of my colleagues are somewhat less supportive it has to be said. At the end of the day my argument is poor pet shops are harmful to the pet industry; we don’t want bad pet shops. Therefore it is in our best interest to drive the bad shops out of business and the simplest way for us to do that is help raise the standards by providing training to those who hold the legal responsibility to enforce standards……….!!


If you take on board my 'end of bad day moan' further forward in this thread, you may begin to see why there is no money to further our cause from Local Authorities. However, I am interested in the furtherance of this discussion within both the FBH and the recognised affiliated societies. To this end, I am going to see if I can get it put on to the agenda for discussion at our next Committee meeting later this month.

Any thoughts anyone has that may support me iro that agenda item I would be glad to hear.... :2thumb:

Chris, if you have a few minutes, I would appreciate a conversation or an e'mail with you on this if possible... thanks... J


----------



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

Janine00 said:


> If you take on board my 'end of bad day moan' further forward in this thread, you may begin to see why there is no money to further our cause from Local Authorities. However, I am interested in the furtherance of this discussion within both the FBH and the recognised affiliated societies. To this end, I am going to see if I can get it put on to the agenda for discussion at our next Committee meeting later this month.
> 
> Any thoughts anyone has that may support me iro that agenda item I would be glad to hear.... :2thumb:
> 
> Chris, if you have a few minutes, I would appreciate a conversation or an e'mail with you on this if possible... thanks... J


I am acutely aware of the issues faced by Local Authorities in this time of austerity which is why I made the somewhat unorthodox suggestion that industry should fund the training – this was not well received by industry initially I can tell you! As they quite rightly pointed out industry has to pay to be licensed and inspected so we should they then fund the training, which is a fair point. Notwithstanding sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture and argument one the day, not with everyone, but such is life sometimes you just have to get on and do what needs to be done.

I think we have to split this into two separate issues, one is training for Licensing Officers in respect of the Pet Animals Act, that’s not really a hobbyist issue that for industry to deal with that is in hand.

The other is re-homing and that is very much an issue for both industry and hobby, there are very significant developments within industry on this matter which regrettably I cannot to detail about at the moment. However, the hobby also has a very significant role and this is something that should be raised as a priority. 

I do not know if you were on the committee of the IHS at the time of the proposed MoU between the RSPCA and the FBH etc? Most societies are involved in rehoming to some extent, some much larger than others, PRAS for example do an outstanding job. When I was trying to forge links between the FBH and the RSPCA in terms of rehoming I had a devils own job with the IHS at the time, they were extremely cynical about the intent of the RSPCA, a wise position as it turned out! 

Very happy to talk with you about any of these issues, my number is 023 8044 0999.

Chris


----------



## alecwood (Apr 3, 2012)

......


----------

