# "Pet Hate" - 'The Biologist' subscribers?



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

Apologies if this is already posted somewhere but I have major brain freeze!!
With reference to the 'paper' by Tolland, Warwick and Arena, did anyone ever read the FULL version (complete with refs and sources?) in The Biologist? I have been trying to access it but unfortunately you have to be a member, and quite frankly I'm not about to pay £116 to look at one article!
It's the one which claims three quarters of reptiles die within a year of captivity, amongst other things. 
Any help appreciated!
Thanks


----------



## Spikebrit (Oct 23, 2006)

Pop up a link and i should have access though work

Jay


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

Try searching for this (this is the full reference given on ENDCAP publication, as it was cited there):

*Toland, E., Warwick, C. & Arena P. (2012) The exotic pet trade: pet hate*. The​Biologist Vol. 59, No 3 pp.14-18.
 
I was trying to find it on The Biologist website, but perhaps it is published elsewhere too...though the above reference only cites 'The Biologist' (suspicious?)

Thanks :no1:


----------



## Spikebrit (Oct 23, 2006)

try this http://animal-public.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/40169-Endcap-Report-final.pdf

jay


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2012)

Spikebrit said:


> try this http://animal-public.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/40169-Endcap-Report-final.pdf
> 
> jay


Jesus Christ, thats not a scientific paper, thats a work of propoganda that they just saved as a pdf to make it look more official...


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2012)

5plusmany said:


> Try searching for this (this is the full reference given on ENDCAP publication, as it was cited there):
> 
> *Toland, E., Warwick, C. & Arena P. (2012) The exotic pet trade: pet hate*. The​Biologist Vol. 59, No 3 pp.14-18.
> 
> ...


Its certainly suspicious that a paper published in a journal like The Biologist (a pretty big journal to say the least) is so difficult to find on a) google b) google scholar c)web of knowledge and d) the website of the journal...


Something seems a little odd here...

Also, when reading the article Sprikebrit linked, they appear to reference themselves on the 75% die in the first year crap. This thing looks like a whole lot of bull and circular referencing within a clicke of nutters if you ask me.


----------



## neep_neep (Oct 18, 2007)

FrozenReptile said:


> Its certainly suspicious that a paper published in a journal like The Biologist (a pretty big journal to say the least) is so difficult to find on a) google b) google scholar c)web of knowledge and d) the website of the journal...


'The Biologist' is described as a 'membership magazine' rather than a journal : victory:


----------



## Spikebrit (Oct 23, 2006)

FrozenReptile said:


> Jesus Christ, thats not a scientific paper, thats a work of propoganda that they just saved as a pdf to make it look more official...


Scary isn't it



FrozenReptile said:


> Its certainly suspicious that a paper published in a journal like The Biologist (a pretty big journal to say the least) is so difficult to find on a) google b) google scholar c)web of knowledge and d) the website of the journal...
> 
> 
> Something seems a little odd here...
> ...



I went through loads of academic search engines including the above and still hand no luck. However the biologist is not a journal in its own right it more of a professional magazine though they normally come up. However, after all the doubt came over Warwicks credentials I am sure i heard they pulled it. 

Jay


----------



## 5plusmany (Sep 29, 2011)

Spikebrit said:


> try this http://animal-public.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/40169-Endcap-Report-final.pdf
> 
> jay


Thanks, but that's where I got that reference from in the first place :lol2:

I emailed The Society of Biology and have been told I can have access to the original Tolland/Warwick/Arena study if I send £15...
...I too find it very odd that it seems to only be available in this way and is not in the public domain - what, indeed, are they hiding?!

I did just re-read that ENDCAP document which, in their defence, is very comprehensive and I noticed a couple of other studies are cited regarding high mortality rates. I'm wondering whether these are the basis for the new one by Tolland et al.. if thats the case, those studies were both published in 2001 and in my opinion quoting 11 year old figures does not constitute a 'scientific study'. 

I will keep digging!


----------



## Jeffers3 (May 18, 2010)

neep_neep said:


> 'The Biologist' is described as a 'membership magazine' rather than a journal : victory:


The Biologist is the publication sent to Members of The Society of Biology. As such, it doesn't need to be peer-reviewed in the same way as a journal that is available to the general public. However, it is a professional body, representing qualified biologists, so it is expected that articles published are above a certain standard.

I think the Society has been hugely embarrassed and quite severely damaged by the publication of this article and the emergence of the doubts about the credibility of one of it's primary authors.


----------

