Memorandum submitted by the Federation
of British Herpetologists
PREAMBLE
The Federation of British Herpetologists (FBH)
exists to promote and support the responsible keeping of reptiles
and amphibians by individuals in the UK. It is an umbrella organisation
to which the majority of herpetological societies have affiliated
and represents the largest collective of experienced amateur and
professional keepers.
AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES
— to represent the legitimate interests
of UK keepers at national and international level;
— to oppose unwelcome regulation/legislation;
— to manage a national information
of key facts/issues/statistics relating to reptile and amphibian
keeping; and
— to create and maintain a strong positive
image for private reptile keeping.
This submission is fully supported by the
British Herpetological Society (BHS), the International Herpetological
Society (IHS).
INTRODUCTION
Today there are in excess of one million homes
in the UK keeping over five million pet reptiles[1],
and many species are now commonly regarded as domesticated. In
the recent report from the Companion Animal Welfare Council (2003)
they concluded:
"it may be easier to keep some non-domesticated
species to high welfare standards than some that are domesticated.
Thus, meeting all the requirements—space, dietary, social,
thermal, and so on—of a small, hardy, reptile may be more
readily achievable for many people than adequately fulfilling
all the needs of some breeds of dog".
This is a sentiment echoed by the FBH. The rise
in popularity of reptiles as pets is largely due to the increasing
awareness and concerns by the general public about environmental
issues and also the change in modern lifestyles. Today people
wishing to keep some form of pet (companion animal) may not have
the time and space that is required for what may be more conventional
companions, such as dogs. Many people may also choose to keep
an animal with which they can interact but which will not have
a negative impact on the local environment and wildlife. Reptiles
and amphibians are an informed choice as they require less time
and attention than most mammalian pets and their well-being is
not compromised by being contained in their own environment.
The greater degree of responsibility exhibited
by exotic animal keepers is clearly demonstrable in the review
of a recent report from the RSPCA (2004). The UK population of
pet dogs is estimated at 6.5 million[2]
and in 2003 the RSPCA rescued or re-homed 25,000 dogs. By contrast,
in the same period they rescued or re-homed only 2,500 exotics
(not all of which were reptiles).
The FBH is fully supportive of the development
of the Animal Welfare Bill and has been an active participant
from the inception. The FBH has participated in four of the Defra
Working Groups, Pet Fairs, Pet Vending, Breeding and Duty of Care.
1. Cruelty
Clearly no rational person could condone acts
of overt cruelty, but the definition of cruelty is not always
as clear-cut as the non-animal keeper may perceive. This Act proposes
to define what constitutes cruelty and what constitutes an offence
in subsections (1) to (10). The FBH supports the intent of the
Bill but has grave reservations about who will enforce this legislation
(see conclusions).
Some areas of the Bill which the FBH believes
need further clarity are:
(2)(a)
The owner should not be liable for the actions
of a third party over which he has no control. For example, the
owner may have no control over the actions of a boarding establishment
or veterinarian in his absence.
(4)(a)(b)(c)
There is an increase in the keeping of "venomoid"
snakes, ie venomous snakes which have had their venom delivery
apparatus disabled, either by disconnection or removal of the
venom glands. The FBH seeks not to offer comment as to whether
this practice should be permitted under mutilations due to its
contentious nature but does seek clarity on the implications for
keepers.
There are currently many specimens held within
the UK and other specimens will be imported from other countries,
such as the USA and Germany where this practice is common place.
The FBH seeks clarity as to the legality of keeping of specimens
that have been subject to this procedure before the legislation
become effective. We would also like clarity as to the legality
of keeping animals imported after the legislation become effective
if such mutilations were prohibited in the UK.
(9)(a) and (b)
It is our understanding that it is an offence
for anyone other than a veterinary surgeon to perform an operation.
It would, therefore, seem unreasonable that should such a licensed
practitioner perform an operation which subsequently is deemed
to have been done without due care and humanity that the owner
of that animal is liable to prosecution as indicated. The owner
of the animal is reliant on advice from the veterinary practitioner
and should be indemnified from prosecution unless evidence is
available to demonstrate complicity.
2. Fighting
Whilst reasonably clear that this is directed
at dog and cock fighting the wording in the draft Bill is sufficiently
lax to allow mischievous prosecutors ample opportunities to secure
unwarranted prosecutions in order to deter keeping and breeding
of some species.
For example, many species of snakes, notably
pythons and boas, require male-to-male combat in order to induce
a breeding response. This combat is usually not injurious, but,
on occasion physical injury may occur. Likewise some species of
lizards indulge in highly aggressive male/female mating rituals
which can result in substantial superficial lacerations being
inflicted on the female by the male. This is "natural behavior"
and should not constitute fighting as defined in the Act. This
issue is not restricted to reptiles as some mammals, notably ferrets,
indulge in similar activities.
Some organisations that actively campaign against
the keeping of so called "exotic" animals would be in
a position to bring private (ie unregulated) prosecutions against
those who breed reptiles by exploiting the fighting clause. The
RSPCA openly state on their website "The RSPCA strongly
advises that you do not breed from reptiles". As currently
defined under the Act reptile keepers who breed such species would
be extremely vulnerable to duplicitous interpretations of the
proposed legislation by campaigning organisations.
Some professionals have advocated that "fighting"
outlaws feeding of live pray, ie feeding of a live mouse to a
snake:— "the placing together of a live snake and
a live mouse for the purpose of one of them attacking and subduing
the other—whether you like the idea or not "Fighting"
is a natural feeding behavior, and placing a live mouse with a
snake for the purposes of a fight is still "deliberate intent
to induce them to fight". The FBH is opposed to the routine
feeding of live prey, but on very rare occasions this is necessary
and should not be outlawed if carried out humanely. The FBH is
proposing to draft a CoP for the feeding of live prey.
3. Welfare
Welfare of their charges is the prime concern
of all responsible animal keepers and clarifying a duty of care
is to be applauded. Subsection (3)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) would appear
to be a slightly reworded variation of the five Freedoms and,
whilst the appeal of the latter is understandable, the implications
and implementation of the same is a daunting task studded with
pitfalls.
It would not be an arduous task to make mischievous
interpretations or derogations from the aforementioned, but Subsection
(3)(c) the need to be able to exhibit normal behavior patterns,
is untenable when applied to reptiles, and indeed many other taxa.
For example, snakes naturally feed on live prey
and it is, therefore, unnatural for them to feed on dead items.
This subsection would, therefore, force keepers of snakes to potentially
contravene the legislation by feeding their charge in an unnatural
manner (ie feeding of dead prey items) or risk other offences
by feeding of live vertebrate prey.
Due to the virtually insurmountable obstacles
encountered when this subsection is applied to the breadth of
taxa kept and the respective complexities, this subsection should
be excluded from the Act.
6. Regulations to promote welfare
We note that there is no reference to temporary
accommodation, such as that at shows. While not explicitly relevant
to reptiles, birds are exempted from some legislation, ie Countryside
and Wildlife Act for the purposes of showing. It would therefore
seem pertinent that other animals should be exempted from "normal"
accommodations whilst attending such events.
7. Codes of practice
The FBH fully endorses the principles of Codes
of Practice and welcomes unreservedly their formal introduction.
Non-compliance with a recognised CoP must not in itself, however,
constitute an offence under the proposed Act. Animal keeping is
not a sedentary science, but a matter of constant evolution. It
is, therefore, important that keepers are not forced to rigidly
abide by CoPs which would prevent new and improved husbandry techniques
from being developed. Not withstanding this, it should be incumbent
upon the keeper to account for deviations from such a CoP if such
is in existence.
8/9. Making of codes of practice
It is unquestionable that any CoP should be
drafted, in co-operation with Defra, by the relevant NGO regulatory/associate
body pertaining to the relevant taxa. Companion animals, exotic
or otherwise, should not be confused with farmed animals. The
expertise in the care and husbandry lays in the hands in those
who dedicate their lives to such creatures and it would, therefore,
be folly not to seek their guidance in drawing up such codes.
Annex B: Proposals to License Pet fairs
The FBH welcomes the proposals to clarify the
law pertaining to such events. It must be emphasized that under
current law (Pet Animals Act, 1951) the situation regarding the
legally of such events is entirely ambiguous, and not, as claimed
by some Animal Rights enterprises namely Animal Aid and latterly
Animal Protection Agency, unlawful.
The former AR enterprise, Animal Aid (not a
charity as often claimed but a limited company), were present
at an early Defra stakeholders meeting (2003). At this meeting
on the AWB (and specifically "shows") the director of
Animal Aid, Andrew Tyler and his assistant Elaine Toland (now
of Animal Protection Agency) were specifically asked by the FBH
if they were certain that such events were unlawful under the
current legislation would they seek a Judicial Review of the decision
by Solihull District Council to issue a Pet license for the Nation
Bird Show to be held in December of that year? Both Mr Tyler and
Ms Toland refused to answer this question. Subsequently Animal
Aid continued to lobby against this event and the decision by
the Council to licence the events was pushed to a public hearing.
When that hearing went against them Animal Aid declined to seek
a Judicial Review, despite being directly challenged to do so.
In the view of the FBH this is emphatic proof that Animal Aid
conceded that the current law was ambiguous. Had they proceeded
with such a challenge that proved successful it would have been
virtually impossible for such events to have been included in
the AWB.
Recently (July 2004) Animal Aid sought a Judicial
Review in respect of the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott's,
decision to overrule the Planning Inspector and allow Cambridge
University to build a monkey research centre on green belt land
on the outskirts of the city. This failed and clearly demonstrates
that if Animal Aid thought they had the remotest case against
Pet Fairs they would have sought a Judicial Review.
Such events are common place and have been in
existence for more then half a century. In the late 1990's some
of the animal rights enterprises decided there would be a "profitable
campaign" in taking a public stance against such events which
had always formerly run without issue. It should be noted that
the RSPCA, Chartered Institute of Environment Health (CIEH) and
the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services (LACoRS)
were all represented on the Defra Working Group on "Pet Fairs"
and unanimously supported the recommendations that such events
be licensed where appropriate.
It is also worthy of note that despite a written
statement from Mr Tyler on behalf of Animal Aid, quote: "Animal
Aid is happy to engage in robust debate about which opinions are
divided" the fact is that they have refused to respond
to any request for dialogue, [App1] [Not printed].
GENERAL COMMENTS
The FBH have concerns that there appears to
be no protection for animal keepers from malicious actions within
the draft AWB. We would, therefore, welcome explicit clarity on
this point. All proceedings or prosecutions must be conducted
in an air of transparency and accountability and any authority
or inspector must be bound by the Human Rights Act (1998). This
includes private prosecutions where, by their nature, the neutrality
of expert witnesses may be questionable and the right to a fair
trial hindered by the defendant's inability to afford legal counsel.
The right of animal keepers to a "stay of execution"
(with respect to the removal and/or disposal of live animals),
to a fair trial, and the right to appeal should be vigorously
protected in Statute, given that the animals (whatever they may
be) are invariably cherished and/or in case of the rarer species
(eg numerous CITES 1 species kept and bred successfully in private
reptiles collections) often irreplaceable, in both fiscal and
conservation terms.
CONCLUSIONS
The FBH is fully supportive of the Animal Welfare
Bill and its objectives, with reservations only as to its enforcement.
In common with many animal-keeping organisations, we hold the
gravest of reservations as to who may enforce the proposed legislation
and ultimately prosecute alleged offenders. The RSPCA is an animal
welfare charity which vociferously engages in political campaigning
and changes in the law [App (2)] [not printed] and also has a
discernable animal rights agenda to its "policies on animal
welfare" (2003) edition [App (2).9] [not printed].
The concern of keepers is the continuance and/or
extension of powers granted to the RSPCA by the agreement they
signed with Defra on the 7 June 2004 (effective 1 September) to
allow them to perform the functions of an "approved prosecutor"
under the Protection of Animals (amendment) Act 2000. This agreement
was concluded behind closed doors and without any public consultation.
This is a major concern to all animal keepers, not just those
who keep reptiles and so-called exotics, although this sector
has traditionally borne the brunt of the negative media campaigning
instigated by the Society.
The agreement signed on the 7 June states "the
Prosecutor or any person acting on its behalf shall act as if
they were bound by the current version of the Code for Crown Prosecutors".
This code states:
"Crown Prosecutors must be fair, independent
and objective. They must not let any personal views about ethnic
or national origin, sex, religious beliefs, political views or
witness influence their decision. They must not be affected by
improper or undue pressure from any source."
This begs the question of how can a charity
that constantly campaigns against certain activities, in this
case the selling of pets from pets shops and/or the keeping of
so called exotic pets be given sweeping powers under the Bill
to prosecute (without independent review) people involved in an
activity to which they are opposed. The powers to prosecute were
originally removed from the police on the grounds that having
been directly involved in an investigation, they would have too
great an interest in obtaining a successful prosecution, and the
same would surely apply to the RSPCA.
There has been much hype emanating from Animal
Rights enterprises concerning zoonoses, and in particular salmonella
associated with reptiles. Whilst not wishing to discard this as
entirely irrelevant, the inaccurate scaremongering peddled by
disingenuous and unqualified individuals should not be accepted
at face value.
Not withstanding the aforementioned concerns
over the enforcement issues, the FBH concludes that the Animal
Welfare Bill is a major advancement in animal welfare and is to
be applauded.
REFERENCES
Report on the Welfare of Non-domesticated
Animals kept for Companionship, The Companion Animal Welfare
Council, 12 June 2003. Available from: http://www.cawc.org.uk
Report on Zoonotic Diseases—Is Salmonella
the Primary Threat to Human Health?
Handle with care—A look at the exotic
animal pet trade, RSPCA, July 2004. Available from: http://www.rspca.org
The UK Trade in live reptiles and amphibians—report
to the RSPCA on the nature and status of the reptile and amphibian
pet trade between 1980 and 1992. Andrew C Smart & Ian
G Bride, published 1993. Available from: http://cheetah.webtribe.net/amphibians/
25 August 2004
1 Assessment based on the Federation of British Herpetologists
report (http://www.f-b-h.co.uk) Back
2
Assessment based on the Pet Food Manufactures Association report
(http://www.pfma.com) Back
| 
