Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Federation of British Herpetologists
Thank you for the opportunity to present additional
and clarifying evidence to the committee.
Firstly, I would like to state for the record
that the written submission from Mr Greg Glendell of BirdsFirst
contained a number of innaccuracies, for example he stated:
"Mr Newman is involved in the (largely
unlawful) itinerant trade of Reptiles" and "He
has organised many reptile sales days thought the UK and continues
to try and stage these sales".
I am not involved in the trade in reptiles (nor
is this trade illegal) and I have never organised reptile sales
days. As the chair of the DEFRA Working Group on Pet Fairs I would
like to take this opportunity to state that all members of the
group performed the task they had been given with the greatest
integrity and that their motivations were entirely honourable.
I took my responsibilities as Chair extremely
seriously and I took pains to widely consult with many animal-keeping
organisations and groups to obtain a balanced view of the various
animal events which take place around the UK. It was not possible
to consult with the any commercial anti-pet-keeping organisations
as these groups refuse to enter dialogue with pet keepers. The
RSPCA were, however, represented in the Group (both scientific
and legal departments) in order to provide balance. It should
also be noted that Andrew Griffiths of the Chartered Institute
of Environment Health, widely quoted as supporting the view of
the anti-pet-keeping organisations (by the latter), was present
in the group and fully supported the conclusions reached, as did
the representative from LACORS. I am attaching to this missive
a copy of the conclusions of the Working Group and, if required,
copies of the various minutes of meetings are available.
It is clear that every week literally hundreds
of events at which pet animals are sold take place and that these
events play a vital role in the British tradition of the keeping
of animals as companions. These events are extremely varied in
nature and include: animal shows and exhibitions, pet fairs, agricultural,
county and town shows and pet breeders' meetings. The range of
animals offered for sale at events is equally varied, fish, reptiles,
small mammals, guinea pigs, rabbits, "traditional" pet
birds and others such as chickens, ducks and pigeons. All of these
events provide an opportunity for animal breeders to sell surplus
stock to fellow breeders and members of the public. Traditionally
many animal keepers use the revenue thus generated to subsidise
their hobby.
If the sale of animals at shows or other events
were banned under the auspices of the AWB it would have a catastrophic
effect for a great many pet keepers, especially those who rely
on these sales to help towards the costs of feeding etc. This
would hit the traditional "working class" animal keepers,
such as pigeon and canary fanciers the hardest. Many local animal
keeping organisations could not survive without the revenue generated
by exhibitions and/or sales days with the resultant loss of the
vital support network they provide. The commercial anti-pet-keeping
groups are well aware of the catastrophic effect that the banning
of animal sales at temporary events would produce and are always
careful to openly campaign only against animal groups which are
not viewed sympathetically by the public. Reptiles have been the
target of the largest "hate" campaign as they are often
feared by the public and are, thus, a good means of generating
revenue. Campaigning against the sale of "fluffy" animals,
such as rabbits or gerbils, would have relatively little support
and would not, therefore, be financially viable. In practice,
it is only necessary to campaign hard against only one or two
vulnerable animal groups as, if successful, this would still result
in a total ban on all animal shows, not just the target group.
It is worth noting that many of the anti-animal-keeping
enterprises are totally opposed to the keeping of any animals
as pets, or the use of any animal or animal products as food.
The hidden agenda behind the campaign against animal shows is
clearly to reduce the number of people who keep and care for companion
animals and restrict the public's access to animals in all areas
of life.
The pro-animal groups feel that shows are a
good way of finding homes for surplus animals as they can be regulated,
be entirely above board and accountable, and allow potential buyers
to see large numbers of animals and talk to "experts"
and breeders. The alternatives to shows are less satisfactory
from a welfare point of view. These would typically include: internet
sales (totally unregulated and unpoliceable), small ads in local
papers or sales in car parks etc (likewise), sales to pet shops
(not favoured by some breeders as they like to talk to perspective
purchasers to ensure their animals are going to a good home) or
euthanasia of surplus animals (favoured by the animal rights lobby).
If animal welfare is an issue it can be better addressed at a
properly organised, regulated event rather than driving the sales
of animals "underground". The RSPCA are frequently in
attendance at reptile and other taxa shows and invariably few,
in any, problems are encountered.
With regard to the threat of zoonoses, the FBH
has listened to the anti-animal-groups concerns and has conducted
an independent study. This has shown quite categorically that
the risks have been greatly exaggerated, particularly in the case
of reptiles and far greater risks are posed by family pets (dogs
and cats) and farm animals. All of the pro-animal-keeping groups
consulted share the very grave concern that certain "anti"
groups rely solely on evidence provided by an unqualified lay-person
rather than use more reliable sources. It is important to note
that Salmonella, the only zoonotic disease with a significant
association with reptiles, is more commonly associated with farm
animals and food production, and is also carried by commonly kept
pets such as cats and dogs. Furthermore, Salmonella is only one
of a multitude of zoonotic diseases, many of which have far more
serious consequences for human health than Salmonella (eg SARS,
leprosy, bubonic plague, rabies, camplylobacter and the hospital
superbug VRE). The carriers of these zoonotic infections are farm
animals, mammalian pet species (eg cats, dogs, rodents), wild
birds and mammals, with no documented association with reptiles.
DEFRA acknowledge that "There is also no evidence that uncommonly
kept pet animals pose a significant extra risk of disease to humans
compared to ordinary pets" (Proposals for improving the effectiveness
of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 Consultation document June,
2004).
Another concern of pro-animal groups is the
use of terrorist tactics and intimidation by groups opposed to
the keeping of pets. We can give many examples of organisers of
animal-related events, as well as venue owners, being threatened,
abused and cajoled. Many pet keepers, particularly those who choose
to keep "target" animals (principally reptiles) live
in fear of attack and are afraid to speak out against what is
happening for fear of reprisal.
The FBH is an active member of the government
initiative, Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW),
which brings together the Police, HM Customs and Excise, representatives
of Government Departments and voluntary bodies, such as the FBH,
with an interest in wildlife law enforcement. The FBH encourages
PAW to be represented at animal-related events. Many of the anti-animal-keeping
groups imply that the trade in animals is largely illegal (see
BirdsFirst's submission) but it is worthy of note that none of
these groups are members of PAW.
On a final note, the use of the term "exotic"
is increasingly being used to describe animals which some people
do not think should be kept as pets. In actuality it is very difficult
to define which animals are "exotic" and which are "domesticated".
Snakes, for instance, have been kept in captivity for many years
and bred for many generations, producing animals far removed from
their wild counterparts. Hamsters, by comparison, have been kept
in captivity for only a short time and could, therefore, be considered
"exotic". If the committee have concerns about so-called
"exotic" animals kept as pets they should review the
recent report from the Companion Animal Welfare Council "Report
on the Welfare of Non-Domesticated Animals kept for Companionship"
published June 2003.
The recent report from the RSPCA, "Handle
with Care", also puts the issues of "exotic" pet
keeping into perspective. In 2003 the RSPCA rescued or re-homed
25,000 dogs out of a population of 6.5 million animals but in
the same period rescued or re-homed only 2,500 exotics (total,
not just reptiles) out of a population of 5 million companion
reptiles alone. This would suggest that keepers of so-called exotic
pets are likely to be more responsible and knowledgeable than
dog owners.
16 September 2004
|
