Memorandum submitted by the Reptile and
Exotic Pets Trade Association (REPTA)
REPTA was formed to represent the opinions of
the reptile and exotic trade with a view to ensuring that no unreasonable
legislation was made regarding the keeping and trading in exotic
animals. Membership consists of major wholesalers and retailers
who have become increasingly concerned with the campaign by extremist
animal rights campaigners to end the keeping/trading of exotic
species. Adding to our concerns, is the fact that Animal Aid members
now totally dominate the RSPCA Ruling council and we fear their
policies and aims may do irreparable damage to what is now a major
hobby and a multi-million pound trade with thousands of employees
which is a substantial source of revenue for the Exchequer. REPTA
is currently conversing with the RSPCA with a view to helping
them in their desire to eliminate any welfare problems within
the Trade/hobby and we are committed to this policy.
GENERAL CONCERNS
REGARDING THE
RSPCA'S AWB INPUT
We accept and applaud the concept of the AWB
as an attempt to improve overall animal welfare provided that
it does not become a vehicle for extremist animal rights activists.
We have a number of serious concerns regarding the AWB which are
greatly magnified by two statements in the 2003 RSPCA Policy Document
and again the presence of extremist animal rights individuals
on the RSPCA Ruling Council. The first statement is that "animals
that are kept in cages (or presumably any container), do not generally
make suitable companion animals) pets) which means that virtually
only cats and dogs are suitable as pets. The second statement
categorically states that reptiles do not make suitable pets.
Furthermore, the RSPCA has circulated a letter to every local
council, asking them not to issue pet shop licenses to any retailer
who intends to sell exotics. REPTA cannot see any way of interpreting
the two statements and the circularized letter as anything other
than a wish to destroy the exotic animal trade which would include
fish, birds, mammals and reptiles which together comprise a billion
pound industry that has many thousands of employees. We believe
that animal rights extremists in the RSPCA Ruling council may
use parts of the AWB to try and destroy the trade.
SPECIFIC CONCERNS
REGARDING THE
CONTENT OF
THE AWB SUBMITTED
BY REPTILE
AND EXOTIC
PET TRADE
ASSOCIATION
Page 11: Fighting etc
1. A person commits an offence if he arranges
an animal fight
Feeding a live rodent to save a snakes life
is currently legal although the RSPCA already say they will prosecute
anyone doing so on the grounds of "causing unnecessary suffering"
to the rodent. An expert witness, who has years of experience,
has stated that feeding a live rodent to an animal would be considered
as "arranging a fight" and that would render this practice
an offence under the AWB. There should be a clause in the AWB
to make it legal, if all other methods have failed, to permit
the feeding of live rodents, under specific conditions, in order
to save an animal's life. The rodents that are bred for the reptile
trade have no inbuilt fear of snakes and a snake will virtually
instantly kill and swallow a rodent or ignore it, in which case
the rodent just happily wanders around the snake's enclosure.
The whole process must be supervised throughout and the rodent
removed after five minutes. If this process is not clearly legalized,
then hundreds of captive bred snakes, many of them rare and Cites
listed will suffer and die. This could lead to a substantial reduction
in captive breeding and, as a consequence, lead to an increase
in the number of wild caught imports to fill the vacuum created.
REPTA believes this would be a retrograde step for reptile welfare.
Page 12: 3 Welfare
4. For the purposes of this section etc.
(a) Who is going to decide what is a "suitable
environment"? The RSPCA ,who will in the main be the inspectors,
have by their own admission, very little knowledge of "exotics"
and their care. How can they plausibly be able to define what
constitutes a "suitable environment" and be responsible
for prosecuting exotic keepers?
(c) It is not possible for animals in captivity
to exhibit the exact normal behaviour patterns that they would
in the wild and so this clause could render all exotic animal
keepers open to prosecution despite the apparent health and contentment
of their charges. Again the inspectors generally have precious
little knowledge of what constitutes "normal behaviour"
and, if they saw two lizards going through their mating ritual,
the owner could be accused of causing two animals to fight and
be prosecuted. This clause should be amended to "reasonably
normal behaviour patterns for a captive animal".
Page 16: 11 Powers to take possession of, and
retain, animals in distress
2. (b) An inspector/constable may seize an
animal that may suffer if it's circumstances do not change.
How is an inspector/constable ever going to
know whether an animal's circumstances are going to change? A
24´ Boa constrictor kept in a 36´ vivarium will suffer
if it is not moved to a larger vivarium as it grows to it's adult
size of over seven feet. Would this 24´ snake be seized on
the basis that it may suffer if it's circumstances do not change?
Our interpretation is that it could and that this clause should
be clarified or removed entirely.
Page 18: 14 Entry to search for and deal with
animals in distress
1. If an inspector or a constable reasonably
believes etc
This particular "right of entry" could
easily be abused by unscrupulous inspectors and possibly constables.
How could either be aware of abuse that is occurring inside a
closed building? Presumably a warrant could be obtained rapidly
if abuse was suspected and so why is it necessary to breach basic
human rights? If an animal is outside and appears to be suffering,
then by all means grant automatic right of entry, as long as attempts
are made to contact the owner first. As it stands, this clause
effectively means that an inspector/constable just has to say
he believed that an animal was suffering in order to enter any
premises other than dwellings. A confrontation between an inspector
and a member of the public who believes the inspector is trespassing
is fraught with risks which would be unlikely to occur if a police
office was involved.
CONCLUSIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS PERTAINING
TO THE
AWB
1. Assuming the RSPCA are to be the main
inspectorate, then we believe the AWB should contain the suggestion
that the RSPCA should consult with the Exotic trade and Hobby
in order to gain the knowledge they lack in order that they can
carry out their aims of improving animal welfare and at the same
time avoid prosecuting innocent hobbyists/traders because of a
shortage of any real knowledge within the RSPCA.
2. The RSPCA, particularly as they will
shortly gain prosecutorial status, should respond openly, honestly
and rapidly to complaints made against them. As it is, they are
totally unaccountable but able to cause a person to get a criminal
record. There should be an independent complaints commission,
at the moment there is no such system despite a substantial increase
in their powers.
3. We see virtually nothing in the AWB as
regards protection or compensation for people who are wrongly
accused. This draft bill leaves much to be desired in this respect
and appears to invite exploitation by the strong presence of animal
rights extremists within the RSPCA. These are the same extremists
whose activities the Government is trying to control.
4. The option to add invertebrates to the
AWB should be removed as they comprise the diet of 99% of captive
reptiles and if added would result in starvation and death for
about 2,500,000 lizards and the end of the exotic pet industry.
5. REPTA acknowledges that, as with all
pets, welfare problems always exist and need to be improved wherever
possible but we politely request that, when you review the AWB,
you take into account the likelihood that the extremist animal
rights activists will take advantage of any ambiguities they can
exploit in order to achieve their aims one of which is the destruction
of the Exotic trade and Hobby. Please also bear in mind that at
least 75% of the exotic trade comprises captive bred animals not
wild caught animals.
25 August 2004
| 
