Clifford Warwick PGDipMedSci CBiol CSci EurProBiol FOCAE FSB
Biologist & Medical Scientist
As a scientist working within the field of reptile biology and welfare I have, at the request of the Animal Protection Agency, reviewed the above-titled document.
My assessment of the ‘Good Practice guidelines for the welfare of privately kept reptiles & amphibians’ is that this endeavour is very much a publication of two halves. The first half of the Guide is largely replete with errors and misleading content typical of trade-led information and/or inexpert contributors. However, the second half (from page 7 onwards) of the document actually has some very relevant and important positive messages that, whilst not consistently correct or evidence-based, are likely to be helpful in gaining better welfare awareness among keepers towards animals.
Accordingly, there are dramatic inconsistencies in standard of information (from completely wrong to reasonable), and even where information is arguably, partly or reasonably accurate, the document nevertheless lacks any reference base. This means that while the expert and discerning reader can identify the false and misleading content from the valid information, less qualified readers may not ascertain ‘fact from fiction’.
Below are a few examples of the Guide’s errors, misleading content and positive welfare messages.
Guidance claim: “Today the UK population of pet reptiles and amphibians nears parity with that of dogs, with an estimated population in excess of seven million animals.” Erroneous information, there is no evidence that the number of reptiles and amphibians kept as pets number seven million, and the rationale for this figure has been publically demonstrated to be false. The best independent evidence indicates that the UK population of pet reptiles is approximately 1.1 million animals.
Guidance claim: “Today reptiles and amphibians are more popular than ever before as improved technology has expanded the range of species which may be maintained by the amateur keeper to a high standard of welfare.” Misleading information, there is no independent scientific evidence supporting the claim that reptiles and amphibians in captivity are maintained to a high level of welfare. In contrast, available independent scientific evidence indicates that the welfare of reptiles and amphibians kept as pets is very poor.
Guidance claim: “As compared to some other common companion species, many reptiles and amphibians require comparatively less space, have more limited requirements for companionship or exercise and may better meet criteria than some traditional species for many potential pet owners.” Erroneous information, there is no independent scientific evidence whatsoever to support the claim made. In contrast, available independent scientific evidence indicates that reptiles and amphibians commonly have spatial needs that are proportionately as great or greater than ‘traditional’ species.
Guidance claim: “…today in the UK the overwhelming majority, in excess of 95%, are bred in captivity specifically for the companion animal market…” Misleading information, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that 95% of reptiles and amphibians are captive-bred. In contrast, there is considerable independent scientific evidence to indicate that many wild-caught animals are falsely declared as ‘captive-bred’.
Guidance claim: “Some reptiles and amphibians are now considered domesticated pets which have been reproduced in captive conditions for successive generations, producing animals with a high tolerance for handling in a wide range of colour and pattern variations (or morphs). Many species have a phenotype which makes them almost unrecognisable from their wild ancestors and renders them incapable of surviving in the wild.” Erroneous information, there is no independent scientific evidence to indicate that any reptile or amphibian species can be considered ‘domesticated’. There is also no independent scientific evidence to indicate that selective breeding ‘renders’ a captive reptile or amphibian incapable of surviving in the wild. In contrast, there is growing independent scientific evidence of the potential threat posed by deliberately and incidentally released reptiles and amphibians becoming invasive alien species in recipient regions, and in some respects captive-produced hybrids may offer notable invasive risks.
Guidance claim: “Typically reptiles and amphibians are reasonably long-lived animals with many species achieving an average life span of 5-15 years, although some reptiles may live for more than 100 years.” Misleading information, not only does the claim lack evidential support, but it also implies that reptiles as pets can be expected to manifest the stated life-spans, whereas independent scientific evidence indicates that 75% of pet reptiles do not survive one year in the private home.
Guidance claim: “Page fourteen of this document includes a list of suggested sources of information for both prospective and existing keepers.” Misleading information, the list of ‘sources’ for advice includes mostly vested interests rather than reliable independent and scientific sources of information. The exceptions to this would include the RSPCA and BVZS.
Guidance claim: “Others may be considered specialists in the field of reptile and amphibian care, including: veterinary nurses, staff at animal welfare organisations or specialist retail outlets, members of specialist societies and experienced keepers.” Misleading information, ‘specialist retail outlets’ and ‘members of specialist societies and experienced keepers’ should not be presumed to be experts or capable of giving reliable advice.
Guidance claim: “Captive reptiles and amphibians rarely suffer health issues if they are kept correctly in a suitable environment.” Misleading information, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. Whilst, it is true that particular husbandry deficits are directly and indirectly linked to morbidity and mortality, captivity-stress from general captivity also impacts on and health even in often-perceived ‘exemplary’ conditions. Also, the use of the term ‘correctly’ is misleading as it falsely implies that all biological needs (including physiological, behavioural, psychological and spatial) can be provided for in small and artificial environments typical of those found in the reptile- and amphibian-keeping hobby and trade.
Guidance claim: “The vast majority of reptiles and amphibians kept as companions are bred in captivity (captive-bred), although a small number are obtained from wild populations (wild-caught).” Misleading information, there is no independent scientific evidence to indicate that ‘the vast majority of reptiles and amphibians kept as companions are bred in captivity’. In contrast, there is considerable independent scientific evidence to indicate that many wild-caught animals are falsely declared as ‘captive-bred’.
Guidance claim: “…sustainable utilisation of wild populations is a sound conservation practice which enables human indigenous populations in countries of origin to responsibly exploit the resource of native fauna providing an essential revenue stream to help in the fight to halt habitat loss, the largest threat to wild reptile and amphibians.” Misleading information, there is little credible scientific evidence to indicate a link between wild sourcing of pets and beneficial species conservation. In contrast, there is substantial independent scientific evidence to show that wild-sourcing presents a major negative impact on natural populations. Further, independent scientific and good anecdotal evidence indicates that local human populations are also negatively impacted by removal of indigenous species for the international pet trade.
Guidance claim: “Captive farming, or ranching, provides another source of supply of animals for the pet trade and this may be carried out in a number of ways. Pregnant (or gravid) females may be collected and any eggs or offspring sold on, after which the adults may be released back into the wild. Adult populations may be maintained on farms or ranches in the country of origin are used to produce juveniles, thus eliminating the stress of capture and decreasing the stress of transportation.” Misleading information, the claims fail to contextualise the subject and omit the serious evidence-based concerns that ranching negatively impacts local species populations and any releases may also promote pathogen transmission from captive to wild animals.
Guidance claim: “Many welfare organisations, recommend obtaining animals direct from the breeder. Societies affiliated to the FBH organise a number of events at which breeders sell surplus stock which allows potential owners to view a large number of animals from different sources before choosing a companion animal.” Misleading information, selling ‘surplus stock’ via events described variously as ‘pet fairs’, ‘breeders meetings’, ‘reptile expos’ etc has been defined as illegal within the UK under Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended 1983), with a Judicial Review and successful prosecutions underscoring the wrongful nature of selling pets in markets.
Guidance claim: “Many species are fairly sedentary, although they do need to have space to move round and exercise sufficiently.” Misleading information, describing reptiles or amphibians as ‘sedentary’ fails to contextualise both periodic sedentary and active behaviours in a same animal and can falsely imply that ‘sedentary’ habits are overriding ‘norms’ for these animal classes, which they are not.
Guidance claim: “Provide a heating system that is sufficient and suitable for the species concerned. Particular attention should be made to provide effective thermal gradients to allow the animals to thermo-regulate successfully and the enclosure should be of sufficient size for this to be achieved.” Essentially good information, although the content fails to reflect that providing even basic thermal gradients requires spatial provisions measured at least in metres, thus these guidance ‘principles’ do not work adequately in the, restrictive, inappropriate and stressful cage dimensions typically associated with reptile- and amphibian-keeping.
Guidance claim: “The keeper needs to provide suitable substrates and terrarium decoration which facilitate sufficient hiding places and allow a wide range of natural behaviours, including climbing and basking. The housing must be large enough to allow sufficient area for natural behaviour and movement and be suitable to maintain an environment which meets the needs of the species, such as height for arboreal species. In amphibian environments the quality of the water must be monitored to ensure it is appropriate for the species kept.” Essentially good information, although the content fails to reflect that providing for even basic spatial needs for reptiles and amphibians to express natural behaviour requires substantially greater cage dimensions than are typically associated with reptile- and amphibian- keeping.
Setting aside the largely defective first half of the document, most of the remaining messages could themselves be argued to represent two new and positive scenarios within the trade and hobby community. One possible scenario is that the exotic pet industry has begun to join the rest of the world in recognising that animals need far more in their lives than sellers and keepers commonly claim – making new welfare approaches ‘the right thing to do’. I think this is improbable given the raft of familiar falsehoods in the document that represent promotion propaganda and that manifest with tedious inevitability. Another possible, and I think more plausible, scenario is that sellers and keepers are realising that they are now beyond being ‘on the back foot’ against a tidal wave of evidence-based condemnation, and recognise that change is coming so they must move with it or be drowned by it, thus necessitating greater alignment with previously opposed perspectives.
Regardless, the ‘good’, or at least encouraging, result is that the Guide essentially accepts some of the modern principles of animal biological needs that provide strong pegs onto which meaningful welfare changes can be founded. The promoters may not yet realise quite what they have signed up to! For example, it is somewhat heartening that the promoters acknowledge (30 years behind the scientific community) certain signs of stress in caged reptiles (signs that are common), and that animals need enough space to behave naturally. However, accepting these principles alone also marks the inevitable downfall of the practice in its current form, as the vital biological needs of reptiles and amphibians simply cannot be met in conditions typical to the reptile- and amphibian-keeping business.
In my view, lending limited or broad principle support to the Guide is (albeit just about) defensible whereas wholesale endorsement of it is not and would likely lead such supporters to face some embarrassing questions. I do find it hard to avoid the conclusion that the only accurate and relevant welfare information in the Guide probably results directly from the input of welfare organisations rather than any reptile and amphibian trade or hobby group.
Regardless, the more qualified and discerning organisations and individuals will know enough to discard all but the few messages in the second half that most definitely favour animal welfare and do not seek to suggest any acceptability of selling and keeping these animals as pets. Unfortunately, I doubt that qualified organisations and individuals would be usual readers of it!
Overall, I can guardedly welcome the Guide although I should recommend giving most of the first half a cold shoulder and the second half a lukewarm reception!
Reviewer:
Clifford Warwick PGDipMedSci CBiol CSci EurProBiol FOCAE FSB
Biologist & Medical Scientist