At the risk of yet again being torn to assunder.

I have two relatively important questions.

1] Could it be suggested that in fact of all the species maintained in exotic captive collections that the primate is in fact more of a risk in so far as suffering from mental stresses?

There are those that can argue that l am purely suggesting those who keep single primates, and whilst in many respects 70% of single primates kept as singles are more likely to develop neurological problems than those living in groups or social structures. But can we look at the possibility that even those living in pairs could possibly suffer from mental anguish?

Hence the topic of pyschological wellbeing should be seriously considered in the code. This should not be too far to understand for in fact the code does concentrate on this subject alone as l have discussed before:

The need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease

And if we look at the act itself for animal welfare then we can raise this from the legislation:

'Protect your animal from fear and distress to avoid mental suffering'

So one would have to consider all possibilities as to what could/would cause mental suffering.

And l think that those in positions of opposition must be looking very seriously at this fine point.

2] Enforcing - how on earth does the Government expect to effectively police not just this code, but any code for that matter?

The only way the authorities could enforce the cop's to keepers would be to have control of what keepers are maintaining and for this to be done correctly, then there would have to be records and administrations.

The only way forwards l could see from the primate keepers' point of future would be the introduction of a supporting licence to that of the current DWAL. The species which have been lifted from the licence in October would have to be scheduled to a new licence, which would take into account the species now listed as non dangerous but also the inclusion of the marmoset species.

This is the only way that one could ensure regular health inspections of the premises and of course this way, although seen as an enormous pain by those whom keep primates, but would highlight to those in authority that primate keepers are responsible and are genuinely concerned for their charges.

For years the pro side battled to attain the species removal and yes, eventually they did succeed, however in the case of primates, was this in reality the best move?

Yes l can be attacked for what l have written, but despite what many think, l am actually looking at this in an unbiased viewpoint. I may be a primate seller, but we do not sell as many primates as everyone thinks we do - some will say its the pricing structure we have, and whilst this 'may be' responsible - it will only be responsible for a relatively small percentage, the main reason is that we VET and we SCREEN potential buyers, and this is very off putting to many keepers.

What the UK needs and does not have is an actual private primate keepers association, now unlike reptiles whom have many societies and even a federation. Primates do not, not aimed specifically at the private sector, and this is what is causing all of the problems, they do not have a recognised voice and as such, who would be there to write a code of practice for them?

We may be looking at, as l said a suggested code of practice - but there is no guarantee that it will ever be read by those in authority, but it does not mean that you stop on that premise .... does it?

R

__________________