Goverment Petition

[marcgroovyge]

Originally Posted by krazykayaker

i have signed up but only 31 so far ...come on RFUK

Cheers for signing it.

Just wish some people could get off their pedistools and actually admit something needs changing!

[Ssthisto]

Marc, we do not need new laws. What we need is better enforcement of the two laws that already exist.

What you're asking for is amply covered by the following two pieces of legislation:

Pet Animals Act 1951
Animal Welfare Act 2006

If there is a problem with a pet shop in your area please report it - in writing - to your local council, explaining EXACTLY what is wrong with each issue you're describing, why it is wrong and what could be done to fix it - and ask that their Animal Welfare Inspector and the Environmental Health Officer check the shop out.

What we don't need is more laws that will make it difficult or impossible to buy reptiles in GOOD shops, because those will be the shops penalised by any new law... not the bad ones that don't give a flying flip!

[Ssthisto]

Originally Posted by laura1486

It is in place, hbut is less than efficient to see that REPTILES are kept in decent condition whilst in pet shops.

Need evidence? http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snake...-disgrace.html
Problems are reported, and still, receive minimal assistance. Something more does need to be done legislation wise, as what currently is in place does not fully cater for the needs of various reptiles.

Incidentally, the thread you linked to does NOT refer to a pet shop. It refers to a zoo and butterfly house.

Are we now going to say there need to be new laws about keeping reptiles in zoological collections? Where do we draw the line from "personal collection" to zoo? I know a LOT of people who have more than twenty reptiles (and probably more than I know of people who have less than three!). Does that make them a zoo? What about forty? Sixty? Eighty?

I can guarantee you I have more reptiles of more species than the zoo you've linked to the post about.

[laura1486]

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

Incidentally, the thread you linked to does NOT refer to a pet shop. It refers to a zoo and butterfly house.

Are we now going to say there need to be new laws about keeping reptiles in zoological collections? Where do we draw the line from "personal collection" to zoo? I know a LOT of people who have more than twenty reptiles (and probably more than I know of people who have less than three!). Does that make them a zoo? What about forty? Sixty? Eighty?

I can guarantee you I have more reptiles of more species than the zoo you've linked to the post about.

I draw the line, personally, when greedy fat-pocket profits come in way over the welfare of the animals they are selling/showing. Oh i do apologise, silly me, you were refering to the collection/zoo age old arguement that some people use to discourage the idea of such new legislatory additions to settle these issues....does it say ZOO above your door at home? Do you run your home establishment as a ZOO? Is it registered as such? No? Oh well in that case i suppose (don't quote me) that you will be fine having a thousand snakes and being free from the legislation proposals, you will only have the RSPCA to worry about, is your husbandry in order? Then you have no need for concern and that suggestion of what constitutes a zoo is entirely irrelavent.
I guess that in some peoples opinion it is ok to sit back and watch a few animals take the brunt end of the treatment stick whilst they sit on the phone chin-wagging to the so-called authoroties about the welfare of some animals in a shop or worse still, a zoological establishment that for all intents and purposes SHOULD KNOW BETTER FROM THE FIRST FRICKING STEP!
Never mind eh, you get on your blower when you see something untoward, and you get that chin shaking and ranting about the condition some animals are kept in, and then feel sad when you see it posted that a leo is dangerously skinny, or a beardy has missing limbs, or a snake has no water and still has shed attached, because it happens everyday near enough on one forum or another, and the reasoning behind it in 9/10 cases comes down to poor husbandry and the owners not knowing any better, and every now and again, due to them just not caring because some kid'll come in and take it away soon anyway, but hey, don't feel too bad, you have your phone right? Yea, you have your phone, get those fingers dialing, everything will be A-ok in rose tinted glasses land, where authorities give a sh!t and officers recognise the issues they are faced with and appropriately deal with them utilizing the full weight of the legislation at hand.

Problems exist, said it before i'll say it again, you must be blind to not see them and see that further action over and above, possibly simply additional to, the legislation that currently exists needs to be taken.

Suggestion, a qualification council led licence, attainable through completion of a basic reptile husbandry course, self studied, and assessed by way of multiple choice examination sat in your local town hall, again, council led, taking no-more than 10 minutes. Not only would this ensure that basic knowledge was there rattling around somewhere, but it would also eleviate those who do care "the GOOD shops" from the actions/ommissions of those that evidently do not. Failure to provide the correct husbandry would see the revocation of the reptile keeping licence, and as such, the pet shop would be only able to sell furries, until another examination is passed, this time more deatiled. That or a 3 strikes and you're out scenario? I don't make the rules, i am only suggesting some for the benefit of those that cannot see any solution other than to slander the suggestion that more needs to be done, only managing to quote current legislatiory title, and claiming that everything is fannytastic already.
No possible threat could come of further legislation to see that shops and zoo's afford the correct welfare to their stock.

NB: when i refer to 'you' i do so with intent to refer to all those oppossed to new legislation, with good reason or without. Not just to 'Ssthisto'.

[corn snake king]

Originally Posted by rum&coke

wont that just give ammo to the people who want all rep keeping banned, a few nasty letters and bricks thru the window may work better

i am way ahead of you

[Ssthisto]

Originally Posted by laura1486

I draw the line, personally, when greedy fat-pocket profits come in way over the welfare of the animals they are selling/showing.

Fair enough. I must admit that I do not go to places where the profits outweigh the welfare of the animals - I do not spend my money there, I do not give them any profit. No profit = no shop ...

Oh i do apologise, silly me, you were refering to the collection/zoo age old arguement that some people use to discourage the idea of such new legislatory additions to settle these issues....

Actually, not specifically. I just wanted to point out that:

The establishment you linked to is not a shop, therefore the proposed new legislative body that this post and this petition refer to still wouldn't make a darn bit of difference to what that establishment's conditions are like.

However, thinking about it, I am concerned that shoehorning in new laws where old laws exist and do suffice IF ENFORCED could create a lot of nasty new problems for all sorts of keepers.

I guess that in some peoples opinion it is ok to sit back and watch a few animals take the brunt end of the treatment stick whilst they sit on the phone chin-wagging to the so-called authoroties about the welfare of some animals in a shop or worse still, a zoological establishment .... Yea, you have your phone, get those fingers dialing, everything will be A-ok in rose tinted glasses land, where authorities give a sh!t and officers recognise the issues they are faced with and appropriately deal with them utilizing the full weight of the legislation at hand.

What, instead of sitting back and putting your text signature on a petition that will get just as much consideration as a piece of litter blowing across the 10 Downing Street doorstep?

At least I report bad treatment to *the appropriate authorities who have the power to do something about it*. Whether they do it or not is nothing I can affect - but at least I'm not sitting on my bum thinking that signing an e-petition is doing good for the world. E-Petitions are worth only and exactly the paper they're signed on... i.e. NOTHING.

Suggestion, a qualification council led licence, attainable through completion of a basic reptile husbandry course, self studied, and assessed by way of multiple choice examination sat in your local town hall, again, council led, taking no-more than 10 minutes.

Additional cost to the council (that's paperwork, staff to deal with the paperwork, plus time that the room in the town hall isn't available for something else) - which means additional cost to the shops that bother to take the qualification. Penalise the shops that DO bother - and it still doesn't make a difference to the animals themselves.

I am certain I could answer a multiple choice examination about the care of, say, marine aquariums (which I have only the faintest interest in) ... but that doesn't mean I could keep the fish in one alive!

Failure to provide the correct husbandry would see the revocation of the reptile keeping licence, and as such, the pet shop would be only able to sell furries, until another examination is passed

Ahh, so it's ok to badly keep the furries, but heaven forfend a shop should muck up caring for a reptile.

I have NEVER seen a shop that had woefully inadequate care for reptiles but had adequate care for all other types of animals in the shop - they're generally either universally good, universally adequate, universally poor or universally abysmal.

i am only suggesting some for the benefit of those that cannot see any solution other than to slander the suggestion that more needs to be done, only managing to quote current legislatiory title, and claiming that everything is fannytastic already.

Can you specify to me EXACTLY which parts of the Animal Welfare Act do NOT cover what you're talking about, please?

[laura1486]

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

Fair enough. I must admit that I do not go to places where the profits outweigh the welfare of the animals - I do not spend my money there, I do not give them any profit. No profit = no shop ...

No, it equates to poorer than is evidenced already husbandry, as they have even less cash to not want to spend on the animals they wish to sell

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

Actually, not specifically. I just wanted to point out that:

The establishment you linked to is not a shop, therefore the proposed new legislative body that this post and this petition refer to still wouldn't make a darn bit of difference to what that establishment's conditions are like.

Don't be so childish, discrediting an opinion or view using such peunie points

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

However, thinking about it, I am concerned that shoehorning in new laws where old laws exist and do suffice IF ENFORCED could create a lot of nasty new problems for all sorts of keepers.

'Do suffice' in your OPINION, not fact i'm afraid. Furthermore to that, many examples showing how these laws can be perceived not to suffice exist allover

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

What, instead of sitting back and putting your text signature on a petition that will get just as much consideration as a piece of litter blowing across the 10 Downing Street doorstep?

'Just'? Did i give any reason to suggest that that is all i do? No, i did not. I put my name to that petition IN ADDITION to other actions

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

At least I report bad treatment to *the appropriate authorities who have the power to do something about it*.

Have the power yes, utilize it? No.

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

Whether they do it or not is nothing I can affect - but at least I'm not sitting on my bum thinking that signing an e-petition is doing good for the world. E-Petitions are worth only and exactly the paper they're signed on... i.e. NOTHING.

See above

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

Additional cost to the council (that's paperwork, staff to deal with the paperwork, plus time that the room in the town hall isn't available for something else) - which means additional cost to the shops that bother to take the qualification. Penalise the shops that DO bother - and it still doesn't make a difference to the animals themselves.

Maybe you misunderstood, my suggestion would be a licence to keep reptiles for sale in a shop, or for show in a zoo. Not 'bothering' would see that you as a shop do not get to legally sell reptiles, same applies to a zoo showing them. Penalisation does make a difference if you have the ability to see past your own ignorance, for example a three strike rule would see that poor husbandry is penalised through the removal of such a licence, thus the freedom to sell/show such reptiles as a shop or zoo

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

I am certain I could answer a multiple choice examination about the care of, say, marine aquariums (which I have only the faintest interest in) ... but that doesn't mean I could keep the fish in one alive!

See above

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

Ahh, so it's ok to badly keep the furries, but heaven forfend a shop should muck up caring for a reptile.

The care of reptiles differs greatly from that of domestic furries, and as such the expectation would be that the current legislation affords the 'furries' enough protection already, whilst added legislation affords similar protection to reptiles

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

I have NEVER seen a shop that had woefully inadequate care for reptiles but had adequate care for all other types of animals in the shop - they're generally either universally good, universally adequate, universally poor or universally abysmal.

Lucky you huh, everyone else that HAS seen such disgrace must be wrong then as YOU have NEVER seen this?

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

Can you specify to me EXACTLY which parts of the Animal Welfare Act do NOT cover what you're talking about, please?

Please quote the reptile specific partitions of the Acts, that refer primarily to the good husbandry of reptiles, in all their guises and subsequently differing husbandry requirements

Look, if you do not get it then i cannot help you.
You are, from what i can see, an established and well thought of member of this forum and and such should maybe set an example instead of openly slandering without due regard to further thought on the topic.
Furries are furries, reptiles are considerably different. I did not suggest that furries be kept badly, or can you not comprehend what i had written?
By discouraging any further addition to legislation, and making however many calls per day, you are actively limiting the assistance that some animals are in dire need of, if you are comfortable with this, hey, your call.
You have picked what i have said to pieces, and very well, only with your responses you have answered them whilst weraring blinkers, being very focused on what YOU believe to be correct. Yours is only that of an individuals opinion, it does not and never will no matter how hard you push, make it correct and factual.

All in all, it is a petition, if as you have said it receives little acknowledgement by the Government, then you and those alongside your view have nothing to be concerned about.
This petition relates to shops only, and does not hold any position over yourself as a keeper whatsoever, unless you wish to sell your animals from a licenced pet shop of your own.
'Shoehorned' legislation happens every single day in this country, like it or not, and the reason that this exists as a FACTUAL going on, is that, again believe it or not, the climate of this country changes and evolves all the time. Due to the rigidity of statute law, 'shoehorning' new legislation in to rectify obvious legal issues is a necessity, not something to pass the time and look busy.
You are a female, maybe you should appreciate the 'shoehorning' of new legislation, without this practice seen in action in R v A (2001) UKHL 25, it would today be a legal position to rape your own wife as to strip apart the 'at the time' current legislation and re-write it classifying the rape of your own wife as a criminal action, would take some 10+years. Ok so that is a bit of an extravagant example, but it hopefully gets the point across.
We as the UK have an unwritten constitution allowing this practice to swiftly change the law. Don't like it, move to the USA or somewhere with a written codified constitution where stupid laws still exist and cannot be overridden.

[Ssthisto]

Originally Posted by laura1486

No, it equates to poorer than is evidenced already husbandry, as they have even less cash to not want to spend on the animals they wish to sell

If the shop can't afford to buy more animals in because people do not buy them, it will go out of business. It's the entire point of not "rescuing" animals with your wallet from a shop - because the shop will learn it cannot sell animals in abysmal condition, either by not being able to sell them at all because they are dying or by councils forcing them to obtain expensive veterinary treatment.

'Do suffice' in your OPINION, not fact i'm afraid. Furthermore to that, many examples showing how these laws can be perceived not to suffice exist allover

It's not that the laws are insufficient, it is the *enforcement* of those laws that is insufficient. I am not disagreeing that councils are not doing their job - I agree they do not do enough - but it isn't through lack of laws regulating it. It's because the councils do not have specialist inspectors and in many cases are relying on the untrained-in-exotics RSPCA inspectorate.

If anything it is the council that should be required to retain independent inspectors that have been trained in basic aspects of animal care across the board.

Have the power yes, utilize it? No. See above

So the problem isn't the laws governing the pet shops, it's the council's enforcement of the existing animal welfare legislation.

The care of reptiles differs greatly from that of domestic furries

Not substantially. All animals require the correct environment, food, shelter, water and care. Just because (gross oversimplification) a reptile needs a specific kind of UV-producing light doesn't mean that a domesticated guinea pig doesn't need a diet with the appropriate amount of Vitamin C and that rabbit food is a suitable diet for them or that a goldfish is perfectly suited to living in a foot-diameter glass bowl.

Lucky you huh, everyone else that HAS seen such disgrace must be wrong then as YOU have NEVER seen this?

Not at all lucky me. I go to a bad pet shop and I see ALL of the things they do wrong, not just what they're doing wrong to the reptiles.

A shop that gets the lighting and heating wrong for the reptiles is probably getting the substrate wrong for the rodents and the diet wrong for the parrots. If they don't care about the expensive requirements of one type of animal, why would they pay any attention to the expensive requirements of any of the other animals in their care?

I've seen just as many shops keeping small rodents in pitiable conditions - and parrots plucked down to oven-ready chickens - as I have seen badly kept reptiles.

Please quote the reptile specific partitions of the Acts, that refer primarily to the good husbandry of reptiles, in all their guises and subsequently differing husbandry requirements

Here you go:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006...0060045_en.pdf

• The act refers to all vertebrate animals (reptiles are vertebrates).
• Protected animals include: Domesticated animals, Animals under the control of man and Animals that are not living in a wild state.
• A person who owns or is in possession of an animal is responsible for it.
• The responsible person is guilty of an animal welfare offense if their actions or failure to act cause suffering to an animal unnecessarily.

There is also a duty of care listed as follows:

9 Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
(1) A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable
all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he
responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, an animal’s needs shall be taken to include—
(a) its need for a suitable environment,
(b) its need for a suitable diet,
(c) its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,
(d) any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and
(e) its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.

So there you go - a pet shop owner is ALREADY legally required to provide appropriate conditions (including appropriate environment, diet, companionship, medical care and ability to express natural behaviour) to all of the animals in the care of the shop regardless of type.

Any shop that doesn't is already violating an existing law.

Do we really need another law that does the same thing?

This petition relates to shops only, and does not hold any position over yourself as a keeper whatsoever, unless you wish to sell your animals from a licenced pet shop of your own.

Well, all things considered I'd PREFER not to have to register as a licenced pet shop ... but my local council seems to think that having two clutches of corn snake eggs this year - and the intent to breed corns and royals in the future - MIGHT mean I need a pet shop licence. I intend to argue that it's not being done in the course of a business (it won't even "break even" - we'll still be spending an obscene amount of money per year on food, electricity and housing/equipment for the animals) ... but the council might not see it that way.

And in that respect, if they say I *do* have to have a PSL to sell two clutches worth of corns a year, then the legislation you're proposing does affect me more than the AWA 2006 already does.

We as the UK have an unwritten constitution allowing this practice to swiftly change the law. Don't like it, move to the USA or somewhere with a written codified constitution where stupid laws still exist and cannot be overridden.

You've obviously not lived in the USA (and haven't read many of my posts, or you'd know I'm American born and bred!) ... laws change like the tides over there too.

[arthur cooke]

Laura, the new AWA was contributed too by every reptile group in England and Wales, the consultation period lasted several years and the result was the new AWA.

There are many parts that have not come into force yet, the official care sheets for example, when, eventually these are written, every one who keeps an animal will, mostly have to follow the care guide lines, including as far as I know, petshops.

The reason for this not coming into effect is because DEFRA have run out of money.

Also in the bill was the setting up of a local authority inspectorate, originally to be the RSPCA and we stopped that idea.

Again the problem is money.

So as Ssthisto says it is all covered under the new bill and it is lack of money that's stopping its progress.

Until these parts of the bill become live, then the better for animal welfare.
Did you consult with anyone, like the FBH,FOCAS, Pet Care trust, IHS etc.
These are the groups that DEFRA consults where reptilian welfare is concerned.

So supposing DEFRA takes notice of your petition, it will go for consultation to those groups to get their opinion on it.
It may have been better if perhaps you'd written to one of them asking for advice and perhaps support. There are political links between these groups and DEFRA and they know who to speak to.

These petitions, as Ssthisto says, are mostly a waste of time and rarely achieve much, in this case especially as what you are asking for is already covered by the new AWA and there is no new money!

By coming on the forum you were asking for opinions and people have given you theirs.

cheers arthur

[laura1486]

1. Not my petition, i did not create it.
2. I simply put forward a view point to the effect that the need still exists (for what the petition is pushing for - better care of reptiles in pet shops, catered for by additional legislation) even though as you guys have pointed out, legislation does exist to protect animals in captivity on the whole.
3. I have not called for a halt to people giving their opinions, nor shunned them when given. I have taken them on board, and given my view on the topic area as a response.

End of.