Must admit I skimped through the document but it does lack definition. It should sate the units used in the tables and be consistent. EG for Iguana it gives 6 x 3 x 3, and then for Royal Pythons 0.9 x 0.45 x 0.3 - Presumably the iguana cage size is in imperial feet, but if that is used for royals it equates to 10.8" x 5" x 3" - I'm guessing that this table is actually using metric for pythons - which translates into 36" x 18" x 18". But if you expect the units to be metric then this extrapolates to 6m x 3m x 3m (20' x 10' x10') for the Iguana which seems excessive. To me whilst the scope of the document is a good one, whoever oversaw the project, or formatted the document should have set the standard units used in the tables and be consistent throughout the document.

 

It defines it, for lizards its the SVL (snout to vent length). So 6x3x3 is 6 times the SVL long and 3 times the SVL wide.

The snake section is total length (TL) so 0.9 times the length of the snake.

So they aren't units of measurement, they are directly related to the size of the animals.

 

I pretty much thought the same as @Malc but he said it better.

 

Out of interest how were these figures determined? Who decided that snake x requires this size enclosure while snake y needs a different size? And how were those sizes determined?
While it looks to be quite a glossy, pic filled document it doesn't say anywhere, unless I've missed it, HOW these dimensions were decided?
And equally, what is the expectation of this? If a keeper chooses not to keep their animal in the FBH determined enclosure size then what happens? Nothing.
It seems a rather pointless and costly exercise if I'm to be honest. Unless of course the Government adopt it and amend the AWA to incorporate it in law, which I cannot see happening.

 

Out of interest how were these figures determined? Who decided that snake x requires this size enclosure while snake y needs a different size? And how were those sizes determined?
While it looks to be quite a glossy, pic filled document it doesn't say anywhere, unless I've missed it, HOW these dimensions were decided?
And equally, what is the expectation of this? If a keeper chooses not to keep their animal in the FBH determined enclosure size then what happens? Nothing.
It seems a rather pointless and costly exercise if I'm to be honest. Unless of course the Government adopt it and amend the AWA to incorporate it in law, which I cannot see happening.

I was going to say exactly the same thing, it's no good saying you worked with ........... without discloser , it's interesting talking about required sizes, just where were these people when they were needed at shows? plenty of people housing reptiles in deli cup sizes were the reptiles couldn't move or in the case of Geckos bent round in their tubs, to have any credibility any guidelines given need to be backed up with full discloser of the participants, not only that why should anyone take any notice? Now if the FBH openly said these new BP racks coming from the US were unethical and advised keepers not to use them and blackball any keeper who did from their reptile shows then they might have some impact , but publicity stunts like this are actually very unproductive

 

ok that makes a bit more sense, but it seems a bit... math heavy. If it's a guide, then it should be easy to follow. It's nice they have shown their equations but a table of commonly kept reptiles with recommended enclousure sizes would probably have been recived better by most folk.

If this takes off I forsee an influx in "What's the average STV length of an adult X lizard " and "what's the average TL of an adult Y snake" posts here.

 

I wouldn't say it's maths heavy, it's basic multiplication. And we already get a million very basic questions like thag anyway. However, I am currently working on something that may make it easier anyway. It's a little labour intensive right now but I hope to have a first version done in a few weeks.

As for where they got the figures from, there is an entire volume of references at the end, plus user surveys were carried out and at the very end is a list of organisations whom were consulted to develop the guidelines.

Personally I think many are a little short of ideal but you have to start somewhere.

These are codes of practice, they are there to let keepers know what is considered a good size. It would be hoped that, in time, these are adopted widely so we're not all running from seperate care sheets that give wildly different answers.

Yeah sure, there's no comeback at the moment for anyone that ignores them, it's more a case of hanour and integrity. But thy could be used for further advisement of awa rules.

What people need to remember is that, there has never been a codified document that details any sort of minimum welfare standards for keepers, in terms of enclosure size. Its always been dependant on the person offering the information. This is a stepping stone to better welfare.

I'm also particularly pleased to see that the FBH has now publicly laid out an official opinion on the long term use of minimalistic unenriched Racking systems.

 

As far as I am concerned, this is an important step in the right direction.

Progress!

Well done to everyone who inputted into this, and especially those who got it to the published stage!

Although it is human nature to find excuses, loopholes and cut corners, this guide at least places a benchmark, and allows individuals to self appraise, allows shops to make reference, and allows peers to challenge each other.

There could even be future guides to compliment and expand on the themes, showcasing Co-habing spp, and how to go about considering the welfare factors.

I am encouraged by this important step
👏👏👏👏

Andy F

 

The million dollar question is do you want to 'benchmark' yourself against these MINIMUM standards or do you want to strive for better and thus, provide your animals with something a little more deserving?

 

Something I noticed while looking at the FBH guidance is that for Chinese Cave Geckos the minimum for them is 6x3x3 and with them being about 8-9 inches (8 to be conservative) that means they need an enclosure in the parameters of 48x24x24. Am I looking at this the wrong way or what because even Josh's Frog states their svl min, but says for an adult gecko 24x18x18 is a good min, so can someone please help explain this too me?

 

When I kept a sexed pair of Chinese Cave Geckos, they were kept in 48x18x18 and were as happy as Larry and bred continuously.
As C.C.Geckos don't have suction pads on their feet and don't climb a 3 foot tall viv is completely unnecessary.
Probably a case of whomever decided on these formula obviously has grouped all in a species together, so not very accurate at all.