Reptile Forums banner
21 - 39 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,503 Posts
Malc, irrespective of any clauses, the proposing MP agreed to withdraw the request for a second reading as the existing law covers all the points raised.
Like I said, politics was never my forte... So am I right in thinking that without a second reading, all those additional clauses are effectively null and void ? - If so then what's all the fuss about as reptiles are not mentioned in the original draft of the document ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,635 Posts
Like I said, politics was never my forte... So am I right in thinking that without a second reading, all those additional clauses are effectively null and void ? - If so then what's all the fuss about as reptiles are not mentioned in the original draft of the document ??
Exactly right. Without a second reading it's dead in the water. The Secretary of State made clear that there was existing legislation and asked the MP to withdraw the motion, which he did.
So yet again, the doom mongers are claiming the end is nigh, yet the very document used to do so says the opposite!!
This, I'm afraid, is the biggest own goal from the FBH so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,503 Posts
Exactly right. Without a second reading it's dead in the water. The Secretary of State made clear that there was existing legislation and asked the MP to withdraw the motion, which he did.
So yet again, the doom mongers are claiming the end is nigh, yet the very document used to do so says the opposite!!
This, I'm afraid, is the biggest own goal from the FBH so far.
I can remember being lightly flamed when I posted a my views that we had seen this all before to one of those "this could be the end of reptile keeping as we know it" type posts that mentioned this document. The hobby has enough stigma to deal with without the body that is supposed to represent us getting is so wrong (again). Interestingly Colin hasn't come back after posting the link two days ago... so I presume the motion was withdrawn very recently ? If it was withdrawn some time ago then Colin's post is nothing more than scaremongering (sorry Colin). I'm not directing this at anyone personally, but if we are to believe the stats the forum gives us, a lot of people visit the forum and would take that at face value. Such posts could be detrimental to the hobby if its really untrue and the hobby is no more under threat than it has always been.

Colin, if Ian (and I for that matter) have got it totally wrong, can you clarify and come back with any counter arguments, ideally linking to a document that specifically states in details any reptiles such as large constrictors or monitor lizards (or all reptiles for that matter) are going to be legislated upon. I'm not trying to call you out, or stir things up, but really for the sake of anyone who reading this thread, seeking clarification.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,635 Posts
So basically, we have a two page thread with 25 + posts for no reason then....:rolleyes:
Appears so!
Another pathetic attempt by the FBH to claim that the end is nigh, laws are imminent, so give us all your money to fight off a threat that isn't actually there. As it hasn't been for the last 20 odd years.
This time, they have messed up by posting a link to a document that absolutely contradicts what they still try to claim.
Going on previous experience of daring to challenge them, I would have expected some vociferous reply from Colinm or another FBH stalwart. Yet nothing. That in itself speaks volumes.
I have had pms from committee members accusing me of being "disingenuous" and lying, despite quoting and stating law.
If you look back at their various claims, and "evidence" to support them, this is a bit of a common theme.
Remember the old "the EU are bringing in law that will ban keeping all non native species as they could become invasive" claims??
Supported by links to EU documents that specifically identified the species being sought for import bans. Bar the American Bullfrog and the Red eared terrapin, guess what?
Every species was either an aquatic plant or an aquatic invertebrate!!!!
Then there was the claim that kingsnakes will be banned from all EU member states as they have become invasive in the Canary Islands. Again, the documents posted to support this claim showed that this was not the case.
And when called out on this, I got abuse from all the FBH fan club members.
The FBH was set up to represent keepers, YET nobody can join! Membership existed by way of being a member of a herp society that paid to affiliate to the FBH. No elections for committee posts, no governance.
Perhaps the FBH should be relegated into the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
Appears so!
Another pathetic attempt by the FBH to claim that the end is nigh, laws are imminent, so give us all your money to fight off a threat that isn't actually there. As it hasn't been for the last 20 odd years.
This time, they have messed up by posting a link to a document that absolutely contradicts what they still try to claim.
Going on previous experience of daring to challenge them, I would have expected some vociferous reply from Colinm or another FBH stalwart. Yet nothing. That in itself speaks volumes.
I have had pms from committee members accusing me of being "disingenuous" and lying, despite quoting and stating law.
If you look back at their various claims, and "evidence" to support them, this is a bit of a common theme.
Remember the old "the EU are bringing in law that will ban keeping all non native species as they could become invasive" claims??
Supported by links to EU documents that specifically identified the species being sought for import bans. Bar the American Bullfrog and the Red eared terrapin, guess what?
Every species was either an aquatic plant or an aquatic invertebrate!!!!
Then there was the claim that kingsnakes will be banned from all EU member states as they have become invasive in the Canary Islands. Again, the documents posted to support this claim showed that this was not the case.
And when called out on this, I got abuse from all the FBH fan club members.
The FBH was set up to represent keepers, YET nobody can join! Membership existed by way of being a member of a herp society that paid to affiliate to the FBH. No elections for committee posts, no governance.
Perhaps the FBH should be relegated into the past.
Just been looking at the history of the FBH and deanosexotics came up.
Have a read
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,635 Posts
I've just looked at their website.
The only "news" is their "concern" that the Southwest reptile show was acting outside of the Animal Welfare licencing regulations. They stated that this is because it is organised by private individuals.
However they then provide the two scenarios in which an event falls outside of the Regulations so does not require a licence, and yes, that event sat firmly in the second scenario not needing a licence.
It was very clearly written in a way that said "we know best, do it our way or not at all"
Funny that, given that the only show run by the FBH, at Kempton, only lasted a couple of years as Kempton Racecourse refused to host it due to concerns it was unlawful!!
 
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
In reply the Secretary of State stated that legislation is already in place via the Animal Welfare Act, that they were waiting to see the full report from the Scottish animal rights Bill, and urged him to withdraw his request for a second reading.
Which he did.
So as I stated in my post the other month, what is happening in Scotland - although not directly impacting keepers elsewhere AT THE MOMENT - its outcome could have a wide reaching impact on all (depending on the outcome).

Oh and for the record - I am not connected to or a member of either the FBH or the IHS, in fact when approached for a united response - I declined instead preferring to provide my own independent response.

United we stand - divided we will surely fall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,503 Posts
So as I stated in my post the other month, what is happening in Scotland - although not directly impacting keepers elsewhere AT THE MOMENT - its outcome could have a wide reaching impact on all (depending on the outcome).
But as Ian has stated... we've been here before... And with all due respects, if Scotland are going it alone, treating this as a countrywide rather than UK wide issue then should others in England or Wales be that concerned? Ian gives examples where just because something effected one country, the same didn't apply here, despite all the hype that it would (eg the king snake ban in the Canaries). Ian has also already pointed out that the bill is dead in the water as far as England (and wales ??) is concerned, so regardless of what the Scottish parliament bring in, it doesn't have any bearing on those south of the border as the ruling is in place.... (again, I've already mentioned my limited grasps of politics - so maybe I've got that wrong?).

Maybe things might change in years to come, but as we have been saying, if you look back over the decades, this situation keeps getting repeated and as far as I can see, other than DWA, or CITES 1 stuff, there is no licencing requirements, or restrictions on what reptiles can be kept by a private keeper.

Now I'm not saying this is totally wrong. It does peeve me off when a shop has to comply with guidelines on viv sizes etc, and then jo public can take that snake out of it's minimum size enclosure and shove it in a 6" x 24" plastic draw, so maybe having some legal minimum standards in place could be a good thing.... but looking at that paper and following Ian's guidance for the layperson that's not going to happen in the immediate future
 
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
You are of course correct, we have been here before (several times in fact) and since I am not one for conjecture or scaremongering, all I would ask is that you read the Scottish Governments Review and then make up your mind whether change is likely or not.

You state that 'maybe things might change in years to come' why can that change be now? Why might it be possible in years to come but not now? Is say it is possible and it is likely to be now. As someone who has been involved with this and previous government reviews I would say we are closer now than ever before to having our ability to keep heavily restricted. So with all due respect (and I do greatly respect Ian) - Ian is not the one making the decisions on whether any change in legislation is made so although I hope he is right - in that no change will be made - I do not share his confidence.

As stated above, if I am reading this right - no change will be made in England UNTIL the review is complete in Scotland. To me that just means they will wait to see what happens in Scotland before (we are the guinea pigs) deciding on the next course of action for the rest of the UK. When my call (as a Scottish keeper) goes unanswered by my English based friends to add their weight and voice to preventing any ban or restriction - can you really expect any support from your Scottish based friends when the adverse spotlight is shone on you?

I will say it again, I am not part of any organisation so I have no agenda in terms of seeking membership or donations - my only wish is to continue keeping the animals I love. Change is coming - to what extent, that is the question but hey, don't take my word for it - read the review and let me know what YOU think.
 
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: colinm

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,503 Posts
You are of course correct, we have been here before (several times in fact) and since I am not one for conjecture or scaremongering, all I would ask is that you read the Scottish Governments Review and then make up your mind whether change is likely or not.

You state that 'maybe things might change in years to come' why can that change be now? Why might it be possible in years to come but not now? Is say it is possible and it is likely to be now. As someone who has been involved with this and previous government reviews I would say we are closer now than ever before to having our ability to keep heavily restricted. So with all due respect (and I do greatly respect Ian) - Ian is not the one making the decisions on whether any change in legislation is made so although I hope he is right - in that no change will be made - I do not share his confidence.

As stated above, if I am reading this right - no change will be made in England UNTIL the review is complete in Scotland. To me that just means they will wait to see what happens in Scotland before (we are the guinea pigs) deciding on the next course of action for the rest of the UK. When my call (as a Scottish keeper) goes unanswered by my English based friends to add their weight and voice to preventing any ban or restriction - can you really expect any support from your Scottish based friends when the adverse spotlight is shone on you?

I will say it again, I am not part of any organisation so I have no agenda in terms of seeking membership or donations - my only wish is to continue keeping the animals I love. Change is coming - to what extent, that is the question but hey, don't take my word for it - read the review and let me know what YOU think.
My comment about the time frame was in relation to most legal matters. Other then in emergency measures, most applications for a bill to make its way through parliament typically take two or three years before finding its way on the statute books. Normally prior to the submission there are the consultations, reviews etc that can last one or two years, so typically it can be 5 years form the matter being raised to becoming law. This "review" was first announced in 2015.. almost SIX years ago based on this report on the BBC news website.

I've read through the main document and from what I can tell (and I have stated my level of understanding on politics) it has categorised the review into five options, from doing nothing to an outright ban on import and trade in exotics, but seems to favour option 5 with a list approach, (positive rather than negative ?) .

“The positive list approach involves the creation of a concise list or lists of animals that may be kept in different circumstances, based on an independent assessment of their suitability."
Who would do that assessment? who would fund that assessment ? - One thing I can see happening is the argument that ALL pets need to be included not just exotics. It would seem very unfair to expect someone to come round and visit a house to make sure a 16 year old has set up a vivarium for a corn snake to an "agreed" standard, and then issue some form of documentation (and no doubt a fee) to say that the snake can be legally kept, when that same 16 year old is not vetted to confirm that his bull dog / rotty / doberman dog is suitable or being kept and exercised well.

I've not really got time to read all the cited literature, but most seem to refer to studies in Germany, Brazil and other countries. No doubt those countries have a very different culture and regimes. You only need to look at the culture in the US that tend to feed live rather then defrosted rodents. What really needs to be done is a study purely on the import, trade, and husbandry standards in the UK.

Another "news" item quoted
The move followed pressure from animal charities including the Scottish SPCA. It rescued more than 300 corn snakes between 2016 and 2020, along with 50 royal pythons, 40 boa constrictors and more than 100 bearded dragons.
But they never contact the likes of Battersea Dogs home to see how many dogs and cats were rescued and went through their books in the same period. I'm betting it would make the stats on rescued reptiles seem pale in comparison.

Given that this review started in 2015, and that you have more connection with the champagne on behalf of reptile keepers in Scotland, can you or anyone else provide a timeline. At the start of the document its stated a 1 year plan... so I presume that their final decision will be by June 2022? -

This document is based on a report presented by the work group to the SAWC plenary meeting on 15 June 2021. It is being published in line with the timetable for SAWC’s year 1 work plan and to share the submitted stakeholder views while they are still up to date. The document is for information only at this stage and should not be taken as representing the final views of SAWC
I'm guessing that after that date when they publicise their proposal, that proposal too will be subject for review and further consultation as the details would need to be drilled down in relation to the definitions of species, husbandry, breeding and any trading, and how they would be actioned ?

I can remember being at a MKHS meeting in 1995 when their was a similar announcement which made a lot of people feel that the will loose their reptiles due to imposing legislation.... 26 years later I can still keep, breed and sell my snakes. I don't need to have any special paperwork, have to pay for annual inspections etc etc that was being proposed back then. Maybe this time round things will change, but until we know for sure what those changes are and how and when they will be implemented, maybe, just maybe we are worrying unduly ?
 
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
For me, the point is - which is the most significant aspect of this review - that we have been here before but NEVER this far along the line.

Maybe you are right, maybe it is just scaremongering BUT at least I can hold my head up and say I didn't poo poo it or turn a blind eye, I got up off my derriere and gave my input and voice against any changes.

The review is on exotic animal welfare so would not only include snakes and lizards but by default goldfish, budgies and guinea pigs to name but a few. Even the animal rights groups know they would be onto a looser if they suggested a ban on dogs and cats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: colinm

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,048 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
The threat is very real. I'm surprised that Ian didnt twig with his knowledge of the law.
The motion was proposed and then retracted. It will be proposed again after the Scottish review and will be linked to that. A way of us in England to get more restrictions like the ones in Scotland and probably Wales. The dissolved assemblies are easier to target than Westminster.

I think people are looking at the wrong way. Rather than saying the hobby is the subject of scaremongering the hobby should thank the likes of Chris Newman, Jim Collins , the FBH and others for fighting off the pressures by the AR groups and others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,503 Posts
The review is on exotic animal welfare so would not only include snakes and lizards but by default goldfish, budgies and guinea pigs to name but a few. Even the animal rights groups know they would be onto a looser if they suggested a ban on dogs and cats.
Now I'm not being facetious (sp?) here, but you could include dogs or some breeds of cat in that list as they are not native to the Scotland (or UK). Using the reviews definition of "exotic" would include a lot of breeds of dogs and cats. Whilst that is a small technicality, it is none never the less, and again, something that those on the committed or review board appear to have overlooked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,503 Posts
I think people are looking at the wrong way. Rather than saying the hobby is the subject of scaremongering the hobby should thank the likes of Chris Newman, Jim Collins , the FBH and others for fighting off the pressures by the AR groups and others.
Oh don't get me wrong, I think that having a body to represent those that keep reptiles is a good thing, just that they must feel that this is a case of déjà vu :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,503 Posts
The motion was proposed and then retracted. It will be proposed again after the Scottish review and will be linked to that.
So for arguments sake, lest suppose it is proposed again in some diluted format having been withdrawn after the Secretary of State instructed the MP to withdraw it. What happens if the Secretary of State again rejects it for a second time... then what... how many more times will they try and push things through, and how much tax payers money will be wasted in the process ?

I'm sure at some point the keeping of reptiles will be tightened up, mainly because these days there is so much politically incorrectness that you wont be able to mention the colour of someone's hair for fear of offending blonds, and some campaigners will quite possibly win the day.

That won't resolve the matter either. Lets just say that some bill gets passed and you need to register or chip every reptile owned and produced. For those who can't afford that, or simply object to it, then they will be in breach of the law, so it will either go underground, or just ignore the law and just carry on as if it didn't exist. The dangerous dogs act being a prime example, or the old dog licence another to a lesser degree.

If in few years time things have changed and the ownership of reptiles in England / UK has been tightened down to the point everybody is fearing then I will freely admit I got it wrong and my comments and opinions posted here should have been ignored and we should have campaigned harder.
 
21 - 39 of 39 Posts
Top