The last

reptile keepers?

Positive lists don’t work

Will your children be allowed to keep reptiles? Animal rights campaigners claim positive lists are the best way to address many different issues. So what is a positive list? How well do they work? And how might such a list affect you?

Positive-list facts

A positive list is a list of animals the government permits you to keep. Any species not on the positive list is banned.
Positive lists are also sometimes known as ‘whitelists’. A blacklist contains things that are banned and everything else is allowed. A whitelist contains things that are allowed, while everything else is banned.
If you already own a banned animal (a species that does not appear on the positive list) most governments provide ‘grandfather rights’ which allow you to keep it until it dies, but usually you cannot breed or sell the animal.
While some campaigns call for positive lists allowing a limited number of species, some animal rights groups want all captive reptile keeping to be banned.

What’s to like about positive lists?

Positive lists have been the holy grail of animal rights (AR) campaigners for decades, with claims about the benefits including protecting species in the wild and preventing pets becoming invasive in non-native habitats.

However, the main argument made in favour of positive lists is they can address poor welfare. AR groups claim only ‘domesticated’ animals can be kept to high welfare standards, while ‘exotic’ animals are exceedingly difficult to keep and are usually kept in poor conditions. AR campaigners claim that poor welfare can be prevented by implementing a positive list, because if people can’t own an animal, then they can’t keep it badly.

On the face of it a positive list might sound like a logical answer to a reptile welfare issue, so it’s no surprise that legislators and politicians are often convinced they’re an easy solution. However, the truth about positive lists is, excuse the pun, far less positive.

Positive lists in reality

‘There are many reasons why positive lists are a bad idea,’ says Dave Perry, the Secretariat for the Companion Animal Sector Council (CASC). ‘They’re unfair, they’re heavy-handed, they’re unenforceable, and they’re hardly effective at all. We know this because positive lists for reptiles have been tested in several countries already, so we have a good idea of how ineffective they are. They do little to benefit conservation or to prevent invasive species issues. And there’s plenty of evidence to show that welfare is worse when positive lists are imposed. They’re simply not a good idea.’

Is there a reptile welfare issue?

Most people would agree that any law or government policy should only be introduced if robust evidence supports it. So, if the primary aim of a positive list is to address poor welfare in captive reptiles, then perhaps we should first establish if there is evidence of poor welfare being a significant issue?

Believe it or not, there’s little data available to assess the welfare status of any type of pet animal, but we can look at reptile population and rehoming statistics for the UK as an indication. According to a 2022 survey, an estimated 8.8 million reptiles (1) are kept in the UK. That’s a lot of reptiles, so if there is a welfare problem out there, surely we would know about it?

At the same time The National Centre for Reptile Welfare (NCRW) in Kent, UK – the world’s largest rehoming facility for reptiles – rehomed just over 1,500 animals in 2022 (2). That might sound like a lot but when you compare it with the number of reptiles being kept in the UK, it’s less than 0.02 per cent. ‘I don’t think that constitutes a reptile-welfare crisis,’ says Chris Newman, the NCRW’s Director.

By comparison, rehoming data for other pet animals doesn’t support the notion that reptiles are badly kept. Comparative statistics are hard to come by, but reports published by six major pet charities (3) between 2018 and 2020 showed 19,049 dogs and 61,928 cats were rehomed each year on average. Compared to the 627 reptiles (4) rehomed during the same period. And yes, the number of reptiles kept was comparable, if not greater than the number of dogs kept as pets (5). If the welfare of reptiles is justification for a positive list, then perhaps dogs and cats should be regulated too.

Pet rescue and rehoming statistics 2018–2020

What do vets say?

While these statistics suggest reptile welfare isn’t a significant issue, the British Veterinary Association’s (BVA) 2022 Voice of the Veterinary Profession survey (6) found that 81 per cent of vets were concerned that welfare needs of non-traditional captive animals (NTCAs) were not being met, thereby calling for the imposition of a positive list as a solution.

‘It’s an interesting perspective,’ says Chris. ‘Unlike dogs and cats, reptiles rarely visit the vet for vaccinations, flea treatments or injuries, so vets only ever get to see sick reptiles. It’s no wonder they have a skewed perception of reptile keeping – which begs the question, where is the data to support the BVA’s statement about reptile welfare? At the moment it is seemingly based on vets’ subjective opinion rather than statistical data.’

Similarly it should be noted that vets are experts in treating sick animals, not reptile husbandry or welfare. Few vets have specialist training when it comes to treating reptiles, and few have any experience or expertise in reptile care or husbandry. Ask most vets where a reptile comes from, its preferred temperature ranges, its Ferguson Zone needs, or for guidance on how to create a bioactive enclosure and most would be unable to help. It’s uncertain, then, how vets can arrive at a position where they might objectively appraise reptile welfare. ‘One positive we can take from the BVA policy position is their recognition that education for veterinary professionals needs significant improvement in terms of exotics or non-traditional companion animals,’ says Chris.

What is a

‘domesticated’

animal?

One major challenge in the administration of positive lists for so-called non-domestic species is to first define what a ‘non-domestic-’ or ‘non-traditional-companion animal’ is. ‘There is no legal definition of a domesticated animal,’ says Dave Perry. ‘But one of the most commonly used definitions states that a domesticated animal displays changes to the phenotype and genotype for the benefit of man, and there are many reptiles which have been bred over multiple generations to exhibit changes in size, colouration and temperament. That’s domestication by anyone’s standards.’

Of course, those who would disagree claim that domestication requires adaptations which require thousands of years of selective breeding. However, it appears this position is not supported by research. Studies have shown that many types of animals can develop significant adaptations in phenotype and genotype in just a few generations. Researchers from the University of Adelaide found that, in less than a century, an island population of tiger snakes had evolved increased length in their jaw bones after feeding on large prey, while tiger snakes on the Australian mainland displayed no change (7).

Dr Palci, one of the study’s researchers, added, ‘Not all evolutionary change takes millions of years, as it is often assumed by people when they think of Darwinian evolution. Tiger snakes were introduced on Carnac Island less than a century ago, but phenotypic plasticity combined with intense natural selection allowed them to adapt very quickly so that visible changes appeared after only a few generations.’

Dr Palci’s observations certainly align with the findings of thousands of animal breeders around the world who, within a few generations, can selectively breed for preferred phenotypes which create more suitable pets.

Unenforceable

One of the most damming criticisms of positive lists is that such bans have proven to be largely unenforceable. Norway imposed an outright ban on reptile keeping between 1977 and 2017, during which time a survey by the Norwegian Government estimated the illegal reptile population of the country to be up to 110,000 (8), with a thriving business sector supplying reptile food and equipment. In 2017 Norway implemented a positive list featuring just 19 reptile species. ‘I don’t like to guess how many people are keeping reptiles illegally in Norway, but it’s a lot,’ says Svein Fossa from NZB, a Norwegian pet association that has campaigned against Norway’s positive list and bans.

‘Other countries, such as Holland, Belgium and Singapore, have positive lists in place, and they are equally unenforceable as far as we are aware,’ explained Svein. ‘What’s the point of an unenforceable law? It simply makes law-abiding people into criminals. Sadly, politics isn’t always about achieving results. It’s often about simply giving the impression that you are doing something.’

‘One of the big problems facing positive-list legislators is that most keepers won’t register their animals because they don’t want to be on the authority’s system,’ says Jim Collins, Zoological Consultant and Coordinator for the Sustainable Users Network. ‘Also, finding officials who can identify enough reptile species to enforce the law is impossible. Every positive list that’s been made law has been impotent because people simply ignore it. It’s just words on paper. People tend to pay little attention to laws they feel are unfair.’

The Dutch Government has twice sought to introduce a positive list for mammals, but on both occasions the legislation was thrown out by the Dutch High Court when it was found to have serious flaws. For example, rabbits were originally not included on the Dutch positive list of allowed animals because they did not satisfy the criteria set by the government. However, sometime later, keeping rabbits miraculously appeared as being allowed on the positive list to appease the great numbers of keepers who already owned them as pets and for meat production. Nevertheless, despite such embarrassing defeats, the Dutch Government continues to state its wish to implement positive lists in the future.

Legislation regulating dangerous wild animals in the UK is similarly poorly enforced. A UK Government report (9) estimated non-compliance of its Dangerous Wild Animal licensing scheme could be up to 90 per cent, largely because it is badly administered and impossible to police.

Administration failures

Another interesting conundrum is deciding which species should be allowed via a positive list and which should be banned, and what criteria should be used to determine this? And finding specialists with both sufficient knowledge and the unprejudiced approach to create a justifiable positive list is similarly fraught with pitfalls. As is the case with the vast majority of positive lists, the concept fails during the planning stages before the law is even implemented.

The six most popular reptiles

corn snakes
ball (royal) pythons
leopard geckos
bearded dragons
crested geckos
Mediterranean tortoises

A positive list is simply a tool for an ideological agenda driven by the opinions of a tiny minority of people

Chris Newman

Positive lists

harm welfare

It’s sadly ironic that the introduction of a positive list would not only fail to address a seemingly non-existent reptile-welfare issue, but would in fact mean poorer welfare for banned species. For example, keepers who own illegal animals, of which we know there are sure to be many, are unable to access veterinary care. ‘This is a prime example of how an ill-conceived piece of legislation can have disastrous unintended consequences,’ explains Chris Newman.

So what about the AR claim that keepers can’t possibly know how to care for the thousands of reptile species available for sale? ‘There is some truth in this,’ admits Chris. ‘However, that’s not a justification for banning them.’ It’s worth exploring this issue in context. Few people realise that just six ‘species’ comprise around 75 per cent of all the reptiles kept as pets (10). Only a tiny fraction of reptiles in captivity are difficult, novel species, and these are invariably kept by experienced owners, keen to learn about the animal’s ecology and husbandry.

‘We should not forget that many species we keep today were considered impossible to keep alive twenty years ago,’ says Chris. ‘Take chameleons for example. Today, thanks to the ever-advancing range of equipment and improving husbandry techniques, many species of chameleons are now considered easy to maintain and breed in captivity, and can vastly exceed the natural lifespan of their wild counterparts.

Private keepers leading the way

It’s also worth noting that more species of reptiles and amphibians have been kept and bred by private keepers for the first time than all the zoos in Europe and the USA combined, and private specialist keepers are usually at the cutting edge of advancing husbandry. For example, a prestigious zoo in the UK recently celebrated the first zoo breeding of Elaphe moellendorffi, the flower snake, which is certainly a creditable achievement. However, private keepers have been routinely breeding this species in captivity for over two decades.

‘Positive lists usually allow only the most common and easy-to-keep species which highly experienced and specialist keepers would not be interested in,’ explains Svein Fossa. ‘And we know that most herpetological progress is innovated by passionate, specialist private keepers. If these people are prevented from keeping unusual reptiles we will lose this invaluable expertise.’

We should acknowledge that specialist private keepers are doing a lot of pioneering herpetological work which would undoubtedly be curtailed if positive lists were imposed. It is difficult to see any benefit in making reptiles extinct in captivity.

Reptile specialist Alexander Dobernig’s 2017 presentation (11) to the EU action plan against wildlife trafficking estimated private keepers were responsible for 80 per cent of the reptile husbandry books available.

Data from the UK shows at least 1,300 species being kept in the UK alone, while Project Ark has evidence of over 3,500 species and subspecies being offered for sale in the EU since 1993.

FBH/EK/NCRW data - 2023

Ideology over welfare

The animal rights campaign’s obsession with positive lists is patently disingenuous because it’s clear their objective is not concerned with welfare, but in reducing the number of species kept by private keepers. ‘A positive list is simply a tool for an ideological agenda driven by the opinions held by a tiny minority of people – specifically that animals and humans should be segregated,’ says Chris Newman.

If there is a desire to improve animal welfare then we need to be able to measure the overall welfare of all animals kept as companions, rather than vilifying one group, such as reptile keepers. To truly understand the state of the welfare of animals kept as companions, and whether it is improving or declining, we need to be able to measure it. There are four key issues we need to monitor annually:

How many animals are kept, and of which taxa?
How many animals enter rescue and rehoming centres, why they are there, what is their condition, and of which taxa are they?
How many improvement notices are issued by welfare enforcement agencies, why, and for which taxa?
How many prosecutions are brought for welfare offences, why, and for which taxa?

Once we have the data to compare and focus our efforts, only then can we begin to address the issues proportionately and fairly. ‘There are many far greater welfare issues than those apparent in the reptile pet trade,’ says Jim Collins. ‘And the solutions are almost certainly going to be education-focussed, rather than through implementing legislation or bans. Keepers should be allowed to keep whatever animal they like, as long as they can keep it well.’

Vets could also help through surveillance and reporting of common and emerging issues. ‘This would be extremely beneficial,’ says Chris Newman. ‘A system already exists for collating such information – the Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network.’

The impetus expended by animal rights groups in their effort to pressure governments to implement positive lists has increased to the point where, over the last three to four years they have dropped other lobbying in order to push this agenda to governments throughout Europe and America. Pet advocacy groups have done a great job to fend off new legislation by highlighting the unintended consequences, but their efforts are not always successful. Legislators in Spain recently imposed positive lists for a vast range of pet animals, including reptiles, birds, fish, mammals and even invertebrates.

It’s a stark warning to keepers in other countries that political lobbying needs to work hand in hand with the voices of responsible keepers. ‘We need to make sure politicians and legislators hear our side of the story,’ says Jim Collins. ‘They need to hear the truth.’

But there is hope. This summer a senior German law academic has produced a major review article arguing that positive lists would be illegal at EU-wide level and in most of not all EU Member States. If true this will be good news for European reptile keepers. What will happen in the UK and America remains to be seen.

The numbers

Research conducted by the Federation of British Herpetologists found almost 700 reptile species were reported as being kept in the UK, while Project Ark has evidence of over 3,500 species and subspecies being offered for sale in the EU since 1993.

References