Banning reptiles doesn't work | Norway case study
On December 20th last year, the Norwegian Government issued an animal welfare report. One of the recommendations in this report was to reinstate a TOTAL BAN on reptile keeping in Norway.
The report is being discussed in Parliament and expected to reach its conclusions by April 8th.
We have collaborated with Norges Zoohandleres Bransjeforening and Norsk Herpetologisk Forening to highlight how utterly ridiculous a new ban would be.
Help spread sound information on reptile keeping in Norway – share this video to reach as many people as possible.
YOUR COUNTRY COULD BE NEXT.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCRIPT
0:05
Reptiles. To some, they're slimy and horrible. But for others, they're the perfect pet.
In Norway, reptiles have been caught in the crossfire of a debate that's lasted almost 50 years.
In 1977, Norway created one of the harshest pet restrictions in the world, banning all reptiles and amphibians outright.
The reason?
Reptiles were labeled as difficult to care for, dangerous, unhygienic, and unsuitable pets for the Norwegian climate. But behind this facade of welfare and safety, the real motivation for the ban became very different.
The Norwegian reptile keeping ban was flawed from the start, and its unintended consequences were both significant and alarming. As with all unjustifiable and unenforceable laws, the ban didn't stop people from keeping reptiles.
For the next 40 years, reptile keeping simply went on the ground. Illegal trade thrived, animal welfare suffered, and the authorities were powerless to stop it.
But by 2017, after 40 years of undeniable evidence, the government decided to partially overturn the ban, realising it had been a failure.
By creating an improved positive list, comprising just 19 species, legal reptile ownership was now an option in Norway, bringing improved care and better controls. And not to mention, owners knew it was safe to take their animals to the vet whenever they needed care. Reptile welfare improved, and a community of responsible reptile keepers flourished.
Reptiles might not be everyone's first choice as a pet, but for millions of owners worldwide, they're the perfect companions. Popular species are cute, friendly, low maintenance, hypoallergenic, and won't miss you when you're at work. Ideal for busy modern lives. Okay, so they won't purr or wag their tail when they greet you. But reptile keepers love them just as much as any cat or dog owner loves their pet.
So why, after seven years of progress, is the government trying to turn back the clock? What's really behind this push to ban reptiles again? And who stands to gain?
Norway's original ban on reptiles didn't just fail. It created chaos in the ways the government couldn't anticipate.
The government estimated that anywhere between 80,000 and 100,000 reptiles were kept illegally during the ban, with many specialists believing the figure to be far higher.
Without regulation, a black market of illegal trade flourished, and welfare plummeted as owners were forced underground, unable to access to advice or veterinary care.
Legalisation brought reptiles out of the shadows, and owners gained access to professional advice and veterinary treatment, improving welfare standards. Undoing this progress by reinstating the ban would reignite the very issues the original ban created.
So why would any government want to bring back the ban and all its associated problems?
Well, the government cites public health concerns, particularly salmonella.
But here's the truth. While reptiles can transmit salmonella to humans, this rarely happens. And when it does, it's almost always because of the keepers' poor basic hygiene, usually through not washing their hands after handling or feeding.
A ban would make it harder to educate keepers about safety, potentially increasing the risk rather than reducing it.
Another claim involves reptile food. Feeding live animals is already illegal in Norway and for good reasons. Since the ban on reptile keeping was lifted, frozen pre-killed food from regulated EU facilities is readily available in Norway.
Reptile keepers are animal lovers, like any other pet owner, and are focused on animal welfare for both the reptiles and the feeder animals. The concern that live animals are illegally fed to reptiles appears exaggerated, misleading those unfamiliar with the facts.
Experts, who remember the chaos caused by the 1977 ban, agree.
The government's exaggerated concerns lack credibility and do not justify for bringing back the ban. And the greatest irony of all is that the reasons being given to justify the renewed ban are the exact same reasons that caused the old ban to be lifted.
What makes this ban even more ridiculous is that no other type of pet has been so thoroughly studied as reptiles.
Norway spent 20 years evaluating every possible risk before legalising a handful of species in 2017. The decision to overturn the ban was based on science and evidence. So why ignore all of that now?
Instead of solving a problem, a reinstated ban would simply make them worse again.
So what's the real reason for the ban?
As usual, it's all about politics. Certain animal rights groups have long campaigned against pet keeping, and reptile keeping in particular, spreading disinformation and propaganda to push their agenda. And some members of Norway's coalition government align with these extreme ideologies.
But if you think that this is just about reptiles, think again.
Today, the focus is on reptiles. Tomorrow, it could be your beloved pet.
Reptile keeping in Norway isn't the problem. It's the solution.
History from Norway and around the world show that bans don't work. They simply drive pet keeping underground, encourage uncontrolled illegal trade and smuggling, harm animal welfare, and create more problems than they solve.
This isn't just about keeping reptiles. It's about standing up for common sense, trusting good science and pushing for progress.
If government policies are created by minority campaign groups and ignore science and reason, who knows which pet they'll decide to ban next?
