Could our biggest threat be ourselves?

You might have seen this campaign doing the rounds, warning people about which animal-related posts they should interact with on social media.

Like many animal-related campaigns, it appears to have a good message at its core. But when we dig into the details, we can see it risks punishing responsible private keepers like you.

Of course, we support campaigns that promote good welfare. This one means well, but the principle can easily be weaponised against the very people who provide exceptional care and are responsible for major advances in husbandry and breeding.

Let's fight poor welfare, but let's do it in a way that solves problems, not creates new ones.

Visit our #myreptilepic page, where we highlight other campaigns that create more harm than good.

SCRIPT

You might have seen this campaign doing the rounds, warning people to be careful about which animal-related posts they interact with on social media.

A few of you have asked if we support it. So, do we?

Well in some ways, yes. But in many ways, no.

Like many animal-related campaigns, it seems to have a good message at its core. And to the untrained eye, it seems like sound advice. But, when you dig into the details, things start to get concerning.

Was the post created by a source you can verify (eg accredited zoo, wildlife rescue, veterinary group, accredited sanctuary or research group)

The problem here is that it ignores private keepers, many of whom provide exceptional care and are responsible for major advances in husbandry and breeding, especially for reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish. Just because the image isn't from a zoo, a sanctuary or a vet doesn't make it bad.

Is the animal endangered?

Just because a species is endangered in the wild doesn't mean it can't be kept as a pet or shared on social media. Many endangered species are widely kept and bred responsibly.

Does the post show a wild animal behaving naturally?

That depends. First we should find out what they consider as a wild animal, because opinions vary widely. And if it's in human care, of course it won't always behave naturally. Plus, let's not forget, there are some wild behaviours we certainly don't want to see.

Does my gut tell me this is a responsible post to share?

Most people won't know enough about certain animals to make that call. Poor welfare is sometimes obvious, but not always. Without context or knowledge of the species, it's easy to misjudge.

Is the animal doing things it would not do in the wild, eg wearing clothes, eating human food, displaying non-wild behaviour, or partaking in a close contact selfie with a human?

Some human foods are perfectly healthy for certain animals, and selfies with healthy, well-kept animals? This isn't a problem when it's done safely and demonstrates good welfare. We actively encourage it, in fact.

The bottom line is, these criteria are so easily misinterpreted or misappropriated they risk unfairly shaming responsible keepers simply for sharing their animals.

Look, we do support campaigns that promote good welfare. This one means well, and it makes some fair points. But in places it's too ambiguous, and the well-meaning principle could be weaponised against responsible keepers. Because, if we follow it blindly, we risk punishing the people who are actually doing things right.

Lets fight poor welfare but let's do it in a way that solves problems, not creates new ones.