Exposed | The truth behind the 75% reptile mortality myth
This video investigates how many pet reptiles die in their first year.
You might have seen the statistic claiming that 75% of pet reptiles die in their first year. But is it true?
We uncover three major flaws in the 75% figure and explain the truth about reptile mortality rates. We reveal the real figure – and it’s far less than 75%.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citations:
Toland, Elaine & Warwick, Clifford & Arena, Phillip. Biologist. 59. 14-18 (2012) – Pet hate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286881350_Pet_hate_Exotic_pet-keeping_is_on_the_rise_despite_decades_of_initiatives_aimed_at_reducing_the_trade_of_exotic_and_rare_animals_Three_experts_argue_that_urgent_action_is_needed_to_protect_both_animal
UK Pet Food – UK pet population:
https://www.ukpetfood.org/information-centre/statistics/uk-pet-population.html
Federation of British Herpetologists – 2021 survey:
https://www.thefbh.org/publications
Becky Clark – A report looking at the reptile keeping hobby, those who want it banned and why?:
https://silo.tips/download/a-report-looking-at-the-reptile-keeping-hobby
Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology
Robinson JE, St. John FAV, Griffiths RA, Roberts DL (2015) – Captive reptile mortality rates in the home and implications for the wildlife trade:
PLOS ONE 10(11): e0141460.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141460
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Script:
What would you say if I told you that, according to a peer-reviewed scientific study, 75% of pet reptiles in the UK die in their first year? That would be awful right? Unbelievable even?
Well, it would be awful, if it were true. And it's certainly unbelievable because it's not accurate at all. Let's take a closer look at what's really going on
The 75% mortality figure originated in a 2012 document entitled 'Pet Hate', which was produced by a handful of notorious anti-reptile-keeping campaigners.
The document is flawed in many ways, but there are three important points in particular which give us enough evidence to thoroughly discredit it.
Flaw number one. Despite the authors' claims, the Pet Hate story wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was published in The Biologist magazine.
We spoke to the magazine's editor, who confirmed that The Biologist was 'not a peer-reviewed publication or academic journal'.
Flaw number two. The Pet Hate study vastly under-represented the number of reptiles that are alive and well in the UK. It used figures from a survey conducted by an organisation called UK Pet Food, to estimate the number of pets being kept in the UK. The methodology used in the survey does a great job when estimating the number of cats or dogs in the UK, but most experts agree that when it comes to estimating the number of reptiles, the UK Pet Food figures are rather conservative.
There are several more accurate estimates which use more suitable methodologies, and these studies indicate a far higher number of reptiles being kept. But flaw number three is the worst of all.
The Pet Hate story used data from DEFRA the UK's governmental Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which shows how many reptiles are imported into the UK.
The DEFRA figures included not only the reptiles that were imported permanently but also the number which are transhipped through the UK and destined for other countries.
Instead of counting only the reptiles imported permanently to live in the UK, and ignoring those that flew straight out again, the Pet Hate authors used a much larger combined number.
We can only imagine why they might do this.
Using such a vast underestimation of the number of reptiles that are alive and well, and then over-representing the number of reptiles coming into the country, it's easy to see why the 75% figure in the Pet Hate story is so wildly inaccurate.
But what's the real figure for the number of reptiles that die within their first year?
Thankfully we have two far more credible scientific studies for reference.
BSc student Becky Clark conducted a study in 2013 to find out how many reptiles die within their first year.
Her research revealed a percentage rather lower than the Pet Hate figure.
Her study concluded the first-year mortality rate was just 3.25%.
Two years later the esteemed Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology conducted a similar study into reptile mortality rates, using a completely different methodology.
Their research also revealed a figure which was rather less startling than the Pet Hate authors' claims. DICE concluded the figure was just 3.6%.
While it's refreshing to know that two independent, unrelated and reputable studies come to a reassuringly similar conclusion, the ridiculous Pet Hate story is still out there, running wild on the internet, being shared on social media, and even being reported in the mainstream press.
There are plenty of other flaws in the Pet Hate paper, and this is yet another example of poorly conducted research being broadcast by anti-pet-keeping activists.
While animal rights campaigners claim their research is scientific, it's often the case that the conclusion has been determined before the study even begins.
And by anyone's measure, that's just bad science.