The evidence for positive lists isn't there

If you want a clear, expert perspective on one of the most controversial topics in animal keeping today, this is an interview you shouldn't miss.

Dr Martin Singheiser of BNA breaks down why positive lists keep failing across Europe and beyond. He explains how these restrictive pet-keeping bans ignore the evidence and risk harming animals and the people who care for them.

We explore what’s gone wrong in countries that have already tried positive lists, why enforcement gaps make them ineffective, and how these laws can actually undermine conservation, welfare and public safety.

Dr Singheiser also outlines practical, evidence-based alternatives from targeted regulation to better education that genuinely improve welfare and tackle risks without punishing responsible keepers.

BNA is committed to species conservation and responsible animal husbandry at regional, national, and EU levels, emphasising habitat protection as its top priority. BNA provides educational resources for various target groups (authorities, pet shops, animal keepers, and veterinarians) and works closely with animal and plant owners within its member associations to ensure the survival of species.

SCRIPT

My name is Martin Singheiser. I'm a biologist by education since 2018. I'm managing director at BNA Germany and we at BNA advocate for species conservation and animal welfare under human care.

The positive list problem

One of the biggest issues we are facing in Europe concerning animal keeping is the positive list. And a positive list is a list of species that are allowed to be kept and everything else is forbidden. It might be the aim of some organisations to ban all animal keeping. The positive list is just the start. While the arguments of advocates for a positive list is that a positive list is a good measure of preventing the spread of invasive alien species and the spread of zoonotic diseases, but it's not in the end.

Do positive lists work?

We do not believe that positive lists make a good job in those countries where they have been implemented. Since we do not see positive effects or they are not known to us and we do not have evidence by the countries themselves that they are a good measure to increase all the tackled issues like animal welfare, species conservation, invasive alien species or zoonotic diseases.

What does the science say?

So there are currently examples in place that show that positive lists failed legally. For example in Wallonia in Belgium, or they are currently fought under court in the Netherlands. There is a case by the European High Court that positive lists must be fair and based on scientific criteria. And for lots of aspects this criterion is very hard to fulfill.

Let's take species conservation as an example. If there's one species not put on a positive list because it's threatened in the wild, it might be one reason to deny an inclusion in a positive list. Although the species might be commonly bred in human care, we do see a problem that species that are kept and bred under human care for decades might be banned in future when a positive list is in place.

And this is not beneficial for animal welfare and species conservation.

Positive list enforcement concerns.

We currently see that the competent authorities are lacking staff, well-educated staff to enforce animal welfare legislation in a lot of member states. This is seen in Germany on several levels but this is also seen from other European member states.

But examples from Belgium show that although there are positive lists in place they are not controlled. So we have heard from Flanders that there are some species not on the list but the competent authorities know that they are still kept but there are no measures of regulating this. So there's no seizure of the animals nor is there any attempt of the keepers of those animals to get those registered.

Positive lists and zoonoses.

We do not believe that a positive list helps in the prevention of zoonotic diseases. First of all, most of the zoonotic diseases are transmitted by mammals and birds like avian influenza, African swine fever and other issues or other diseases. And the zoonotic risk of reptiles, for example, is very low due to salmonellosis. And we have a regulation on EU level which makes a real good framework for the dealing with zoonotic diseases. So there would be no additional benefit of a positive list concerning this topic.

Controlling dangerous animals.

One could argue whether a positive list is a good measure of working or dealing with dangerous animals. On the other hand, one could for dangerous animals put in place a negative list where those animals are not allowed unless you can prove that you have a certain expertise of knowledge or that you have a certain security measures in keeping these animals. So one could also flip the legislative framework concerning dangerous animals from a positive into a negative list with some exemptions.

Positive lists curtail science.

We do believe that positive lists curtail science because due to the keeping of non-domestic and more rare species, we learn a lot about the needs of the species. And if there would be a positive list, all this knowledge would be gone. And the contribution of private keepers of non-domestic animals in literature, in magazines, in books is huge. And all this knowledge would be gone. Furthermore, a lot of people working in zoological institutions come from private pet ownership and pet keeping and pet breeding. And if this is curtailed by a positive list, we fear that also science would be negatively impacted.

Positive lists harm conservation.

Positive lists also could negatively affect conservation. If you talk to certain people involved in the topic of positive lists, they say that official programs like at the EAZA zoo community will not be affected. But there are also a lot of programs between zoos and private keepers like citizen conservation in Germany, or only among private breeders that are related to species conservation. And the positive list might curtail this issue negatively since these species are in ark under human care. Therefore, we think that a positive list is not beneficial for species conservation.

Positive lists and welfare.

Whether there is a real welfare problem with exotic animals, it's not easy to tell. So we cannot say it for the entire European Union, but for example, we have a study from Germany, the so-called Exopet study, which investigated the welfare of non-domestic animals. On this study, it turned out that in all taxa, let's say the top 10 species suffered the most severe welfare issues. Whereas those species that are termed to be more exotic and more difficult to breed showed the least welfare issues because most of the owners that own these species are well educated, well trained and experts on their species. So reducing animal welfare issues.

Positive list rehoming concern.

Introducing a positive list might also create a rehoming crisis because it's not clear yet what happens with all those animal species that are not on the list. And this is not clear yet. So it can also create a rehoming crisis for lots of species, which also might get very old if we look on turtle and tortoises, for example. Rescue centres and rehoming centres are already full and a positive list might increase the situation.

More laws or better enforcement?

We believe that it's not a lack of legislation and regulation, but it's a lack of enforcement. So to improve existing legislation, a better enforcement would be required and then there would be no need of a positive list. Yeah, it doesn't help. So if there's something illegal, a positive list does not make it more illegal.

Heavy-handed regulation.

We do think that positive lists currently are not necessary to improve animal welfare or other issues because we have existing laws and it's not a lack of laws and legislation, it's a lack of enforcement. And one of the treaties of functioning of the European Union says that the least measure that is applicable should be used and a positive list is not the least measure. So if other measures are in place or could be in place, they should be properly enforced. And if it's then possible to really tackle these issues, then a positive list is not required.

Positive lists don’t work (but here’s what does)

BNA proposes other measures than a positive list to address the different topics that should be solved by a positive list.

If you go to animal welfare, we advocate for a better knowledge among keepers and future keepers, and they should be well trained on the needs of the animals they plan to acquire. And they should think of whether they can guarantee these needs throughout the animal's life. And therefore, we need, let's say, low level information campaigns on the requirements of the animals, which in our view is more effective than a ban of certain species.

For species conservation issues, we advocate for a much better data analysis. For example, a lot of protected species are bred under human care by well-experienced private keepers. If we could collect this data, we would have the biggest stud book on earth, showing also the contribution of real experienced private breeders to species conservation.

For invasive alien species, we propose the information of how to prevent an unintentional release, which is also in line with EU regulation on invasive alien species.

Addressing the issue of zoonotic diseases, there are lots of regulations in place, but we also have to inform keepers on sanitary measures and hygienic measures, and we should train them to detect possible diseases in the animals and advise them to contact a vet, so the issues can be really addressed professionally.

The dangers of venomous animals, we really propose not a ban of these animals, but to have a negative list where such animals can be kept by people that fulfill certain requirements.

No evidence to support positive lists.

Currently, information that a positive list is beneficial are lacking, but also information to build up a positive list are lacking as well. And as long as data are lacking, all arguments are in a certain proportion speculative. Currently, a sound scientific data basis upon which the decision of a positive list could be based on is lacking. Eventually, for those supporting a positive list, it's probably or eventually a measure of regulating all animal keeping. So we are not supporting a positive list in this case.