They tried to ban our pets. We fought back!

What would you do if the law suddenly made caring for your pets illegal? This nearly happened in Sweden, where a sweeping proposal for new laws imposed bizarre, unscientific rules that threatened the future of millions of pets. But thanks to the passionate outcry from pet lovers worldwide, the proposal was withdrawn.

This story is about what happens when people unite and fight for common sense.

Watch this video to learn how the reptile community stood up and WON — and why we must stay alert and support the organisations fighting for our pets’ future.

Because if it can happen in Sweden, it could happen anywhere.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCRIPT

In March 2025, the Swedish government published their proposal for new pet-keeping legislation.

The proposal followed months of consultation with animal specialists from pet-keeping societies, pet trade organisations and the veterinary sector.

The details published in the final proposal would essentially end pet keeping for millions of Swedish pet owners, sending shockwaves around the country.

We spoke to one of those specialists, Jesper Agner Arnö, to find out what happened.

My name is Jesper Agner Arnö. I'm a veterinarian and I work as a clinician. I work with pet shops, I work with schools, that keep animals, I work in education and I'm also the chairman of the herpetological society in Gothenburg.

I was invited by the scientific council of the University of Agriculture in Sweden that in turn had gotten a mission or an order from the Ministry of Agriculture in Sweden. My job was to be part of an expert group looking at scientific evidence for the spatial needs of reptiles and amphibians in captivity.

Over the course of about half a year, we had several meetings and then we worked on the report separately. Reading articles, finding out information and writing down what we found.

The report was a part of the job to produce a revised new updated version of one of the big pieces of legislation that controls how we're allowed to keep small companion animals, household pets that are not dogs and cats in Sweden.

We were asked to see what kind of scientific evidence there were for the spatial needs of reptiles and amphibians in captivity.

Two things in this process that has upset us a bit.

The first was that when the report was released at the start of 2024, the scientific council had added their summaries and conclusions that we didn't write.

We wrote our report, our findings and conclusions and our conclusions were largely that the enclosure design and the enclosure decoration, what you put in the enclosure, matters more than an actual set size. So a big, bare, badly decorated enclosure will be worse than a smaller but well decorated enclosure.

We concluded that there are very, very few actual scientific reports dealing with the spatial needs and requirements for reptiles and amphibians in captivity.

We were talking about spatial requirements. That was the job description. But that wasn't really what they, their conclusions didn't really talk about spatial requirements and spatial needs. It talked about welfare and welfare indicators and that that was missing and lacking and therefore the Ministry of Agriculture should either consider a positive list or adding more species to the negative list.

After we had read their conclusions, the three of us, we felt we can't, I mean, our names are on this, we can't really just say, okay, that's fine.

So we wrote them a statement saying we can't back this up and we don't really understand how you can make all these kind of conclusions from the report we have written.

The proposal claims to be based on expert advice and scientific reports, but it seems to largely to have ignored the input from herpetological societies, and us in the expert group.

My first reaction to the new proposal was that it's unrealistic and that it's, it made me concerned about what will, if this goes through, what will happen to the keepers, the animals and the future of animal husbandry in Sweden. The rest of my coworkers in different sectors that has to do with husbandry of these kind of animals in one way or another, feel pretty much the same.

One of the most surprising and ridiculous, if you ask me, new paragraphs is that you are no longer, would no longer be allowed to feed live insect to your animals, to any animals that are a part of L80. And I mean, that would largely be the end of all frog keeping, most lizard keeping, some bird keeping and so on.

Let me just say this. A lot of the changes would wouldn't just affect private keepers, but this, I mean, this one change would basically make it impossible to have any kind of conservation project with any amphibians or insectivorous lizards. And there are a lot of them. And that was, that would just be both stupid and sad.

Another big point in this, and perhaps the one that has me worried, worried the most is the increase in minimum requirements for enclosure sizes.

First, we cannot say that larger enclosures equals better welfare because we do not know that. Nobody has made a study of it.

And also, as we found out in our report and the one of the tentative conclusions we made, it's you cannot just look at the enclosure size alone. You have to look at what is in the enclosure and how does that decoration correlate with the needs of the species that is in there. The new enclosures aren't guaranteeing better welfare in any way. But what they do is they put a really big restriction on the ability of keepers to actually adhere to the new legislation.

And it does put a big restriction on the general public's ability to keep these animals. And this doesn't just pertain to reptiles. We're talking rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, rats, hamsters, any kind of bird and so on.

And then you could, I mean, you could twist this and say, do we care?

Is everybody, should everybody be allowed to keep animals and should it be relatively easy for people to keep animals? Or should we make it really, really hard and just the people that have a lot of money, a lot of space and a lot of ambition to do so?

But just looking at experiences from other countries that has done not the same, but that also has made it really hard or forbidden for people to keep certain types of animals.

People have still kept those animals. And I'm not saying everybody is going to say, “oh, I don't care about this law. I'm going to be a criminal“ because some people will stop.

But what it will do is that the people that keep that, that say, OK, screw this law. This is stupid. I'm not stupid. I'm going to keep my animals. And I don't think they have the money to control this anyway, which probably is true. They will just go underground.

So you will have no more societies that, or people that keep different animals. You will have no more meetings. There will be no more Internet groups or forums unless they're really, really hidden.

So there will be no, there would be no supply of captive Swedish bred, Swedish captive bred animal. There will be no spreading of information. People won't be interested in writing something on the Internet because then perhaps somebody sees, “oh, how do you have these animals?” So nobody will spread information.

That means the progression of husbandry will just stop or at least slow down extremely much.

And it will also mean that the entire sector that provides these animal keepers with food, in some cases, animals, other kind of supplies, cages, terrariums, whatever.

They will have a really, really hard time. And many of the pet shops will probably have to close down.

And lastly, as a veterinarian,

I would be really scared that people have sick animals, but they don't go to the veterinarian because they're afraid that the veterinarian will report them.

Looking at animal welfare is, I think we all agree. Everybody that keeps these animals, that works with these animals, that does anything pertaining in some way to these animals all agree that we want better welfare for our pets.

Because if we have, if we set unrealistic standards, we won't meet them.

People will take shortcuts. People don't care about them. And then we have achieved absolutely nothing.

So for the greater population of animals, of all these species, the welfare is there is a great risk that welfare would just decrease.

In the best of worlds, we would have a complete rework of this proposition where more actual expertise is taken into account. I would have liked that there were more more knowledge in there, rather than opinions. If you ask me, the knowledge comes from the people actually working with these animals.

I would suggest that the Ministry of Agriculture takes a step back and seriously considers the consequences if this proposal as is would go through in Sweden. Because the risk of people ignoring it and it just leading to worse, poorer welfare is significant.

And many of the people that choose not to ignore it, they will have to get rid of their animals because they cannot or will not or cannot afford, I don't know, to upgrade their enclosures. Even if they have two years to do that.

And that will lead to a lot of animals that has to be rehomed, euthanized or worst case being let out in the wild.

That makes me feel really worried.

Two days after this interview was recorded, the Swedish government withdrew the controversial L80 proposal following a wave of criticism from animal keepers worldwide.

In a statement the government said,

"The reactions were much greater than we expected and the proposal has also created concern and anger. It does not provide good conditions for moving forward. We are therefore withdrawing the proposal to create better conditions."

So, what were the key ingredients to Sweden's success?

Let's break it down.

In almost every country there are organisations that advise governments on responsible pet keeping. In Sweden, ZOORF led the charge and we strongly encourage you to support your country's equivalent. Without them, we consistently lose ground.

Public outcry was a major factor in convincing Sweden's government to reconsider the L80 proposals. Media outlets like Responsible Reptile Keeping play a vital role in highlighting the issues and gathering support.

The mainstream media loves sensational stories. Responsible pet keepers potentially losing their beloved animals can capture their attention.

Social media coverage is crucial for maintaining public awareness. Content from organisations with large online followings is essential and individual keepers can amplify the message by sharing the content widely.

Pet keepers shouldn't have to be full-time lobbyists or campaigners. Instead, they should support the organisations dedicated to doing this important work. Joining as a member or donating even small amounts strengthens these groups and makes them more effective.

The situation in Sweden isn't an isolated case. Similar challenges can and potentially will arise in your country.

Head over to the Responsible Reptile Keeping website to find your local advocacy organisation and protect your animals by showing your support.

Together, we can make a difference.