Ban public from keeping reptiles because they keep accidentally killing them, say vets

[Cowboy_Ken]

Ban public from keeping reptiles because they keep accidentally killing them, say vets
Three out of four reptiles die within a year, according to vets
Three out of four reptiles die within a year, according to vets

Sarah Knapton
26 OCTOBER 2017 • 11:30 PM
The public should be banned from keeping reptiles as pets because 75 per cent of animals die within the first year, vets and scientists have argued.

Writing in Veterinary Record, consultant biologist and medical scientist, Clifford Warwick, and five vets said tougher measures are needed to prevent reptiles being bought be unsuitable owners.

Reptiles kept in homes display at least 30 behavioural signs of stress, and owners often do not know how to care for pets adequately, they argue.

“Reptilian and amphibian biological needs are so complex and require such advanced scientific understanding that they cannot be met even in the best zoos, let alone private homes,” said Mr Warwick.

According to the British Federation of Herpetologists (BFH) as many as seven million reptiles and amphibians being kept as pets in the UK, in 1.2 million households.

Chester Zoo keeper Adam Blane - even zoos struggle to look after reptiles say vets 
Chester Zoo keeper Adam Blane - even zoos struggle to look after reptiles say vets CREDIT: CHESTER ZOO
Currently people must apply for a licence to look after non-domesticated animals, but the RSPCA has complained that too often licenses focus on protecting the public from harm, rather than on the well-being of the animals themselves.

Adele Waters, editor of Veterinary Record, said: "There is growing concern about the welfare of reptiles.

“Earlier this month the RSPCA published research showing they are often neglected, and not because their owners don't care about them, but because they are unsure about how to care for them.

"Research conducted for the charity found a lot of online advice is contradictory, inconsistent and variable in quality and this does not encourage responsible reptile ownership. It is important for reptile owners to get information from a reliable, credible source - their local vet."

 

[Moxifloxi]

Very simply: Government bans are not the cure for human ignorance, complacency and ineptitude.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I had an issue with my first sulcate as a baby and the vet wanted to go way overboard. Thankfully I had a friend that put me in contact with a well educated person that told me to do everything exactly opposite of what the vet said. Thank goodness I listened to her and not the vet. That was 5 years ago about and my tort is doing great.

 

[LeoTheTortoise]

There's a lot of pretty ridiculous things about that article, but its interesting. First, there's no way they could ever actually institute a ban like that- pet owners would freak out, animals would be without homes, industries would be destroyed and those vets would lose their business! They are talking to a wall to blow off steam but they do raise a valid point: I'm sure we have all encountered a tragically mistreated animal cared for by well-meaning owners. All this is just theoretical, but it does make me wonder how much support or opposition legislation to do something about the keeping of reptiles would rally. I definitely think there is an issue, and something like the requirement of getting a license would not be entirely unreasonable. Perhaps there could be some sort of system akin to the one in California regarding desert tortoises?

 

[Moxifloxi]

There's a lot of pretty ridiculous things about that article, but its interesting. First, there's no way they could ever actually institute a ban like that- pet owners would freak out, animals would be without homes, industries would be destroyed and those vets would lose their business! They are talking to a wall to blow off steam but they do raise a valid point: I'm sure we have all encountered a tragically mistreated animal cared for by well-meaning owners. All this is just theoretical, but it does make me wonder how much support or opposition legislation to do something about the keeping of reptiles would rally. I definitely think there is an issue, and something like the requirement of getting a license would not be entirely unreasonable. Perhaps there could be some sort of system akin to the one in California regarding desert tortoises?

I think if breeders or anyone selling reptiles were required to provide education or if a buyer had to take a class or watch a video or something before purchasing reptiles it would make a huge impact. I knw it would have helped me a ton. I bought my second and third much bigger ones at a costly price primarily to rescue them from the pet store they were in. People don't realize a sulcata is going to get big and dig and dent things and such. Maybe if they knew that ahead of time they would make different choices. But instead, the seller usually says nothing and they buyer sees a cute little tort that does not stay that way for long. Then they need to be rehomed for obvious reasons. Its so sad.

 

[Tyty1389]

My view on this might be controversial because even if it was proven that reptile death rate was 75% among pet owners I would still be inclined to shrug my shoulders (so to speak). I think a fair question is what percentage of the average reptiles clutch survives to adulthood in the wild. In regards to seas turtles, according to the sea turtle conservancy, "only an estimated one in 1 to 1,000 will survive to adulthood". In the journal Herpetologica an older article I found entitled DEMOGRAPHY OF GREEN SNAKES (OPHEODRYS AESTIVUS), in regards to field research it is stated that "Only 10 male and 11 female first-year snakes were captured in 1979. Based on egg production in 1978, these capture data provide survivorship estimates of 4.1% and 4.6%, respectively" (Plummer, 1985). Obviously these are only two reptile species. The point is most reptiles, especially as babies, are at the bottom of the food chain so having only 75% death rate is not bad at all in my opinion. In fact it could be argued that a survivorship rate of 25% in the wild could be detrimental to various ecosystems. I think the pet trade has guaranteed that certain species will not go extinct any time soon due to established breeders and those who buy captive bred reptiles. Those who are chronically buying new captive bred reptiles ensure that breeders can just barely keep their heads fiscally above water so as to continue or expand their breeding projects. In some cases there are more individuals of an endangered species in North America than there are in native regions. These vets argument seems to be motivated by emotion, a hint of pretentiousness, combined with their daily run in with poor animal husbandry.
To their point about zoos lacking ability to meet the biological needs of these reptiles thus private owners could not do better, I would say that has nothing to do with an individuals ability to care for, say a bearded dragon or a veiled chameleon (Chosen due to popularity), or any other commonly owned reptiles. I have seen individuals who take better care of their reptiles than a number of zoos I have been to. Anyway, it wont gain traction. To much money is already in pet trade. I understand if people find this view callous.
References
Plummer, Michael. (1985). Demography of green snakes ( Opheodrys aestivus ). Herpetologica. 41. 373-381.
https://conserveturtles.org/information-sea-turtles-frequently-asked-questions/

 

[ZEROPILOT]

In theory it makes sense.
In reality..Good luck.

 

[wellington]

I'd love to know how many of these animals are actually killed by the wrong treatment/info given by the vet!

 

[Yvonne G]

Yes, but did that story research how many reptiles are living a long, healthy life under good care? 1 bad keeper as opposed to thousands of good keepers? It's a no brainer far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kapidolo Farms]

Sooooo, Brits suck at animal husbandry????. What crap journalism.

 

[Tom]

Sooooo, Brits suck at animal husbandry????. What crap journalism.

Agreed. Typical animal rightist puff piece.

 

[Len B]

Reptiles kept in homes display "30" behavioural signs of distress. ?? Really ?? When I see statements like this everything else they say just goes blank.

 

[mark1]

as far as better husbandry in the US , i've seen university studies on the impact of reptile collection on wild populations , which couldn't be concluded because there were no studies on sustainable collection numbers on any wild populations ........i'm going off memory but am pretty confident my numbers will be close .... the US imports like 2 million reptiles a year , legally , 90% of those are wild caught , like 90+% of those are dead on arrival or die within the first year ......those numbers do not account for illegal imports .......... the us also exports like 2 million reptiles a year , again those would be just the legal ones ........ 6% of that number will ever see a vet , which is probably a fraction of fraction of a percent of how many are actually in this country at any given time .......... as poorly as many cats and dogs are treated in the US , reptiles are the most mistreated animal we keep as pets ............ you don't need to be an animal rights nut to know that is the reality ...... you could ask anyone you come across on the street if they ever at any point in their life had a turtle or tortoise , i'm sure the majority will tell you they have , then ask them why they don't have it now ......

 

[Alaskamike]

Like every approach to animal / human interactions the problems & issues are complex. Numbers & estimates are not researched statistics , but often reported as if they are. This article shows that flaw plainly.

There is truth on every side. But the answer is not a ban. Much like the truth that animals raised for the meat trade are often mistreated - but legistlating vegetarian diets is not the answer.

Look at the millions of dogs & cats that suffer & die from abuse , or are killed in shelters yearly. Is the answer to outlaw pets entirely ? It is a naive idealistic approach.

Education is the best answer. In fact , the only sane one.