OATA has written to a number of MSPs to question their support for an anti-pet-keeping report recently launched in the Scottish Parliament.
The SSPCA, One Kind and Born Free Foundation have joined forces on the Don’t Pet Me report, which tries to link the idea that so-called exotic pets are all ‘wild animals’ and therefore ‘belong in the wild’, not our homes.
This report, and its accompanying ‘fact sheet’, are yet another example of anti-animal trade organisations making hyperbolic statements that do not stand up to scrutiny.
Linking the idea of exotic pets as being ‘wild’ animals is deliberately misleading, aimed at promulgating fear. Pet fish like goldfish and guppies, reptiles like tortoises, birds like budgies, or small mammals like chinchillas are not wild animals and they do not ‘belong in the wild’.
There is no real definition of what an ‘exotic pet’ is and this inference that all exotic pets are ‘wild’ animals, thereby making people think they are dangerous and should not share our homes, is frankly nonsense. I am surprised anyone would give this notion credence.
The report examines people’s motivation for keeping these pets, citing reasons such as cuteness, improving health, love, companionship. “These are exactly the reason why anyone gets any pet and quite why this makes it a reason to limit someone’s ability to keep that particular pet is puzzling,” remarked Dominic.
The report does highlight the results of One Kind’s mystery shopper exercise to 13 pet shops across the central belt of Scotland, where it found staff answered questions thoroughly and gave good advice.
The report stated: “There were examples of safeguards, such as shops requiring that people buy a ‘set-up’ (all the equipment needed to house and care for the species) directly from them or show proof that they had one, before being allowed to purchase an animal. This demonstrates the potential advantages of in-person rather than online purchases.”
Pet shops are indeed great places to buy some pets, like pet fish. Pet shops are open to public scrutiny every day through customers, they are inspected and licensed by local authorities, they are required to invest in species-specific staff training (like OATA’s City & Guilds accredited training programmes) and must hand out care information (like OATA’s wide range of free caresheets) when they sell animals. Not something you see with online sales.
There are undoubtedly issues with the online sale of all pets, which is why OATA is a member of the Pet Advertising Advisory Group (PAAG), but it does not justify limiting access to certain pets. There are animal welfare issues with different breeds of cats and dogs, such as Scottish fold cats and pugs, but there is no call for a positive list for dogs or cats, banning access to certain breeds – presumably because these organisations know how unpopular that would be.
In its letter to the 10 MSPs who attended the Scottish Parliamentary launch event (see below), OATA called on them to reject the report’s call for a positive/permitted list of pets, which aims to limit access to the range of animals that can share our homes.
“Educating people to pick the right pet for their lifestyle and care for it properly is the key to happy and healthy pets, not banning them. Not all pets are for everyone and having a wide range of animals we can keep as pets makes it less likely people will have to give them up,” Dominic concluded.
He also raised concerns at the characterisation of pet owners in the report, describing it as ‘incredibly disrespectful’.
The report seems to paint them variously as of ‘low social economic status’ (do they mean working class/poor?), misfits and neurodivergent. Our experience of fishkeepers is one of passionate people who want to do the best for their fish and become more knowledgeable about chemistry and biology (like the nitrogen cycle), geography and conservation as they study the native habitats of the fish they keep. This characterisation of certain pet owners is yet another example of why this report has no credibility.
Dominic also urged Scottish retailers – and keepers – to add their voice.
“If you are a constituent of any of these MSPs we would also urge you to contact them. Perhaps invite them to your business to show the passion there is for this hobby.”
List of MSPs which attended the launch event in the Scottish Parliament
|
Colin Smyth (Event Sponsor) Maggie Chapman Maurice Goldman Kenneth Gibson Carol Mochan |
John Mason Claire Baker Stuart McMillan Foysol Choudhury Tim Eagle |
While OATA is not keen to give the report the oxygen of publicity it can be read it here.
A copy of the letter sent to the MSPs
Dear Mr Smyth
I am writing to you because you sponsored the recent Scottish Parliament event which launched the Don’t Pet Me report from SSPCA, One Kind and Born Free Foundation.
I have read the report and wanted to raise the many concerns I have because both the report and ‘fact sheet’ are yet another example of anti-animal trade organisations making hyperbolic statements that simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
Linking the idea of exotic pets as being ‘wild’ animals is deliberately misleading, aimed at promulgating fear. Pet fish like goldfish and guppies, reptiles like tortoises, birds like budgies, or small mammals like chinchillas are not wild animals and they do not ‘belong in the wild’, as this campaign maintains. There is no real definition of what an ‘exotic’ pet is and this inference that all exotic pets are ‘wild’ animals, thereby making people think they are dangerous and should not share our homes, is frankly nonsense. I am surprised anyone would give this notion credence.
Many of the ‘observations’ made in the report around why people keep these types of animals as pets – eg cuteness, improving health, love, companionship – are exactly the reason why anyone gets any pet. Quite why this makes it a reason to limit someone’s ability to keep that particular pet is puzzling. Should we ban access to dogs, cats and rabbits for the same reason?
It was interesting to note the mystery shopper exercise by OneKind staff in pet shops which showed “our questions were answered thoroughly, and some good advice was given. There were examples of safeguards, such as shops requiring that people buy a ‘set-up’ (all the equipment needed to house and care for the species) directly from them or show proof that they had one, before being allowed to purchase an animal. This demonstrates the potential advantages of in-person rather than online purchases.”
Pet shops are indeed great places to buy some pets, like pet fish. Pet shops are open to public scrutiny every day through customers, they are inspected and licensed by local authorities, they are required to invest in species-specific staff training (like OATA’s City & Guilds accredited training programmes) and must hand out care information (like OATA’s wide range of free caresheets) when they sell animals. Not something you see with online sales.
There are undoubtedly issues with the online sale of all pets, which is why OATA is a member of the Pet Advertising Advisory Group (PAAG), but it does not justify limiting access to certain pets. There are animal welfare issues with different breeds of cats and dogs (eg Scottish fold cats and pugs) but there is no call for a positive list for dogs or cats, banning access to certain breeds – presumably because these organisations know how unpopular that would be.
Anti-animal trade groups try to link the concepts of exotic pets and wild animals in their attempts to introduce positive (permitted) lists, which seek to limit our access to the animals we can keep as pets. But educating people to pick the right pet for their lifestyle and care for it properly is the key to happy and healthy pets, not banning them. Not all pets are for everyone and having a wide range of animals we can keep as pets makes it less likely people will have to give them up.
One final point. The report is also incredibly disrespectful to owners, painting them variously as of ‘low socio-economic status’ (do they mean working class/poor?), misfits and neurodivergent. Our experience of fishkeepers is one of passionate people who want to do the best for their fish and become more knowledgeable about chemistry and biology (eg the nitrogen cycle), geography and conservation as they study the native habitats of the fish they keep. This characterisation of certain pet owners is yet another example of why this report has no credibility.
I would be very happy to talk further with you about this issue. Pet fish are the most populous pet in the UK and many of your constituents will have a home aquarium or garden pond. I am sure they would join me in asking you to reject calls for positive/permitted lists that will limit people’s ability to keep pets like tropical fish.
Yours sincerely
Dominic Whitmee
Chief Executive, OATA
