Reptiles have once again been receiving large amounts of unfavourable media attention, generated by anti-reptile-keeping groups, such as Animal Aid, CAPS and the R.S.P.C.A. It seems these groups are intent on spreading mis-information and trying to generate public panic about reptiles; no attempt to check out any factual basis to their stories is ever made – the media just seem to lap it all up. Public health is at far greater risk from traditional domestic pets, primarily dogs and cats, so why pick on reptiles? I suppose keeping reptiles is a hobby enjoyed by a minority of the public and it is very easy to pick on minority groups.

The following article appeared in the South Wales Evening Post (Swansea, UK) on 21 November last year.

Health fear over reptile proposal (Diane Williams)

A leading animal rights group has launched a stinging attack on plans to build a £250,000 serpentarium at Llanelli. Proposals to house 48 of the world’s deadliest snakes, together with crocodiles and alligators, could have serious reptile-related public health risks, according to English-based Animal Aid. The animals rights protesters claim it would also have serious animal welfare implications. The group has written to councillors to express its objection to the World of Reptiles scheme planned for Pwll and are preparing a report to submit to the local authority.

Campaigner Elaine Toland said: "There are serious health concerns because when reptiles are captured, they get stressed and produce more pathogens than they normally produce, this presents serious health risks to the public. "The Government issued a health warning this year to pregnant women, the elderly and children under five to avoid all contact with reptiles, either direct or indirect. "Last year two babies died from having contact with the family’s pet reptile. By going into the environment, there is a great risk of salmonella."

She added: "We have commissioned an independent scientist to look at the proposal and intend to object to it in full. We understand the board is meeting on December 8 but we have only just learned of the proposal and to object to it in full we need more time than that. So we have written to the council to put it back by two months. Ideally we want to stop it before it gets to the planning application stage."

In a letter to councillors, Animal Aid states the venture is "grossly and fundamentally flawed . . . a prospect that overtly invites serious public health compromises" and "an idea rich in scale and poor in substance".

Hengoed Ward member Councillor Meilyr Hughes said he too was concerned about the proposal. "My initial concern was the proximity of the proposed development to the houses in Bassett Terrace and people’s reaction to it. Officers and members of the council need to look at the wider issues in more depth".

Now this surely seems like a good idea, creating jobs, bringing interest to the area and being of benefit to both local people and tourists alike. So, on what do Animal Aid base their objections to this scheme? The old public health scare ploy comes into action yet again. If you want the facts about reptiles and their threat to public health, refer to the last issue of Reptilian (Volume 6, Number 5), Salmonella and Reptiles – The Facts. The most telling statistic in this article by Stephen J. Divers and Martin P.C. Lawton, two of the UK’s most respected veterinarians, is that although over 17,250 cases of salmonellosis were reported in 1999, only seven cases were confirmed as being contracted from a reptile source. Toxoplasmosis contracted from cat faeces presents a far greater threat to pregnant women than reptiles, so the public health angle simply does not make sense.

If Animal Aid are so concerned about public health issues why do they not target those animals which pose a real threat. Dog owners allow their animals to foul footpaths, public parks, children’s play areas and even other peoples’ gardens, but that’s OK. Visiting a reptile park involves making a choice, if you are worried about (non-existent) health issues, don’t go. Those of us who would very much like to visit such a facility should certainly be able to do so. What about our rights, Animal Aid? Unfortunately avoiding disease from other peoples’ domestic pets is not so easy. Every time you take your children to the park they run serious risk of disease contracted from contact with dog faeces, but there are a lot of dog owners out there and Animal Aid are obviously afraid to tackle the real issues of public health and animals.

So, what of the proposes reptile park? This from the same newspaper on 18 December last year.

Reptile centre plans scrapped (Nick Parry)

Plans for a reptile centre in Llanelli’s Millennium Coastal Park have been scrapped. Residents’ fears about having deadly snakes, crocodiles and alligators on their doorstep have led developers to withdraw the scheme. At a Coastal Park Board meeting, members were almost unanimous in expressing concerns about the proposed development. The plans included a series of crocodile lakes and the creation of log cabin serpentariums which would have housed snakes, tortoises, lizards, chameleons and frogs.

Park bosses say although the centre would have attracted international interest, local opinion was strongly opposed to the development and that had to be taken into account. The development was a life-long dream of South African game hunter turned conservator Peter Kriel. He withdrew his application at the meeting. Coastal Park director Gerry Phillips said: "We believed that local people felt the centre would be too close to a residential area. "There was discussion about finding an alternative site within the park but this wasn’t possible. We are very keen to see new developments relocating in the Coastal Park because it helps us attract more visitors and boosts the economy of the town."

Alternative plans for a sea life centre in Llanelli’s North Dock are looking more promising, however. Park bosses have already met with Swansea businessman Bernard Hawkins, who has drawn up the multi-million plans for the National Aquarium of Wales. He has now been invited to put his proposals to county council representatives and Coastal Park directors this week. Pwll county councillor Meilir Bowen Hughes said while serious concerns had been expressed about the reptile centre, it was Mr Kriel who scrapped the plans.

Councillor Hughes said: "One of the issues was public perception - you can’t ignore the opinion of residents - particularly those living in Basset Terrace next to where it was to be situated. "There were also serious health and safety concerns and concerns about traffic generation."

Animal Aid win again. You can’t have a reptile park, but you can have a public aquarium – for the time being, anyway. If lunatic fringe groups continue to win absurd victories with campaigns based on which are not backed with a shred of evidence or an element of truth, it will not be long before "Fish Protection" groups or "Hamster Liberation" fronts are springing up. Banning reptile keeping could be the tip of the iceberg. Ironically, the very animals which pose the greatest risk to public health could be the only animals we are allowed to keep! Make sense out of that.

The other old favourite is the myth that the country is awash with abandoned reptiles. These stories frequently make the press and only rarely is accuracy in reporting observed. The following report appeared in the Western Daily Press (Bristol, UK) on the fourth of January.

Dangerous snake left in woods

RSPCA inspectors are used to finding abandoned puppies and kittens over Christmas. But they were shocked when called out to the Forest of Dean to collect a dangerous snake.

Sadly the 11 foot boa constrictor had succumbed to the cold and died after being dumped in a black bin bag in woods off Carisbrook Road, Mitcheldean. The owner may have dumped the snake after it got big enough to crush a human to death.

Shocking……if that is really what happened. Surely it is more likely that the snake died over the Christmas period, when local authority refuse sites are closed and when garbage collection services are non-existent. The owner probably did not know what to do with a sizeable corpse and did what many dog or cat owners do – dump the body in a black bag by the side of the road. If you dump a dead cat in the canal it is not a newsworthy event, but dispose of a reptile corpse in an inappropriate manner and it makes headlines. The first line sums the situation up admirably, it is to be expected that untold numbers of unwanted dogs and cats should be abandoned, a fact of life that we are all expected to get along with.

Nobody knew how long the snake had been dead and nobody cared – it made a good story dressed up just the way it was. The last line really does put the icing on the cake. Who has now decided that an eleven-foot boa constrictor could crush a human to death?

Yet more about abandoned reptiles appeared in the Taunton Times on the fourth of January:

Saved from a watery grave at Christmas (Mark Ford)

The decorations may still be up on the trees for most of us, but on Christmas Eve Tinsel the terrapin was taken down to the beach for what could have been a watery grave. The shell-shocked reptile is recovering at the RSPCA Centre at West Hatch after being discovered on the beach at Croyde in North Devon where he was dumped while the nation prepared for December 25.

It’s all so emotive isn’t it? The poor turtle abandoned by the fiendish and uncaring keeper. To put the whole thing into perspective, the R.S.P.C.A. run a campaign every year to try to prevent people buying puppies and kittens for Christmas. Why? Because many are abandoned shortly afterwards. Feral cats wantonly destroy millions of our native birds and animals every year, but that’s OK isn’t it? After all it’s only natural. So, compared with the thousands of unwanted dogs and cats abandoned every year, only a handful of reptiles face the same fate – it’s just that the reptiles get into the papers, but the domestic pets do not.

This biased reporting gives ordinary members of the public a totally distorted view of reptiles and those who choose to keep them. Some species of reptile are probably more suited to life in captivity than many other animals we are accustomed to keeping. How many dog owners actually provide their animals with the space they need? How many pet owners work and leave their charges cooped up indoors all day, with just a short exercise period (walkies) to look forward to? We can provide captive reptiles with suitable habitat and conditions for a long and productive life, as is shown by the increasing number of species now being produced in captivity by private breeders.

Reptiles have another distinct advantage over the more traditional domestic pet - they are not detrimental to our native wildlife. The Mammal Society, which unlike some organisations actually aims to protect animals, logged kills made by 1,000 cats over a five-month period. The figures show that the average domestic cat kills nine mice, eight birds, five voles, three rabbits, two-and-a-half shrews, half a mole, half a rat, half a toad, one-and-a-half frogs and half an snake every year, not including attacks for which no evidence is seen. That lot adds up to an amazing 275 million animals slaughtered every year. But this is natural, cat-owners say. How can this be? Cats have been domesticated for 2,000 years, they are not wild animals killing to survive. They have a cushy and pampered existence and spend their lives getting stuffed with Kit-e-Kat, so they certainly do not need to supplement their diet.On many occasions cats do not even ettempt to eat their hapless victims - they merely kill for pleasure. They are only playing is another line that owners adopt. If my idea of a jolly fine leisure-time activity was torturing and killing defensive small creatures, I could presumably use this as defence at my trial?

There are six-times more cats than all the wild predators combined, so cats obviously pose a very real threat to wildlife. This only takes into account the nine million domestic cats, but all those abandoned animals add up to a sizeable feral population that is also out there killing. If your python nipped next door and supplemented its diet with a quick moggy snack there would be an outcry, but cats can have their fill, with no adverse publicity at all. Perhaps Animal Aid would prefer all minority pet owners to give up and keep cats instead………..then we could all add to the devastation. Perhaps we could eventually kill off all the birds and small mammals and that would be just fine.

The wealth of human knowledge is increased by the opportunity to observe animals that are not normally accessible, and by refusing to allow the existence of reptile parks, and other animal attractions, local councils are surely being very short-sighted. It is only with an increased knowledge of the world around us that we can have respect for the environment and its inhabitants. Will future generations know wild animals only from television programmes, with only those who have sufficient means for extensive foreign travel able to see first-hand the wonders that nature produces? Zoos and other such institutions are the only way many people can enjoy viewing and having contact with wild animals -should this opportunity be denied due to the extreme views of an often ill-informed minority?

Surely we do not want to exist in a mono-culture of dull, genetically modified, domesticated animals, created solely for the benefit of man. Interaction with, and observation of, wild creatures can surely enrich all our lives and the world would be poorer if this was no longer possible.