EU prepaires a positive list of animal species allowed to be kept

[Jana]

The EU is in the middle of process of creating a positive list of animal species that will be allowed to be owned within the EU (licensed zoos will have an extemption). All other animal species will be banned.

The EU has accredited an Italian company "RPA Europe" to prepaire a proposal of this new regulation. The company has sent questionnaire to 800 different relevant institutions / clubs etc within Europe to get their opinions.

If anybody is active in such institution, please be careful what answers you write there. It might mean inclusion or exclusion from that positive list.

Anyway, this new legislation will almost completely destroy private ownership and breeding of exotic species in the EU/EEA, unless some member countries negotiate an extemption.

Source

 

[ThylacineAlive]

Wow, this is insane!

~Thylo

 

[birdsandbats]

How easy would it be to get around this legislation? For example, here in the US, there are many species that are *technically* banned without permits from USDA, but the USDA permits are so easy to get that anyone can get one easily, so in effect it makes little difference.

 

[Jana]

How easy would it be to get around this legislation? For example, here in the US, there are many species that are *technically* banned without permits from USDA, but the USDA permits are so easy to get that anyone can get one easily, so in effect it makes little difference.

I have not seen any proposal of the actual legislation so far thus I have no idea.

 

[PossumRoach]

This will definitely not have any long term affects to the zoo industry…

 

[LaughingDove]

Interesting to note that the proposal talks about a "positive list of pets". Many (most?) private keepers of exotic animals would object to their animals being described as pets. And I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to have a list of pets that excludes things like e.g. primates while still allowing them to be kept by private individuals with some kind of minimal licensing and welfare requirement.

I certainly hope that this legislation would acknowledge a space in between pets and zoos and for things like tropical fish that space is probably very wide and blurred.

 

[dillotest0]

What I hate whenever this comes up...
Domestic dogs and cats spread disease and act as potent predators also. I understand this the rationale of this concept.
Much more than ever have king cobras, slow loris, kinkajou, any number of exotic birds...
I'm not even saying those are good pets.
But I feel that going after exotics solely and neglecting the impact domestics continue to have on native wild species is rather tone-deaf.
At least some organisations will get an ego trip out of this if it comes to be.

 

[Chlidonias]

Interesting to note that the proposal talks about a "positive list of pets". Many (most?) private keepers of exotic animals would object to their animals being described as pets. And I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to have a list of pets that excludes things like e.g. primates while still allowing them to be kept by private individuals with some kind of minimal licensing and welfare requirement.

I certainly hope that this legislation would acknowledge a space in between pets and zoos and for things like tropical fish that space is probably very wide and blurred.

In the context "pets" seems to be the same as "privately-owned animals"; it's probably just an easier term to use than "non-domestic animal species held by private or unlicensed individuals".

There is a report here. Fish are only vaguely mentioned once or twice.
https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org.../2023_03_efa_EU Positive List_White Paper.pdf

I think it's a good thing in a general sense, although obviously how it would be specifically implemented is important. There are already member states with positive lists.

 

[GiratinaIsGod]

In the context "pets" seems to be the same as "privately-owned animals"; it's probably just an easier term to use than "non-domestic animal species held by private or unlicensed individuals".

There is a report here. Fish are only vaguely mentioned once or twice.
https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/files/eurogroupforanimals/2023-03/2023_03_efa_EU Positive List_White Paper.pdf

I think it's a good thing in a general sense, although obviously how it would be specifically implemented is important. There are already member states with positive lists.

Knowing the EU, the law will be to overcomplicated, and overeaching

 

[PossumRoach]

Interesting to note that the proposal talks about a "positive list of pets". Many (most?) private keepers of exotic animals would object to their animals being described as pets.

Well, lacking humility won’t change the fact that they’re on the same boat as those who (dare to) describe themselves as pet owners, and that anti-trade groups don’t care what these “non-pet” owners call themselves.

I know Chlidonias posted the report before I finished my post but that further proves my point.

What I hate whenever this comes up...
Domestic dogs and cats spread disease and act as potent predators also. I understand this the rationale of this concept.
Much more than ever have king cobras, slow loris, kinkajou, any number of exotic birds...
I'm not even saying those are good pets.
But I feel that going after exotics solely and neglecting the impact domestics continue to have on native wild species is rather tone-deaf.
At least some organisations will get an ego trip out of this if it comes to be.

I said this before but exotic animal bans are based on cultural bias rather than scientific fact. Other than dogs and cats as you mentioned, we can use cars as an example. We have automobile accidents, people who ignore speed limits, and the accommodations for cars in the form of parking lots and highways, the latter of which is quite damaging to habitats. But heaven forbid anyone suggest we ban cars. Of all of humanity’s flaws exotic pet ownership is the easiest to point fingers at with how novel keeping exotic pets are. Why tackle more serious issues when you could ban exotics? That will surely improve the quality of life of the average citizen.

 

[Jurek7]

An absurd law, which duplicates existing laws and harms everybody but bureaucracy.

This will definitely not have any long term affects to the zoo industry…

I assume you are ironic. It will definitely have a big negative impact of zoos, which get animals like small birds, herps etc with private keepers plus rely on their expertise.

This will also spell extinction of species like some goodeid fish, which survived in private tanks, often unrecognized as endangered species. Some were not even identified to species.

What I hate whenever this comes up...
Domestic dogs and cats spread disease and act as potent predators also.

This law will not affect dogs nor cats.

Much more than ever have king cobras,

Dangerous species are already covered in another EU law. Which already is too broad, tossing weakly venomous snakes together with dangerous ones, for example.

slow loris, kinkajou, any number of exotic birds...

Threatened species are already covered by another EU law.

It seems that many people sympathetic to the idea forget that the EU already has detailed laws on animal welfare, circuses, dangerous animals or trade in threatened species among others.

At least some organisations will get an ego trip out of this if it comes to be.

Definitely the more extreme animal rights activists, those who believe that keeping pets should be banned, will see it as a backdoor victory. However, they are a marginal minority. Bird keepers or aquarists and herp enthusiasts will not aupport it.

Knowing the EU, the law will be to overcomplicated, and overeaching

Current laws are already overcomplicated and overreaching. Basel zoo recently tried to import an orangutan from another zoo and paperwork took over a year, for example. Zoos and conservation organizations already feel the burden, also monetary, of bureaucracy. Preparing heaps of paper costs money, which is goes off real conservation work.

I fear all small initiatives to help local wildlife, eg. breed and release local rare things like insects, herps, owls, dormice will become impossible or too complicated to be practical to anybody but large institutions.

In a more general way, it will hugely decrease public interest in wildlife, especially herps. Wildlife will become more distant and abstract concept existing on a TV than ever.

 

[dillotest0]

This law will not affect dogs nor cats.

That was exactly my point.
They have far more effect on native species than any exotic, yet there are no laws regulating them in comparison to exotics.
That's why I hate it.
If they truly wanted to reach their quotas regarding zoonotic disease and invasive species, it would not be the numerous exotics in private captivity they would set their sights on. Domestics would be their first action. Yet they are never in this conversation amongst those devising the law.
I am a supporter of the concept of culling of feral cats and dogs in wildlife sensitive areas. But this is a discussion never had only for public appeal purposes.

In a more general way, it will hugely decrease public interest in wildlife, especially herps. Wildlife will become more distant and abstract concept existing on a TV than ever.

This I have said I think is the future that ARAs want. Wild animals exist mainly on a screen. They cannot be truly seen, they cannot be smelt, they cannot be experienced in any other way than with dramatic shots and a symphony orchestra in tow. The WWF continues to put adverts on the telly about endangered snow leopards, they show scenes of them running around in their natural habitat, and people donate because it's the right thing to do, although they have never seen a snow leopard. I have said something about this before...

For years I had been reading books and consuming other reference material that presented to me the concept and being of the oystercatcher. Pictures of oystercatchers doing whatever they usually do. And so I have the general idea of what an oystercatcher is meant to be - a small black and white thing with a reddish beak; but simply because I had never seen one in person [until this year at Farlington], and mudflats - typical oystercatcher habitat; which I had glanced at, lacked them, I didn't really entirely think of the oystercatcher as a tangible object.

You can have the WWF sell its 'spiritual adoption' packets on the television with visuals of snow leopards, describing what state they are in in the wild. You can show scenes of the snow leopards running around, jumping, playing ... but the thing is that in lieu of zoos not many people really think about or see snow leopards. And certainly not many people see them in their natural habitat! So their idea of a snow leopard is not one of a tangible object or living thing; but merely a beautiful thing they saw on their television set. Without seeing a snow leopard for themselves, they may never comprehend the real thickness of the snow leopard's fur, the large feet, or what muscle power they have.

If the public doesn't think of animals as tangible objects, then they need not worry about addax in the Sahara, pitta in India, or giant cockroach in Madagascar. They can turn on the telly to see the image of a polar bear or some other charismatic mammal projected in front of them, in the same manner as Marilyn Monroe or Nicolas Cage, and murmur to themselves about climate change. All the while the Sahara, the Indian jungle, and Maosala are exploited for their resources.
We now live in an age of intangibility. The world is a screen away but never close enough to really see or touch. And the rise of AI will bring with it undermining of that which is. Zoos in many cases are our only stand against wildlife becoming totally intangible. And private collections work hand in hand oftentimes.

 

[PossumRoach]

I assume you are ironic. It will definitely have a big negative impact of zoos, which get animals like small birds, herps etc with private keepers plus rely on their expertise.

Yup, apologies for not using an indicator or a / as other ironic zoochatters sometimes use.

 

[Sarus Crane]

How easy would it be to get around this legislation? For example, here in the US, there are many species that are *technically* banned without permits from USDA, but the USDA permits are so easy to get that anyone can get one easily, so in effect it makes little difference.

Wait….. so if someone in the US has a large aviary with the financial means to have and care for American Flamingos, Roseate Spoonbills, Scarlet Ibises or other commonly kept MBTA (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) species in their aviary they can have them like zoos if they come from captive bred stock like commonly kept North American waterfowl species????

 

[birdsandbats]

Wait….. so if someone in the US has a large aviary with the financial means to have and care for American Flamingos, Roseate Spoonbills, Scarlet Ibises or other commonly kept MBTA (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) species in their aviary they can have them like zoos if they come from captive bred stock like commonly kept North American waterfowl species????

No. MBTA species still cannot be kept without much harder to get licensing.

 

[Sarus Crane]

No. MBTA species still cannot be kept without much harder to get licensing.

So which species are you talking about? The ones that aren’t listed on MBTA and not CITES Appendix 1??? Are US zoos exempt from MBTA or do they just have an easier time with all the paperwork to keep those species?

 

[birdsandbats]

So which species are you talking about? The ones that aren’t listed on MBTA and not CITES Appendix 1???

Depends on the state, but big cats come to mind as an obvious example.

 

[OkapiJohn]

I think it is quite a good thing. Regulating what is going on is better than letting things go unchecked. I think people are doing way too much drama while not even reflecting on the negative impacts that the pet trade has on biodiversity and on the animals.
By the drama, it even seems like 99% of the forum members own something potentially illegal at home

 

[birdsandbats]

I think it is quite a good thing. Regulating what is going on is better than letting things go unchecked. I think people are doing way too much drama while not even reflecting on the negative impacts that the pet trade has on biodiversity and on the animals.
By the drama, it even seems like 99% of the forum members own something potentially illegal at home

Few, if any of us, own anything illegal.

The issue is that legislation like this could cause many people, including forum members, to suddenly own illegal animals.

While the pet trade does have some negative impacts on the pet trade, an increasing number of exotic pets are bred in captivity, which has no impact on wild populations and in many cases can aid them by creating an ex situ population.

 

[ThylacineAlive]

I think it is quite a good thing. Regulating what is going on is better than letting things go unchecked. I think people are doing way too much drama while not even reflecting on the negative impacts that the pet trade has on biodiversity and on the animals.
By the drama, it even seems like 99% of the forum members own something potentially illegal at home

Few, if any of us, own anything illegal.

The issue is that legislation like this could cause many people, including forum members, to suddenly own illegal animals.

While the pet trade does have some negative impacts on the pet trade, an increasing number of exotic pets are bred in captivity, which has no impact on wild populations and in many cases can aid them by creating an ex situ population.

I think the main thing people are worried about here is the EU suddenly making private keeper's collections illegal and forcing them to euthanize their collections. That's exactly what they did with the invasive species list they outlawed.

There is also a concern here of making it even harder than it's already become for zoos to manage ex-situ populations.

~Thylo