Scottish Animal Welfare Commission - Exotic Pet Working Group: final report

4. Further evidence gathered

4.1 Literature Review

Scottish Government through the SRUC was able to commission a literature review of the welfare of exotic pet species in the current literature, which is also published (see Evidence on the welfare of exotic pets in Scotland). The review focuses on species believed to be for sale in Scotland and focuses on commonly kept exotic pets. It excludes species already banned due to CITES or non-native invasive species legislation, and very common exotic pets, such as rabbits, commonly kept small rodents (except dwarf hamsters) and canaries.

One of the most significant findings from the review is the paucity of suitable published information on the health and welfare of exotic pets in Scotland. Most publications appear to be of a veterinary nature and frequently report individual studies or case series and so give only brief insights into welfare issues in certain species. However, some logical conclusions can be drawn from basic principles that are reflected in the literature. For example, where a species has often complex dietary, environmental and social needs, the likelihood is that they will be more challenging to keep well, and welfare and disease issues will more frequently be seen. For example, primates and some parrot species are over-represented in the literature with metabolic, self-harming and other welfare-related issues when their complex needs are not met and when their hand rearing for the pet trade can often lead to psychological issues in later life.

Some exotic species that have been deliberately bred to produce certain desirable physical characteristics seem to be more susceptible to disease (e.g., so-called reptile 'colour-morphs' such as ball python spider morphs with neurological disease).

Although there is no evidence specifically from Scotland, there is some evidence from publications outside Scotland that exotic pets are less frequently presented to veterinary practitioners in comparison with domestic species. Two publications in the Republic of Ireland indicate that only 50% of exotic pet owners consulted a vet in 2019 (Goins and Handon, 2021a, b). Part of this reluctance is likely to be financial, but part is also likely to be the lack of veterinary surgeons with expertise in exotic pets, a situation supporting the data already gathered from UK veterinary schools and Scottish veterinary surgeons by the working group and published in the interim report.

In conclusion, the literature review helps to identify some key areas of concern, but also demonstrates the difficulty in obtaining clear evidence of an association with the keeping of exotic pets with poorer or better welfare than that already reported in domesticated pets. There is evidence that breeding for particular phenotypic traits does lead to increased disease susceptibility and hereditary abnormalities, and evidence that the more complicated a species' husbandry requirements are, the more likely it is to experience poorer welfare in captivity. However, in our opinion more evidence of the level of exotic pet trade, species traded, and where possible any associated welfare issues needs to be gathered going forward.

4.2 Further evidence

The working group also considered further detailed feedback on the interim report from a number of exotic pet representatives, including the Ornamental Aquatic Trade Association and the Federation of British Herpetologists.

One concern raised, both in the interim report and by correspondents, was the definition of what constitutes an 'exotic' pet. Many respondents suggested that species could be termed domesticated and therefore not 'exotic' simply because they had been bred in captivity for many years or even centuries. The working group believes that the term 'exotic', whilst difficult to fully define, should focus on whether an animal is truly domesticated or not, i.e. an animal is considered domesticated when its behaviour, life cycle or physiology has been altered as a result of the breeding or living conditions over multiple generations of animals of that kind being under human control, rather than simply the historical length of time an animal has been kept in captivity by humans. As such its morphology, genetics and behaviours are likely to be substantially different from those of their wild ancestors, such that survival in the wild would likely be compromised.

Observations regarding the benefits to human livelihoods through importation of exotic pets, including removal of animals from the wild for the pet trade, were also made by respondents. Whilst the working group feels that ethically, wild capture of animals for the pet trade is not justified and acknowledges that there is some uncertainty as to the level of wild-caught animals traded, (to take one example, numbers of wild-caught and traded marine fish varying from 90% (OATA, 2021) - 99% (Biondo and Burki (2020)), the working group is focussed on the welfare of traded animals. We also acknowledge that welfare is just one facet of the important factors that need to be considered; others include the potential for zoonotic disease transmission, animals' destructive or invasive potential, and their physical hazard to humans and animals. Animal welfare is the key area with which this group is concerned, and which is the focus of this final report.

Criticism was raised by respondents over the nature of some of the journals quoted within the interim report, suggesting that some were 'predatory' and therefore questioning how robust their peer-reviewing was (FBH, 2021). While that is an important question, the working group has confidence in many of the papers cited. It is also important to note that most of the references in the interim report are cited within the views of stakeholders. The working group has tried to quote stakeholders across the spectrum of exotic pet keeping, animal welfare advocacy and veterinary opinion, in order to maintain as unbiased a view as is possible.

Concerns were also raised regarding an observation in the working group's report, which was regarded as an assertion, that poor record keeping is commonplace, making it difficult to quantify the volume of wild animals being traded as pets. Here, the working group was quoting Toland et al. (2020), who point out that non-CITES species international trade is not systematically recorded; in addition, the working group's investigation into licensing authorities in Scotland and the wider UK demonstrated considerable variation in the details of numbers of traded animals with particularly poor data on the traded species.

Records may be kept by individual traders, but the information is not being systemically collated by licensing bodies and so is inaccessible when attempting to quantify the level of trade at a local or national level.