This is a point of contention within this hobby at the moment. Herpetoculture has grown exponentially over the last 20 years with now more than 1 million people across the country keeping a reptile, amphibian or invertebrate. That’s 5% of the population with a direct interest in more exotic pets.
But, and this is a very resounding BUT, should anyone and everyone be able to do this?
As stated in a previous article (that I hope you’ve read by now…) there are good and bad businesses out there, some will sell you ANYTHING as long as you can pay for it (up front, no refunds, T&C’s apply) and others will question every single one of your decisions during the process of buying an animal (offering a guarantee, accurate care information, aftercare). Do these businesses have a right to refuse a sale if it’s not in the best interest of the animal? Absolutely. But do these businesses have a right to refuse a sale if it’s not in the best interest of the potential buyer? That’s a little more complicated.
The short answer is yes –
Pet stores have legal duties and business rules that allow them to say no:
- Animal Welfare Laws: In the UK, the Animal Welfare Act says that anyone caring for an animal must protect it from pain, injury, and suffering. If you do not know how to handle an animal safely, both you and the animal are at risk of being hurt.
- Licensing Rules: Pet shops must have a local council licence to sell animals. These strict licences (Hmmmm) require staff to make sure the buyer is ready and competent to care for the specific species.
- Health & Safety: Like any private business, a shop can refuse to sell a product (including a live animal) if they believe it poses a direct danger to the customer.
This on its own gives businesses enough rights to reasonably refuse a sale if they think the animal poses a risk to health, or if they believe a potential customer is not capable of safely caring for and containing the animal. Now, I know what you’re thinking “maybe they shouldn’t be trying to buy an anaconda” or “who wants to buy a reticulated python anyway”. But I’m thinking a bit more subtle. Smaller animals that you don’t need a licence for, venomous species that can and on occasion do, damage their keepers.
Invertebrates.
Scorpions, spiders, tarantulas and insects. Some of them possessing toxins and venoms that can knock a grown man on his….. bottom.
With crocodilians, venomous snakes, venomous and large lizards (such as Gila monsters and Nile monitors) firmly attached to a DWA (In the UK, a Dangerous Wild Animals (DWA) licence is required to keep reptiles that pose a high risk to human safety), it has to be asked why some of the more dangerous species of invertebrate don’t have any licencing requirements?
- The Sydney funnel-web spider (Atrax robustus) is widely regarded as the world's deadliest spider. Native to eastern Australia, its venom is highly toxic to primates.
You can buy this “bite first, ask questions later” spider ONLINE.
- The Deathstalker (Leiurus quinquestriatus) is universally recognized as the most venomous scorpion in the world. Found throughout the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East, its venom is a potent mix of neurotoxins with an exceptionally high toxicity level that makes its sting potentially life-threatening.
You can buy this happy little chap for less than £100 including delivery.
- The Gooty Sapphire (Poecilotheria metallica) is widely considered the tarantula with the most medically significant venom. Bites from this metallic-blue species—and other "Old World" tarantulas in the Poecilotheria genus—can cause severe muscle cramps, intense joint pain, nausea, and sweating that can last for days.
Ironically, one of the most popular species of tarantula in the world. I owned one myself and had NO IDEA that the venom was so potent.
- And the title of the most venomous insect belongs to the Maricopa harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex maricopa) of the southwestern United States. Its venom is the most toxic by quantity in the animal kingdom, with an LD₅₀ rating of just 0.12 mg/kg.
Yep, this one is for sale too. And with colonies available with multiple queens, they can become a problem.
Being as you can buy all of these species, a collection of invertebrates more toxic than a reptile care group on Facebook, what sort of safeguards are in place to ensure that the person buying is both physically and mentally able to care for them safely? I’ll give you a hint – there are none. There are the usual “are you over 16” checklists to complete and that’s that. Pay your money and away we go. Potentially deadly invertebrates to your door (have I just come up with another business idea…).
This practice was originally pushed by businesses as a smaller, easier to manage and no paperwork needed alternative to large and/or venomous animals.
“Can’t keep the caiman of your dreams? No problem, here’s a scorpion!”
“DWA licencing getting you down? Have a colony of toxic ants that aren’t regulated!”
With the introduction of the internet, it got even easier to potentially envenomate yourself. “Potentially deadly invertebrates to your door…..”
I’m not saying that common sense is no longer as common as originally thought, I’m not saying that there are keepers out there who shouldn’t be trusted with a rock (ok, I AM saying those things) and I’m certainly not saying that there should be airtight regulations, but there should be some kind of “can you realistically care for and maintain this potentially deadly spider SAFELY?”.
More care needs to be taken putting these invertebrates into circulation. During my time in pet shop retail, my colleagues and I had to refuse sale of various different species of tarantula and scorpion to potential buyers as they were –
- Trying to buy a “cool” or “dangerous” animal with no advice on care or husbandry being taken
- More interested in how dangerous the animal was than to how long it could potentially live
- They wanted “the most poisonous” animal they could find
- They had a carer with them who did not look impressed at all.
The last one raises a whole other question entirely, and that is one can of worms I don’t want to open. Yet anyway. But I will say this – If a potential buyer of any even remotely dangerous animal has a carer, the sale should be refused point blank. Someone endangering themselves is one thing, but endangering someone who works with them on a daily basis is reprehensible.
Should there be some kind of vetting for potential keepers – Yes, 100% and only the most selfish and money grabbing of businesses would disagree. Should they be in the form of “positive lists” enforced by pencil pushers and vegan activists within the government? Absolutely not. A hard pass if you will. A couple of facts about positive lists and the collective geniuses behind it –
- A positive list is a list of animals the government permits you to keep. Any species not on the positive list are banned.
- Positive lists are also sometimes known as ‘whitelists’. A blacklist contains things that are banned and everything else is allowed.
Various animal welfare charities (PETA being one – I say no more), veterinary groups, and certain governments have decided that positive lists (which only allow approved species to be kept and ban all others) are needed for herptiles. They argue these lists protect both animals and people. However, reptile keepers and pet trade groups strongly oppose these lists.
If I may take a quote from Responsible Reptile Keeping and their article about positive lists –
“In their 2022 Voice of the Veterinary Profession survey the BVA (the British Veterinary Association) found that 81 per cent of vets were concerned that welfare needs of non-traditional captive animals (NTCAs) were not being met, calling for the imposition of a positive list as a solution. “It’s an interesting perspective, unlike dogs and cats, reptiles rarely visit the vet for vaccinations, flea treatments or injuries, so vets only ever get to see sick reptiles. It’s no wonder they have a skewed perception of reptile keeping – which begs the question, where is the data to support the BVA’s statement about reptile welfare? At the moment it is seemingly based on vets’ subjective opinion rather than statistical data.”
“It should be noted that vets are experts in treating sick animals, not reptile husbandry or welfare. Few vets have specialist training when it comes to treating reptiles, and few have any experience or expertise in reptile care or husbandry. Ask most vets where a reptile comes from, its preferred temperature ranges, its Ferguson Zone needs, or for guidance on how to create a bio-active enclosure and most would be unable to help. It’s uncertain, then, how most vets arrive at a position where they might objectively appraise reptile welfare. “One positive we can take from the BVA policy position is their recognition that education for veterinary professionals needs significant improvement in terms of exotics or non-traditional companion animals,”
And that was made by Chris Newman, the director of The National Centre for Reptile Welfare (NCRW) in Kent and is the world’s largest rehoming facility for reptiles.
Now, before someone writes an angry Facebook post about me trying to gatekeep the hobby (complete with a Minions meme and three paragraphs about freedom of… something), that’s not what I’m saying.
I don’t think keeping unusual animals should become a privilege reserved for zoologists, people with 14 qualifications and a laminated certificate saying they can identify a gecko from twenty paces. Most of us learned because somebody gave us a chance. We started with a corn snake, a leopard gecko, a tarantula in a cricket tub and progressed from there.
But progression is the important word there.
Nobody expects to pass their driving test and immediately be handed the keys to an articulated lorry. Nobody walks into a climbing centre and gets clipped onto the hardest route because “well, I watched a video once”.
Animals should be no different.
Experience matters.
The problem with blanket bans and positive lists is they assume nobody can learn. The problem with completely unrestricted sales is they assume everybody already has.
Both positions are ridiculous.
There is a middle ground and, annoyingly, it’s probably less exciting than either side wants, particularly PETA.
Want to buy a species with medically significant venom? Fine — demonstrate you know what medically significant means.
Want to keep a six-foot green iguana? Fine — show me where it’s going to live.
Want a communal colony of venomous invertebrates? Brilliant — explain to me what happens when one escapes.
This doesn’t need government inspectors with clipboards and a grudge against lizards (assuming they know what a lizard is). Most of this could be done by competent retailers, voluntary accreditation schemes, species-specific husbandry courses and actual education rather than “I watched three YouTube shorts and joined a Facebook group”.
Because here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Most dangerous animals aren’t dangerous because they’re aggressive.
They’re dangerous because they’re unforgiving.
A reticulated python doesn’t care if you’re overconfident.
A scorpion doesn’t care that your mate keeps one.
A venomous spider doesn’t care that you’ve “always wanted one”.
Animals do not negotiate with enthusiasm.
And the animals usually pay the price.
When someone buys something they cannot house, feed, heat, maintain or safely contain, there are only three likely outcomes:
• The animal suffers.
• Somebody gets injured.
• Someone else has to clean up the mess.
Usually, all three. And for some reason, in the west midlands at least, it’s normally Penny and I that have the aforementioned mess to clean.
The vast majority of keepers are good people. They care deeply, research constantly, spend too much money, argue passionately about UV lighting and humidity levels, yet somehow still find room for another enclosure.
But the hobby doesn’t improve by pretending everybody should own everything.
It improves by making sure the right animals go to the right people. And preventing animals going to the wrong people (the ones with the rocks).
Not because they can afford them.
Because they can keep them.
And those are two very different things.
Add comment
Comments