The AWA: Intent The AWA applies to all vertebrate animals in captivity and, in intent, provides a mechanism to protect animals against suffering caused by cruelty or neglect. A person responsible for an animal commits an offence if:

• “he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that his act, or failure to act” would cause unnecessary suffering or be likely to do so, and/or

• “he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal are met to the extent required by good practice”.

In determining if suffering is “unnecessary” the law considers if the suffering could:

• “reasonably have been avoided or reduced” and

• “whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person”.

The AWA, pets and the public In practice, differences between pet species affect how well the AWA can provide protection, illustrated here by comparing dogs and reptiles: For action to be taken in law, a case has to be:

• Seen by somebody likely to report it

•  Most pet dogs are regularly seen by the public.

* Most pet reptiles are out of public sight in bedrooms, living rooms or gardens.

• Recognised to be suffering

•  Members of the public are far better at recognising illness, malnutrition or stress in dogs than in reptiles, and

* More likely to recognise or believe that a dog, than a reptile, with such ailments is suffering because of them; people have more empathy for dogs than for reptiles.

• Cared about enough by the observer to be reported

•  People care about dogs more than they do reptiles and perceive dogs to be more important – as having more moral worth – than reptiles (the ‘sociozoologic scale’).

* Unnecessary suffering in a dog is perceived to be a greater moral wrong than in a reptile.

And, if suffering is caused by neglect, the case is more likely to be reported if the owner is not just at fault, but seen to be at fault, for that suffering. Such fault is often far more apparent for a dog than a reptile because:

• It is much easier to fully provide a dog’s health needs than a reptile’s, and

• The public have a much greater understanding of what is required to do so for a dog, than for most reptile species.

When poor welfare is not reported, the AWA fails in its intent.

Exotic pets, vets and the AWA… the elephant in the consult room

Exotics vets are regularly presented with reptiles suffering from severe illnesses caused by inadequate husbandry. The pets’ owners have acted, or failed to act, so as to cause unnecessary suffering by failing to meet the animals’ needs. Vets recognise the illnesses and (presumably) the suffering, and (presumably) care about the animals, but they don’t report, under the AWA, even those cases needing immediate euthanasia. Why not? Is it because vets do not want to lose clients, are too busy, or do not see the animals as ‘worth it’? I believe the main reason is that vets do not perceive the owners to be culpable, instead seeing them as being just ‘technically guilty’ of neglect. Most owners in these cases have committed unintentional neglect, not wilful neglect – many have followed care-sheet, pet shop and internet advice – they have acted reasonably in trying to keep their pet reptile well, but still failed in that aim. And if owners have acted reasonably, even though their pets suffer unnecessarily, they may not be found guilty, or even be considered suitable for prosecution, under the AWA.

• Owners of solitary rabbits or parrots are not prosecuted either. When animals suffer unnecessarily, but owners are not at fault in law, the AWA fails in its intent.

Take home message The AWA fails to adequately protect the welfare of pet reptiles.

Species differences in welfare provision Most people try to keep their pets well. But it is much harder to keep a reptile than, for example, a dog well in the UK:

• Dogs are adapted to the UK’s climate, reptiles are maladapted.

• Dogs are domesticated (adapted to living with humans), reptiles are not.

• Most pet reptiles need to be much more confined than typical pet dogs – reptiles are more ‘captive’.

• Most people have the required skills and understanding (‘common knowledge’) to keep dogs, but not reptiles, well.

• Welfare needs of some pet reptile species are not fully known.

• Owners have much easier access to reliable husbandry information for dogs than for reptiles.

• The UK has much better infrastructure for keeping dogs than reptiles, e.g., easy availability of appropriate food and vet care.

• Dog owners easily recognise serious illness or welfare problems, reptile owners often do not.

• Greater ‘social pressure’ to do it right for dogs than for reptiles.

Unintentional neglect Because reptiles are harder to keep well than dogs, serious welfare problems caused by unintentional neglect are far more common in reptiles than in dogs:

• Unlike dogs, reptiles frequently become severely ill or die young due to unintentional husbandry problems.

Prosecution is more difficult in the absence of intent to harm:

The AWA performs poorly in cases of suffering caused by unintentional neglect rather than wilful (intentional) neglect.