Added 13 March 2001

The forum for

Panorama's "Animal Underworld"

on the BBC website

Broadcast: 25 February 2001

 

Introduction

What follows is a selection of some (if not many!) of the contributions made to the debate on the BBC forum about Panorama's documentary on smuggled wildlife and the issues it raised.

Readers will inevitably notice that my own view is that of pro-herpetology and pro-hobbyist. I make no apologies for that, but I respect other people's views and can understand why some oppose the reptile trade. All the remarks have been copied verbatim from the site and are unedited. I have not quoted names in order to score points but simply as a reference should you wish to go back and check the quote is true. While I have made my disagreement, especially with a few contributors, quite open, I don't know any of them personally and my criticism of some of the remarks is just that - criticism of the remarks. They may be outstanding people in many respects and I wish no ill to any of them. My purpose in including some of the contributions is simply to deal with points raised by them or in some cases to illustrate a certain (and to my mind, regrettable) way of thinking. To that end I apologise if I have inadvertently caused any offence, but then I didn't make these words up, you contributed them!


The Forum

Needless to say both sides of the argument were present in numbers to defend their point of view, but some offered more constructive views than others. Although nobody probably expected to change anybody's views, there were a few surprises, like this one:

"As someone who has collected reptiles and other exotics it makes me feel incredibly depressed to realise I have probably purchased livestock from Sullivan. I am now wholly in favour of a blanket ban on the import of exotics animals." (Andrew Grimm Edinburgh).

Quite how Mr Grimm suspected he had purchased livestock from Sullivan is not clear. Mike Gorski of Manchester raised the following very valid point about uncontrolled collecting:

"I was angry with Sullivan and his attitude. Does he realise or even care about the impact he and others like him are having on these balanced ecosystems, I don't think he does. Removing animals that keep insect populations down will lead to an explosion in insect populations. The end product of this madness could end in crop and vegetation destruction by increased insect population. Governments should put a blockade on all wild animal exports."

Also some people were careful to differ between clamping down on the illegal trade and a blanket ban.

"Well done Panorama and Tom Mangold for exposing in depth the illegal trade in endangered reptiles, which I long suspected had links with organised smuggling mafias worldwide. These people do not seem to care that they are depleting the world of irreplaceable species that can never be re-introduced or bred in sufficient numbers in captivity to restock the areas so depleted. The fines for those convicted should be increased substantially, and the trade would collapse overnight if stricter licensing was introduced not only for legitimate dealers but also for the public, and much better knowledge of the trade issued to customs around the world". (Robert, Crawley).

With reference to the above, the trade would certainly not collapse overnight - Robert, although expressing reasonable sentiments and good sense, probably does not realise that the most common pet reptiles (with the exception, unfortunately, of the Green Iguana) are now bred almost entirely in captivity (leopard geckos, corn snakes, bearded dragons and some water dragons). In the UK virtually all European tortoise species (Testudo sp.) with the possible exception of the Horsfield's Tortoise are likewise painstakingly captive bred, thanks largely to CITES and EC regulation. Thus a combination of legislation and genuine care and interest in these reptiles has improved the situation, but the trade has in fact probably increased - not a bad thing in the case of the leopard geckos, bearded dragons and corn snakes, since these are actually less difficult to keep properly than many wild-caught species.

Mark B of Leicester made the following point in relation to collecting and the reptile trade:

"Whilst I agree that most COMMERCIAL importation of wild animals is abhorrent it must be remembered that only a small amount of damage to 'common' species is caused by this. Human growth is the main killer of wildlife. There are many suitable captive bred animals available that a total ban on COMMERCIAL importation of WILD reptiles should be put in place immediately."

Quite a fair point, although sustainable collecting and a system of quotas would be the better way if enforced properly, as then local human populations would have a stake in keeping the habitats in good order (even if it meant leaving them alone!) rather than shrugging their shoulders and evicting the now commercially-valueless reptiles with more economically viable slash-and-burn agriculture.

Not everybody seemed to grasp that importing or keeping reptiles is not the same as introducing an alien species into a country. Sharon Kelly of Belfast wrote:

"Congratulations on a brilliant programme! Why are any kinds of snakes, etc allowed to be kept as domestic pets in the UK? Surely if a country like New Zealand can prevent these types of creatures from being imported - why can't we? A sugar cane toad was introduced to Australia as a means of pest control. They were not a native species, but they adapted well - now they're out of control and through a poisonous patch on their bodies they are killing many links in the animal kingdom. Do we want the same thing to happen here?"

I don't know of anybody who has been releasing green iguanas or royal pythons as a means of pest control in Belfast but if I do, don't worry, Sharon, we'll let you know! Perhaps Jack Straw could release some large Burmese and Reticulated Pythons from wildlife shelters as a means of controlling the criminal element?

Naturally, there were a few of the morally outraged, knee-jerk reactions such as the following:

"I was disgusted with the attitude of Sullivan and the other importers/exporters of the reptiles of the world. They will undoubtedly lead towards the extinction of many of these species. However I was even more disgusted by the people who buy and keep these creatures at home as pets, if there was no demand there would be no importers. Even more worrying was the attitude of the young lad featured at the end of the programme - with people such as this then no wild creature is safe from extinction. There should be legislation to prevent people keeping such creatures. Finally I am disgusted that airlines still allow animals to be carried in their aircraft. A list of the airlines allowing such, should be published, so we can boycott them." (John Price-Stephens, Northampton )

For sheer chutzpah (some might say blind narrow-minded stupidity), the following by P Freeme of Newcastle takes the biscuit:

"It beggars belief that so called educated people find it necessary to make pets of wild animals, encouraging the destruction of species and the eco system, and ultimately our planet. I would suggest that the easiest way to stop trafficking in wild animals is a complete ban on the keeping of any wild animal. These are WILD animals, there are enough domesticated pets in RSPCA compounds to satisfy the needs of so called pet lovers, not the removal of wild animals from their natural environment to a hostile environment and ultimate death. How would these so called pet lovers like to be kept in a box for the rest of their life when they had been used to being free, frankly it appals me."

P Freeme seems to miss several points: (a) every domestic pet species was a wild species once: (b) so-called domesticated pets, such as rabbits and rodents, are also kept in "boxes" for the rest of their lives: (c) a person being interested in reptiles is unlikely to have their desire for such a pet extinguished by being offered a dog or cat instead (which interestingly enough are filling RSPCA compounds to overflowing in the UK - bad reptile keepers are in good company with other animal lovers here). But why let rational considerations stand in the way of a good bit of moral outrage?

A similar outburst came from Phil Reeves (who actually contributed twice, this is the second remark):

"I've never wanted to slap people more than I did when I saw those evil ignorant people engaged in this horrifying trade & the sheer disgust I felt for the "collectors" - well ,words can't say enough-we need to show them that what they are doing is evil & disgusting."

K Trueman of Medway also leapt in feet first with an obvious lack of any knowledge of the issues involved and also displayed the mentality of some abolitionists:

"I was disgusted by the Animal Underworld programme. Well done to the BBC for bringing the business of reptile exporting to the forefront but there must be something else you can do! Why not start a petition calling for the keeping of reptiles to be banned except by approved zoos and conservation groups. Why would any sane person want to keep a wild animal (either imported or captive bred) in a glass tank to be gawped at occasionally like a freak show exhibit. These people only think of themselves and what they want, they do not consider the miserable life these creatures endure. People should write to Tony Blair urging him to ban the keeping of ALL exotic pets."

Presumably, given the logic of the above, K Trueman would also want fish keeping banned and the keeping of rabbits in hutches and hamsters in cages strictly prohibited.

Liam Tannam of Molesey has at least done some research into the problems of reptiles in captivity:

"The programme failed to mention that the problems for the animals only really begins after the creatures are sold in the pet shops. Most will die within a few months because the stress of being caught and transported. More often than not the creatures are simply not able to adapt to captivity and most importantly the "end user" kills the animals by not feeding the correct diet, lack of sunlight and keeping the animal in the wrong conditions, overcrowding etc. Would it not be easier just to ban this repulsive trade altogether? Back in the eighties the Tory Government banned in import of wild caught birds. Why can't the same be done with reptiles, amphibians, insects, spiders and even fish. If we are truly humane we would offer these creatures the same protection that we offer or try to offer our cats, dogs, horses and livestock."

Note the blanket ban called for - no tightening up of legislation, no emphasis on better educating potential owners or even helpful suggestions such as licensing, simply a blanket ban. How simple! In fact many reptile, amphibian, invertebrate and fish keepers offer their animals at least as much care and protection, and dare I say love, as those who keep cats and dogs - and often better.

The Captive Animals Protection Society also contributed - twice. First, the contribution from the Captive Animals Protection Society, Birmingham:

"I have read the letters in the Forum with great interest. When the Captive Animals Protection Society began to look at the reptile fayres issue here in the UK three years ago, we would always, without question, find animals in containers marked WC or wild caught. Since our expose of the reptile fayre business, we have noticed that no sellers at fayres are now labelling their animals wild caught, yet in conversation we have learned that some wild caught animals are being sold as captive bred. Some are labelled long term captive - in other words wild caught. We believe that reptile fayres are illegal under the Pet Animals Act, may be a threat to public health due to salmonella but more importantly, we believe that the reptiles' welfare is compromised. Animals are frequently handled sometimes roughly as we have witnessed and have to endure conditions where it is difficult to provide heating lighting and the humidity suited to their needs. Also, we have filmed snakes being sold and supplied to customers in plastic bags. A sick tortoise was sold at one fayre, I could go on. If there is anyone reading this who is still determined to keep reptiles as pets, please contact your local reptile rescues."

And then the contribution from Diane Westwood, of Birmingham, who just happens to have the same name and same area as Diane Westwood, head of the Captive Animals Protection Society, Dudley:

"I thought this was an excellent programme. The suffering and abuse of reptiles is a neglected issue. Here in the UK we have reptile fairs, and having spoken to dealers our investigators discovered wild caught reptiles being sold as captive bred right here in the UK. I hope that those involved in the reptile trade are dealt with severely. Jail sentences should be on an equal par to drugs trafficking. Congratulations Panorama for bringing this issue to the public's attention."

Actually, both comments were reasonably moderate given the normal stance that CAPS takes, and it is hard to imagine that this is the Ms Diane Westwood who heads CAPS and actually refused an online debate with members of the herpetological fraternity (and sorority!) a few months ago on the grounds that she was constantly being "misrepresented" by the reptile keepers.

Robert Gritton of Althorne said this:

"I was absolutely horrified that people are just so stupidly arrogant. For example the young man who was a collector of exotic animals, which should mean he cares for these animals and would like to see them doing well in their natural habitat, instead of being kept in tiny glass tanks in his shed. If some of these so called animal lovers actually realised what they were doing by purchasing an illegally imported animal, what suffering and inhumane treatment these animals get, then the demand for exotic breeds will go down. If there wasn't a demand for these animals in the first place then they wouldn't be taken out of the wild for these reasons. I think education is the way forward so that people understand that if they take these animals out of the wild they will disappear forever. I know I would hate to have helped to contribute to the extinction of a species, and I would like to think that most other people would feel the same way especially people wanting these types of animals. Do they really want that resting on their conscience? I know I wouldn't."

Again, Mr Gritton fails to grasp the fact that many exotics are captive-bred and (rather patronisingly) calls for education, as if reptile keepers were incapable of grasping the issues. (A few are, but we disown them). He also fails to realise that most people who have no direct involvement with a species have only the faintest concern for its survival in the wild unless it is one of the charismatic few such as the elephant, tiger or Komodo Dragon. My own concern for conservation actually increased dramatically once I started reading about reptiles and began keeping them, and I suspect that such is the case for many other herp people.

A similar attitude was displayed by Judith Baker of Worthing:

"We need to target the end user. Why don't animal charities try harder to educate people. How about using Blue Peter, Newsround etc to explain the damage caused by keeping exotic pets. I have complained several times during features on keeping exotic pets, while programmes are running, that no warnings are given about depletion of wild animals. No comments are ever related on the programme. Producers don't want their programmes spoilt by unpleasant reality."

Animal charities do in fact try hard to educate people. I know I have been critical of the RSPCA in the past, but I think their warnings on the potential difficulties of keeping exotics ("Will you still love me tomorrow?" over a picture of a very large green iguana) was spot on if it made people think before rushing in. Ms Baker however fails to distinguish between those "exotic" species which are actually keepable and do well in captivity, and those which are not and do not, and wishes for some sort of Ministry of Information public newsreel campaign. The warnings about depletions of wild animals probably do not occur for the reason that many exotics are captive bred, as I have pointed out elsewhere on this page.

Top marks for showing the appropriate humour to the subject being debated go to Bagus Hendrajana of Manchester:

"You took my forest for your toilet roll, you took my culture for your mtv, you took my food for your McDonalds, you took my oil for your car. Please don't take my komodo."

Herpetoculturists and hobbyists contributed to the debate, mainly constructively. Anon of Manchester commented on the strange choice of keeper for the programme:

"Why was there no mention of the positive side to herpetology? For example the fact that many species of reptile are on the brink of extinction, if not for man's intervention in preserving such species in captivity. Why was the editing done in such a way that the young lad was made to sound like he would not stop collecting until there was nothing left to collect. Absolutely shameful of the BBC and they knew exactly want their were doing. This was made to look totally out of context. What the lad was actually referring to was that he wanted to add to his collection. This was made to seem like he was speaking about and defending the collecting of the entire world's stock of wild snakes. Why I wonder did they choose to use such a young and obviously inexperienced keeper for the programme. Surely it would have been more balanced if someone more knowledgeable and experienced would have been better overall. Seems to me the use of the young lad was a very clever move and somewhat underhanded. When will we see a programme that gives the positive side of herpetology? - Never and the reason is simple, all the media is interested in is hype, scandal and ratings these days. That is why when we do see Reptile related programmes, it's only sensational things."

A bit of a harsh criticism of Panorama, although I agreed with him about choosing the young man. E. Essex of Chelmsford was obviously annoyed at some of the remarks on the forum, but made some good points:

"As I suspected the programme has bought out, on this forum, the know nothing, ban everything brigade. All as usual, totally missing the point of this brilliant programme, showing what is being done to stop the bad guys. They would do well to listen to the Stuart Chapman webcast interview. He said that the WWF are in favour of some reptile and amphibian collecting. If the local people can make a living from this, in a sustainable way, they will look after their forests. If they cannot make a living from the collection of wild animals, they will just level the forest and plant crops - really good for bio-diversity? Too many of these people are listening to the lies and propaganda put out by certain groups, whose only point in existing is to stop everything to do with animals (perhaps a Panorama investigation into the activities of these groups would be interesting!). A final thought - what should we do, with all the exotic animals in this country, if the keeping of them is made illegal? This would mean putting to death of perfectly healthy, happy, long lived animals, mostly captive bred. Although this would only be a small number of deaths compared to the estimated 275,000,000 small mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians killed in the UK by the pet cats that so many of these people seem to own."

Andy of Cornwall also bemoaned what he saw as sensationalism:

"A hard hitting and shocking documentary made even sadder by the fact that those creatures torn from the wild can be captively propagated from animals already held around the world. There is also a good side to the hobby with many people taking excellent care of their charges and learning valuable lessons that can be applied to captive breeding of many endangered species. In some cases holding valuable, or even the only, genetic links to fast disappearing wild stocks destroyed more often for food and because of habitat loss. Soon all we may have are the captive ones, hopefully once we can sort out our destructive natures we can return some of them to where they belong and with the knowledge we have gained give them a better chance of continuing in the wild. Not all people who keep herps are mad collectors that will ravage whole jungles to slake their thirst - some only keep captively bred animals in ideal conditions and aim to breed them further so reducing the need for wild collection to an absolute minimum. This is a very emotive subject - it would be nice just once to have a balanced point of view put across and not to just pander to the sensationalist side for a "good" story - nowadays you can find a sensational side to just about anything. This attitude is more suited to the "Sun" than the BBC."

.... as did Shaun:

"This programme had good information but why did it not cover the problem in the UK? Once again there are people calling for the ban on reptiles but if it was not for some caring individuals, snakes like the round island boa would have gone by now. If people feel so strongly about the way animals are kept, why do so many of them keep dogs and cats. Were they always domesticated? - no. I'm not saying that reptiles should be but with man's destruction of their habitat who will help keep them going. No one is calling for the ban of cats and dogs but yet dogs do more damage and breeds such as the pit bull are still being imported which have hurt children and adults alike but yet people can keep them with no worry that someone will come and take their animals away. Give us a chance to prove that we are not all bad - why not do a programme on us who care for them properly and bred them at home?"

Of course, with reference to the pit bull problem mentioned above, the fiasco that followed the rushed legislation that became the Dangerous Dogs Act should make anyone wary of calling for rapid legislation overnight.

Another message from Anonymous made useful mention of proof of captive-bred origin:

"I found the programme to be very interesting, however I would like to comment on a message sent by A.C. Meen from Suffolk. How can someone be so gullible to believe that green iguanas are captive bred? Green iguanas are captive farmed in South America, parts of the jungle are sectioned off into areas where mass production is used, much to the same aspect of battery farmed hens! Maybe the consumer should do their homework before making such a purchase. How they believe that the vivarium provided is of adequate size, compared to the jungle they were taken from is beyond me, wake up and smell the coffee. There are many unscrupulous dealers in our country who are in this trade for their own greed and gain but there are true herpetologists who just have the love of the reptiles at heart. People who buy reptiles would do well to read up about the animal before they buy them, thus educating themselves beforehand. Many dealers in this country would sell a wild caught reptile as a captive bred animal, to the untrained eye you could be easily fooled. Ask for paperwork as proof of birth, all captive bred animals should have them!"

David Bird of Poole, Dorset, also raised his eyebrows about the caiman and Peter Heathcote:

"I would like to know why the programme was so one sided and misleading, it gave the impression that all reptiles being kept are smuggled which is not the case, most that were shown were captive bred or of species usually imported legally. Why was Peter Heathcote allowed to handle the Caiman in a totally crass way, this is not the method to use on such a small specimen which seemed to result in a damaged mouth. Why did the programme allow rubbish about this specimen being lethal and being worth vast sums of money to be broadcast?"

...while poor young Jason Miller came in (understandably) for some stick, as from Deborah Webster of Aberdeenshire:

"I thought this programme was excellent, it highlighted the need for greater changes in the laws on importing and exporting wild caught and endangered reptiles. It also showed that there has to be changes in the justice system and the penalties given to smugglers/dealers of illegal reptiles. I would also like to say that the majority of reptile keepers are dedicated to the health and well being of their animals and have made sure that the reptiles they keep are captive bred. I was disgusted at the young boy who said that he would keep collecting reptiles and snakes until there was nothing left to collect. He is not a responsible reptile keeper and it is people like him that will keep the illegal trade going. He does not do any justice for the many people out there including myself that keep reptiles and are dedicated to protecting reptile species."

Caswell Palmer of Norfolk also made good points:

"The trade in living creatures is an emotive subject. Your programme showed the potential damage in taking animals from their habitat and the few unscrupulous individuals who trade in C.I.T.E.S appendix 1 & 2 animals without the correct import/export paperwork. I agree this is totally unacceptable and deplorable, especially in cases where the conservation of a particular species is threatened by such greed-induced motives e.g. the Madagascar Tortoise featured. Unfortunately this is just another example of the human species disregard for the Earth's fauna in favour of a better life for the individual. When dealing with emotive subjects I believe it necessary to show both sides of the coin. What your programme neglected to show is how the 'end user' (a rather unjust description of the average Herpetologist) contributes to species survival. One of the featured snakes was the Madagascar tree boa, which is now captive bred in the hobby and sells for around ?800. This snake would be in the same endangered state in the wild if left untouched, due to habitat destruction. The Hog island boa would be extinct today if it wasn't for the captive specimens, kept and successfully bred by private herpetologists. Again due to habitat destruction. The list is extensive."

So did Chris Newman, editor of Reptilian Magazine, although I felt he was a bit harsh on the actual documentary itself:

"The number of wild reptiles & amphibians taken for the pet trade represents less than 1% of animals removed from the wild for the food and skin trade each year. This figure does not include the animals lost by habitat destruction and pollution, which in Europe alone counts for many millions of animals. Much of what was reported in the programme concerning the trade in smuggling wild animals was grossly exaggerated, as were the prices suggested. For example, £100,000 for a broad-snouted caiman, is quite ridiculous. It is also nothing short of scandalous to suggest that an animal of that size was 'lethal'. I noted that you also did not give too much detail regarding some of the cases. In one of the cases in the USA one of the persons was jailed partly for importing (or rather smuggling) 40 live red tegu lizards, which are, according to Fish & Wildlife, a highly endangered species. No one seemed interested that the quota for skins for that 'highly endangered species' for that year was 1,000,000 from Argentina alone. This figure makes the 40 live animals pale into insignificance. I am not trying to defend the indefensible, but it is a great pity that Panorama chose to sensationalise the issues in this programme, rather than offering a fair and objective view. Yes, smuggling of live reptiles and amphibians is a problem, but in comparison to the volumes consumed by the food & skin trade, the numbers are simply not significant. Finally, why did the programme not point out that in fact world wide the trade in wild-caught reptiles and amphibians has been steadily declining over the past 3 or 4 years. Indeed, in the UK imports have declined by about 40% since 1998. I was deeply disappointed that a programme such as Panorama chose to make such a biased and unbalanced programme."

Further reasonable remarks came from Lucie Mann:

"I am very disappointed at the angle this programme took. The footage of the reptile shows, filmed in the USA (we don't have any that big in this country) showed captive bred babies, colour morhps ( you don't get wild albino burmese pythons!) And although I do not have experience of the trade in the states, I do know that the most of the reptiles available in this country are captive bred. I feel that this programme has done nothing but give a misleading and biased view of reptile keeping in Britain today. I would like to know if you intend to do a programme about how private breeders are helping to redress the balance and help develop captive breeding programmes, often doing better than cash strapped zoos."

and Jason Hamp of Northampton:

"An interesting programme, but as a reptile keeper and fur allergy sufferer, I feel that not enough was said about the fact that most reptile keepers and dealers buy animals that are captive bred. I find it quite worrying as this type of programme will only fuel the ill informed and could cause serious problems to honest and caring keepers and breeders in the UK. I feel this hobby has enough bad press from scaremongering journalists and this programme can only damage the hobby."

Carl Hussey of Loggerheads perhaps summed up what everyone felt in these few words:

"I was disturbed by the Panorama programme and often wonder if we have passed the point of no return in terms of animal extinctions and environmental degradation. It is such a shame that our beautiful, diverse and unique planet is being destroyed by a greedy few. I wish you well in your work to combat and hopefully reverse this worrying trend."


Back to Panorama "Animal Underworld | Back to Issues | Back to Herpetology | Back to Home Page