Added 20 May 2001
Needless to say, I was not the only person angered by Warwick's shoddy article. A good number of other responsible herpetoculturists and hobbyists also felt strongly about it and made their views clear to BBC Wildlife Magazine.
Two letters were published in the April 2001 issue refuting Warwick's views politely but firmly.
Finally we received a copy of the much-heralded May issue, in which nearly the entire letters page was devoted to correspondence for and against Warwick's article. That the editors of the magazine had realised a hornet's nest had been stirred up was clear by the way they sniffily mentioned that
Many came from people alerted to the article by through a website run by reptile hobbyists.
as if we were all sheep needing to be pointed at the wolf rather than independent thinkers who could spot a bunch of poor arguments (in this form, a mile off). Is there an element of double standards here? Don't animal rights people bombard their targets with E-mails and a letters if they think there is an abuse to be investigated? And did they imagine that they wouldn't have had the same reaction from any other group, eg horse trainers or pony riders, if a similarly critical article had been placed, having been lauded by the editor? There was indeed some liaison between a number of us, although not to the degree implicitly suggested by the letters page, and mainly because we took Catrina Steedman's veiled threats of legal action perhaps more seriously than we should have.
First, the letters.
There were three letters supporting the Warwick article. One was from Dr Angelo Lambiris of the University of Durban-Westville, who to my astonishment called the article "perhaps the most objective, fair and constructive account of the reptile trade that I have read". Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of keeping reptiles, an unbiased reader could hardly call the tone of Warwick's article "objective", "fair" or "constructive". If Dr Lambiris really does intend to make the article prescribed reading for his veterinary herpetology course, then one wonders what else he is going to ask them to read.
Apart from this one academic, there was the usual selection of animal rights philosopy bubbling to the surface. Kristin Beach of Ontario, Canada, claimed that "Exploitation of any creature for profit is wrong...", thus in that one phrase encapsulating the entire AR perspective, namely that animals should not be exploited. If she is not a vegetarian, has she stopped to consider that meat is exploitation of an animal for profit? If she has signed up to the whole AR agenda as evinced by the likes of PETA, then at least she is being consistent. Since however nobody gives dogs, cats or any other animal away for nothing (unless of course they're trying to get rid of them), Ms Beach's world would presumably be one without any pets or human-animal relationships of any sort.
Myrna Forrester of Aberdeen sank to the level of ad hominem arguments by claiming "I suspect that those people who buy exotic pets are suffering from a personality deficiency for which they hope to compensate with the acquisition of a rare and interesting animal." In true anti fashion she adds "It is regrettable that the government does not ban this trade, which creates so much misery for so many reptiles." Of course there will be always be a few immature people who want to make themselves feel big by buying a snake, just as there are some inadequate people who look for a cause like animal rights to sign up to to try to find a purpose in life. Neither of these cases invalidates the arguments either way. Unfortunately people like Myrna (who I suspect has no knowledge of reptile keeping other than what she has read via Mr Warwick) see life in simplistic, black and white terms. Is there a problem? - let's ban it. So simple!
Five of the letters were against Warwick. The longest, from Simon King of King's Reptile World, refuted some of Mr Warwick's arguments and also raised questions about his claim that the pet trade was the biggest drain on wild populations, something we also queried in these pages. King's letter is worth reproducing here in full:
"I would question Clifford Warwick's assertion that 90 to 95 per cent of reptiles destined for the pet trade are wild-caught. My current stock contains 10 per cent of originally wild caught animals. I breed approximately 30 per cent of my own stock, and the rest I buy from reputable UK, Dutch and German breeders. The trade in wild animals has dropped by 40 per cent in the past five years, shipments are licensed by the Department of the Environment and figures can be easily checked out.
Stating that abnormal behaviour is prevalent in all captive reptiles is misleading. Some wild-caught species can be nervous and flighty, but recent trends suggest that many of these are no longer imported because of the wide availability of calm, captive-bred individuals. If these animals were physically and psychologically stressed, none of them would show any interest in breeding. But as more species are being captive-bred now than ever, there is less need for wild animals.
Finally, Mr Warwick claims that the trade in pets is the biggest drain on wild populations. What about the skin-trade? Or the collection of reptiles and amphibians in the Far East for spurious medicinal purposes? Does habitat loss not register as a major reason for wild populations dying out? Species are being lost before they've even been discovered.
I agree that there are unscrupulous dealers who don't give a damn for their animals; they should be rooted out. I would also be in favour of a stricter selection process, whereby prospective herpetological outlets would have to show both proficiency and knowledge in order to obtain permission to trade."
Gordon Glasson's letter was quite pithy:
"Clifford Warwick confuses a small amount of illegal smuggling with the controlled and government-regulated side of the industry, as well as suggesting that the pet-shop keepers, herpetological societies and experts are often one and the same as the animal traffickers. He also belittles the work being done by hobbyists to produce large numbers of healthy, well-adjusted, long-lived, captive-bred animals. Has he ever stopped to think that his hatred of the hobby is clouding his judgement?"
Lee Holdaway in his letter attacked Warwick's allies, the Captive Animals Protection Society, for calling the captive-breeding programmes in zoos a "conservation con". This really raises an important question: is Clifford Warwick so wedded to the concept of animal rights (as CAPS are) that they cannot accept any argument or proof for the validity of keeping animals?
L Searl rejected the claim by Warwick that reptiles are "impossible to care for properly" and pointed out that while they are difficult, so are horses, tropical fish and other commonly kept animals. He added the common sense suggestion that anyone wishing to keep one should read up on their chosen species beforehand.
My own letter covered some of the ground in the previous article, concentrating mainly on the exaggerated danger of salmonellosis and Mr Warwick's extremely dubious claim for short-lived reptilian lives in captivity.
Warwick's reply, far from being the "merciless" attack that Catrina Steedman had promised on his opponents, turned out to be a rather damp squib and feeble reiteration of unsupported assertions. Briefly, he made four assertions:
Showing that he has lost none of his acidity, however, he concluded unrepentantly: "Believing reptiles can be kept properly in glass boxes is a fool's game." Thus in this final sentence he succeeded in displaying only his anger, rather than any coherent or persuasive argument.
Clifford Warwick may well be unrepentant, but he also remains
entirely unconvincing. Until he can show a better, more balanced attitude and
return to some of the proper research work that he was once known for, CAPS
and Animal Aid are welcome to him.
The BBC seem to have modified their stance somewhat given the
strength of feeling from the herpetological hobby and trade. Recently they added
an exotic pets forum to their debating boards on their website, which often
contains lively debate about the pros and cons. While I have been critical of
BBC Wildlife's promotion of Clifford Warwick's article on these pages, and especially
of Rosamund Kidman Cox, I would like to thank
the BBC for including this chance for those of us who keep reptiles and amphibians
to express our points of view.
Back to Clifford Warwick's article | Back
to Issues | Back to Herpetology | Back
to Home Page