Turning Negatives into Positives for Pet Trading and Keeping: A Review of Positive Lists

Abstract

The trading and keeping of exotic pets are associated with animal welfare, conservation, environmental protection, agricultural animal health, and public health concerns and present serious regulatory challenges to legislators and enforcers. Most legislation concerning exotic pet trading and keeping involves restricting or banning problematic species, a practice known as “negative listing”. However, an alternative approach adopted by some governments permits only the keeping of animals that meet certain scientifically proven criteria as suitable in respect of species, environmental, and public health and safety protections. We conducted an evaluation of positive lists for the regulation of pet trading and keeping within the context of the more prevalent system of restricting or prohibiting species via negative lists. Our examination of international, national, and regional regulations in Europe, the United States, and Canada found that criteria used for the development of both negative and positive lists were inconsistent or non-specific. Our online surveys of governments received limited responses, although telephone interviews with officials from governments either considering or developing positive lists provided useful insights into their attitudes and motivations towards adopting positive lists. We discuss key issues raised by civil servants including perceived advantages of positive lists and anticipated challenges when developing lists of suitable species. In addition, we compare functions of negative and positive lists, and recommend key principles that we hope will be helpful to governments concerning development and implementation of regulations based on positive lists.

Pet Reptiles—Are We Meeting Their Needs?

“…Conservative estimates indicate that approximately 8 million reptiles are kept as pets in the European Union [8]. However, the number of animals traded to allow this number of pets may exceed 24 million, given the reported first-year mortality estimates in homes that range from 3.6% [9] to 75% [10].…”

Can Animals Be the Key to the Development of Tourism: A Case Study of Livestock in Agritourism

“…According to the farmers participating in our survey, an interesting measure from the point of view of guests visiting agritourism operators would be to introduce exotic animals to the livestock (e.g., alpacas, llamas). However, when it comes to maintaining local biodiversity and agritourism objectives, keeping exotic animals on farms seems questionable [ 93 ]. Exotic animals are certainly a factor that increases the attractiveness of the farm’s offering; however, agritourism activities carried out on sustainable farms, where traditional crops are grown and animals typical of the region are kept, are of great importance to become an opportunity for guests to learn about the agricultural culture of the region [ 80 , 85 , 92 ].…”

Wildlife-pet markets in a one-health context

“…This disproportionality of representative weight reflects a paradigm responsible for historical and current inaction to resolve global issues with serious problematic outcomes and extensive amelioratory costs. A major paradigmatic shift is warranted in which precautionary principles constitute the mainstay of government actions, inferring that wildlife exploitative practices are barred until or unless independently and scientifically verified as possessing low or no negative impacts [214]. This precautionary principle of operation is enshrined in the concept of "positive lists" (also known as "green lists," "reverse lists" or "white lists") that provide the normal foundation for almost all accepted responsible commercial and other practices (e.g., medicine, dentistry, drug development, pilotage, vehicle or vessel safety, and construction) and have been demonstrated to be effective and economic measures for regulating wild animals in captivity [214].…”