On the Record: An Analysis of Exotic Pet Licences in the UK

Simple Summary

In the UK, owning wild animals as exotic pets has become a popular habit in recent decades, but information on the scale of the trade and the diversity of animals involved is lacking. We summarised the licensed sale of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals as exotic pets in the UK, identifying geographical hotspots of trader activity, data gaps, and compliance issues related to this trade. We found that the maximum numbers of exotic pets permitted for sale included 54,634 amphibians, 64,810 reptiles, 23,507 birds, and 6479 mammals, and nearly 2000 pet traders located in 283 different local authority areas had permission to sell exotic pets in 2019. Given the scope and scale of the industry at this point in time, our study highlights compliance issues of concern, and draws attention to the lack of detailed information held on UK pet shop licences, all of which have the potential to hinder efforts to safeguard animal welfare.

Abstract

Keeping exotic pets has become a popular habit in the UK in recent decades. Yet, information on the current scale of the trade and the diversity of animals involved is lacking. Here, we review the licensed sale of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals as exotic pets in the UK, identifying current geographical hotspots of trader activity, data gaps, and compliance issues related to this trade. In terms of trade volume, records showed large numbers of individual wild animals, across a wide range of species groups, are being legally sold in the UK. Maximum numbers of exotic pets permitted for sale included 54,634 amphibians, 64,810 reptiles, 23,507 birds, and 6479 mammals. Moreover, nearly 2000 pet traders located in 283 different local authority areas had permission to sell exotic pets. The scope and scale of the trade draws additional attention to the substantial animal welfare challenges associated with it, and our review serves to highlight several shortcomings associated with the licensed exotic pet trade in the UK. Pet shop licences often lacked detailed information about the specific type and number of animals permitted for sale, which raises compliance concerns and hinders efforts to carry out adequate inspection and monitoring. Ninety-five pet traders in England had been given a one star rating, indicating ‘minor failings’ in animal welfare, and some local authorities in England were still operating under the old Pet Animals Act (1951). We recommend that resources should be prioritised and focused towards local authorities in England that are not operating under the new Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations (2018), and that local authorities should improve data reporting on all licenses issued to aid inspection and monitoring.

1. Introduction

Keeping wild (i.e., non-domesticated) animals as exotic pets has become increasingly popular across the world in recent decades [1,2,3,4,5] and is a major driver of the global wildlife trade [1,6]. In the UK, the exotic pet market is particularly prevalent [7,8,9]. While specific figures remain uncertain, recent data indicates that millions of fishes [10], and hundreds of thousands of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are being kept as exotic pets in UK households [7]. In 2015, it was also estimated that around two thirds of UK licensed pet shops were selling one or more exotic species across a wide range of taxa [11]. Furthermore, a recent study revealed how millions of live wild animals were imported into the UK for commercial purposes, including the exotic pet trade, between 2014 and 2018 [12]. This included over 2.4 million amphibians, ~0.5 million reptiles, ~0.1 million birds, and ~0.2 million mammals, highlighting the scale of the UK exotic pet market, and demonstrating that this industry is not a closed system within the UK. The diversity of the exotic pet market, and the availability of different species, has also expanded in recent years [13,14]. Over 13,000 species across all major animal classes are thought to be involved [15]. As with any successful market, the lucrative nature of the exotic pet trade has created financial opportunities for introducing new commodities [16], such as the introduction of novel colour and pattern strains in reptiles [17], as well as new species with morphology and behaviour considered as rare, unique, charismatic or otherwise appealing to consumers [2,18,19]. While the growth and diversification of the industry has likely been largely driven by increasing desire for exotic pets [2,20], it is thought to have been further compounded by the greater availability of wild animal species through online markets [4,21,22,23], along with increasing wealth and the commercialization of wild animals in popular media [4,18,24].

The exotic pet trade can deliver societal and economic benefits by providing companionship, pleasure, and livelihood opportunities [25,26]. The sourcing of wildlife for the trade, for instance, can bring income to communities, particularly in biodiverse developing countries [6], and wild animals have been kept as pets for companionship and entertainment throughout human history [25]. Yet, concerns have been raised that the burgeoning industry poses significant threats to biodiversity, species conservation, biosecurity, and animal welfare (e.g., [27,28,29,30,31]). From an animal welfare perspective, all stages of the exotic pet trade, from the point of capture or breeding to sales and ownership, can create potential for animal suffering [27,28,32,33]. From a public health and biosecurity perspective, wild animals host numerous viral, bacterial, fungal, and parasitic pathogens, some of which are of zoonotic concern [31,34]. Some abandoned or released non-native exotic pets may also become invasive species, threatening native biodiversity and posing further risk to biosecurity locally [2,16]. Data on the establishment and invasive potential of species within the exotic pet trade is, however, currently lacking [35,36]. The exploitation of species for the international exotic pet market can also put pressure on wild populations and contribute to the risk of species extinction [13,26,37,38].

Currently, exotic pets can be sold legally throughout the UK, although there are some legal restrictions based on animal welfare, conservation, and public safety grounds [39,40]. For example, to help safeguard animal welfare (under the broader auspices of the UK’s Animal Welfare Act (2006) [41]), the commercial sale of animals as pets in the UK requires a licence issued by a local authority. The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations (2018) (the 2018 regulations) [42] now serves as the main legislation for the licensing of selling animals as pets in England. Whereas in Wales and Scotland, local authorities still grant licenses to businesses under the Pet Animals Act (1951) (amended 1983) (Appendix A; [43]). The 2018 regulations aim to strengthen animal welfare and accountability in England by ensuring licensed sellers of all pets include the seller’s licence number, country of origin and country of residence of the pet in any advert for sale. The procedural guidance directed at local authorities, made under the 2018 regulations, requires that in order to meet the requirements of the 2018 regulations, namely the risk of a business in meeting the standards, a “star rating” system must be used. This rating system assesses pet traders on their record keeping and animal welfare standards [44]. The specific guidance directed to businesses selling animals as pets, made under the 2018 regulations, also aims to address concerns around the animal welfare and public safety risks posed by the sale of exotic animals by applying further animal welfare conditions to pet shop licenses related to specific taxa [42]. A separate licence is also required for keeping animals listed in the schedule of the Dangerous Wild Animals (DWAs) Act (1976) [39], which includes, for example, primates, venomous snakes and venomous lizards. Exotic species listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) are restricted by separate export/import legislation, however there are no restrictions on their sale to the general public within the European Union (EU) [40]. There are also some national and international legislative restrictions on trade to prevent introduction and spread of invasive alien species, such as a ban on the trade of the red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) within the EU (Regulation No 1143/2014) (see [45]).

However, relatively few critical assessments of the regulations, standards and practices within legal exotic pet markets have featured in scientific research to date (but see e.g., [14]), with most studies instead focusing on the biosecurity and animal welfare concerns associated with the trade [15,16,46,47]. This situation arises despite acknowledgement in the literature that problems such as inadequate formal record-keeping and the potential for fraudulent activity exist within the industry [15,48]. Furthermore, while the exotic pet trade has grown in the UK in recent decades [7,9], information on the current scale of trade, and the diversity of animals involved, is lacking (but see [8,11]). The purpose of this study is to review the licensed sale of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals as exotic pets in the UK, to quantify potential numbers of each taxa currently being sold by licensed UK pet traders, identify current geographical hotspots of trader activity, and to identify any data gaps or compliance issues related to the legal sale of exotic pets in the UK. It is hoped that our findings will help to inform the development and implementation of initiatives focused on minimizing the negative impacts of this industry on wild animal welfare.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

Data on the licences in force for operators to sell wild animals in the UK, including the volume and range of animals by local authority area, was obtained from UK local authorities via Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. The FOI requests were submitted to all local authorities in England, Wales, and Scotland in May 2019, and specifically requested all available information regarding licences in force for operators to sell animals as pets under the 2018 regulations, or the Pet Animals Act (1951) (Scotland and Wales), along with copies of every licence currently in force for operators engaged in selling animals as pets, including the general and specific conditions of the licenses. Requested information was received between May and September 2019.

Relevant data from the licences obtained via the FOI requests was transferred into a data spreadsheet for analysis, including the name of trading entity (which was subsequently anonymised), issuing local authority, licence type, licence effect date and expiry date, star rating award issued by the local authority (for operators in England only), taxa listed as permitted for sale and maximum number of each taxa permitted for sale. We were concerned only with wild animal listings relating to vertebrates (excluding fish)—i.e., amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Accordingly, data on invertebrates and species considered as ‘domesticated’ (i.e., animals that have been selectively bred and genetically adapted over generations to live alongside humans, such as cats and dogs) were excluded from the analysis. However, some species considered as ‘semi-domesticated’ (e.g., common degu (Octodon degus) [49] and canary (Serinus canarius) [50]) were included. Ornamental fishes were excluded due to the high number of individuals traded, which would alter the relative proportions of taxonomic groups and distort our data, and because it is not a requirement for information on the number of fishes that may be kept on a premises to be included on a licence [42] (for a review of marine ornamental fishes, see Biondo and Burki, 2020 [10]).

2.2. Data Analysis

All statistical analysis was carried out in R version 3.6.3 [51]. Chi-squared goodness of fit was used to investigate the distribution of (i) licences issued across UK regions, (ii) the maximum number of animals permitted for sale across taxa (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals), and (iii) the number of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals permitted for sale across different local authorities. P values were significant at p < 0.05. Figures were created using R version 3.6.3 and QGIS 3.14. software (QGIS Association, Zurich, Switzerland. http://www.qgis.org) [52].

3. Results

3.1. Taxonomic Information

A total of 1192 pet shop licences (corresponding to 1192 different pet traders) containing wild animal listings were obtained via the FOI requests. Approximately half (50.5%; n = 602) stated that the pet trader had permission to sell amphibians and reptiles, 54.9% (n = 655) had permission to sell birds, and 34.8% (n = 415) had permission to sell mammals. Seven of the pet traders had permission to sell primates and 12 had permission to sell Dangerous Wild Animals (DWAs). However, taxonomic related information was inconsistently listed across licences, with detail of the animals permitted for sale ranging from species level to genus, family, class and order (see Appendix B). Taxonomic related information was missing completely on 27 (2.3%) of the licences. Where taxonomic related information was missing, but the number of animals permitted for sale was listed (a generic number of animals was listed although no description of the taxa permitted for sale), the number of animals permitted for sale ranged from 2–251,480 (mean = 17,731 ± 55,400 SD (standard deviation)).

3.2. Volume of Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals

The maximum number of individual wild animals listed across licences included a total of 54,634 amphibians, 64,810 reptiles, 23,507 birds, and 6479 mammals (Figure 1). The maximum number of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals permitted for sale was not evenly distributed across the classes of organisms (χ² = 58,810, df (degrees of freedom) = 3, p < 0.0001). Of the licences that listed amphibians, the average number permitted for sale was 116.9 ± 385.02 (range = 1–5000). For reptiles, the average number permitted for sale was 67.5 ± 262.1 (range = 1–5000), while for birds the average number permitted for sale was 32.9 ± 63.8 (range = 1–1000), and for mammals the average number permitted for sale was 14.2 ± 25.8 (range = 1–270). Across all taxonomic groups, the majority of individual listings (83.9%; n = 2327) permitted the sale of a maximum of 1000 animals or less, 78.6% (n = 2173) permitted the sale of a maximum of 100 animals or less, and 36.0% (n = 998) permitted the sale of a maximum of 10 animals or less. On 15.4% (n = 427) of the listings, the maximum number of animals permitted for sale was not stated.

Figure 1. Total (maximum) number of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals permitted for sale across UK (England, Scotland, and Wales only) pet shop licences in 2019.

3.3. Specific Taxa Listed

In total, there were 2753 descriptive terms relating to amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals listed as permitted for sale across the 1192 licences. This information included 358 descriptive terms relating to amphibians, 1098 reptiles, 840 birds, and 552 mammals. Where the descriptive terms for amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals listed on the licences related to a specific species, genus, or family level, licences (n = 622) detailed at least 19 different terms relating to amphibians, 50 different terms relating to reptiles, 24 different terms relating to birds, and 36 different terms relating to mammals (Figure 2; Appendix B).

Figure 2. Word frequency cloud showing the wild animal listings across all pet shop licences. The size of the word indicates the frequency of listing. Listings above a frequency of 180 are coloured in pink.

Across all licences, the most frequently used descriptive terms for amphibians were those relating to frogs (Anura) (92 listings; max. number of individuals potentially for sale (max. number hereafter) = 7180) and axolotls (Ambystoma mexicanum) (30 listings; max. number = 562). The most frequently used descriptive terms for reptiles were those relating to tortoises (Testudinidae) and turtles (Testudines) (377 listings; max. number = 10,844) (including e.g., Hermann’s tortoise (Testudo hermanni), Horsfield’s tortoise (Testudo horsfieldii), musk turtles (Sternotherus sp.), and map turtles (Graptemys sp.)) and snakes and lizards (Squamata) (631 listings; max. number > 60,098) (including e.g., boas (Boidae), pythons (Pythonidae), monitor lizards (Varanus sp.)). The most frequently used descriptive terms for birds were those relating to budgerigars (Psittaculidae) (316 listings; max. number = 14,084), finches (Fringillidae) (245 listings; max. number = 12,982), parrots (Psittacidae) (194 listings; max. number > 2986) (including, e.g., macaws (Ara sp.) and African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus)), and parakeets (Psittacinae) (180 listings; max. number > 2955). The most frequently used descriptive terms for mammals were those relating to chinchillas (Chinchilla sp.) (301 listings; max. number = 3052) and degus (Octodon degus) (283 listings; max. number = 3056). Other descriptive terms for mammals related to hedgehogs/African pygmy hedgehogs (Atelerix sp.) (28 listings; max. number > 357), sugar gliders (Petaurus breviceps) (10 listings; max. number = 89), opossums/short-tailed opossums (Monodelphis sp.) (two listings; max. number = 65), skunks (Mephitidae) (five listings; max. number of individuals = 48), genets/West African large spotted genets (Genetta pardina) (2 listings; max. number > 2), and primates (including, e.g., marmosets (Callitrichidae) and ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta)), among others (see Appendix C).

Descriptive terms relating to specific species listed on the Dangerous Wild Animal Act (1976) schedule included tayras (Eira barbara), African civets (Civettictis civetta), Asian short-clawed otters (Aonyx cinerea), fossas (Cryptoprocta ferox), caimans (Alligatoridae), dwarf caimans (Paleosuchus palpebrosus)/crocodilians/West African dwarf crocodiles (Osteolaemus tetraspis), venomous snakes (including Viperidae and Elapidae), venomous lizards (including the Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum)) and ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) (see Appendix D). Descriptive terms relating to specific species that are listed on the Great Britain Non-native Species Alert List [53] included racoon dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides), American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), Siberian chipmunks (Tamias sibiricus), and monk parakeets (Myiopsitta monachus) (see Appendix E). For a list of descriptive terms relating to specific species listed on CITES Appendices, see Appendix F.

3.4. Licences by Region

The 1192 licences related to pet traders located in 283 different local authority areas in the UK (Scotland, Wales and England only), meaning that 74.9% of local authorities responded to the FOI requests, of which 83.7% (n = 237) were located in England, 9.9% (n = 28) in Scotland, and 4.8% (n = 18) in Wales. The number of licences obtained were unevenly spread across UK regions (χ² = 71.09, df = 10, p < 0.0001). The highest proportion of licences (13.3%; n = 158) were for pet shops located in the South East region of the UK (Appendix G). Within the regions of the UK, the local authorities of Durham (n = 26), Birmingham (n = 23) Cornwall (n = 18), Leeds (n = 17) and Bradford (n = 14) had issued the highest number of pet shop licences.

3.5. Geographical Trade Hotspots

The potential maximum number of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals permitted for sale was not evenly distributed across different local authorities (χ² = 140,485, df = 627, p < 0.0001). Overall, the local authorities with the highest number of animals permitted for sale (where amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals were listed) included Telford & Wrekin (n = 10,330; 6.9% of total amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals listed across licences), Bassetlaw (n = 10,271; 6.9% of total), South Oxfordshire (n = 10,213; 6.9% of total), and Enfield (n = 7311; 4.9% of total) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Potential maximum number of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals permitted for sale by UK Local Authority area, excluding Northern Ireland.

In terms of taxonomic class, the potential maximum number of amphibians permitted for sale was highest in the local authorities of Telford & Wrekin (n = 10,100; 18.5% of total) and Bassetlaw (n = 10,100; 18.5% of total), followed by South Oxfordshire (n = 5025), and Epping Forest (n = 3008) (Figure 3). The maximum number of reptiles permitted for sale was highest in the local authority Enfield (n = 5723; 8.8% of total), followed by Epping Forest (n = 3920), North East Derbyshire (n = 2570), and Birmingham (n = 2543) (Figure 3). The maximum number of birds permitted for sale was highest in the local authority East Riding of Yorkshire (n = 1424; 6.1% of total), followed by Enfield (n = 1082), Cornwall (n = 923), and Wiltshire (n = 720) (Figure 3). The maximum number of mammals permitted for sale was highest in the local authority Richmondshire (n = 374; 5.8% of total), followed by Wrexham (n = 296), Mansfield (n = 285), and Ipswich (n = 272) (Figure 3).

3.6. Star Ratings

Of the licences for pet traders in England provided via the FOI requests (n = 1001), 86% (n = 861) had been given a star rating by their issuing local authority. Of these, approximately two thirds (59.3%; n = 511) of pet traders had been given either a four star or five star rating, indicating ‘Higher Standards’ in animal welfare as laid out in the guidance (relating to licence display; record keeping; use, number and type of animal; staffing; suitable environment; suitable diet; monitoring behaviour of animals; animal handling and interactions; protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease; and emergencies (Appendix A)). Just under a third (n = 255) had been given either a two star or three star rating, indicating ‘Minimum Standards’ in animal welfare (businesses that are meeting the minimum standards laid down in the schedules and guidance). Ninety-five pet traders had been given a one star rating by their issuing local authority, indicating ‘Minor Failings’ in animal welfare (businesses that are failing to meet minimum standards). Sixty local authorities had issued at least one one star rating (Figure 4). Of these, seven local authorities (Wyre, Babergh, Enfield, Greenwich, Herefordshire, Leicester City and Redbridge) had issued three or more one star ratings, with the highest number of one star ratings issued in Leicester City (n = 7).

Figure 4. Map showing (i) the local authority areas (England only) where at least one pet trader had been issued a one star, indicating ‘Minor Failings’ in animal welfare standards (businesses that are failing to meet minimum welfare standards) (black dot), (ii) the local authorities issuing the 1951 Pet Animals Act licence, and those solely issuing the 2018 Animal Welfare Regulations licence, (iii) the local authority areas where pet shop licence information was provided via the FOI requests, but the licence type was not specified, and (iiii) the local authorities that did not respond to the FOI requests. The local authorities of Dorset, South Lakeland, North Tyneside, Wakefield, Wirral, and Kirklees were issuing a mixture of both old (1951) and new (2018) licences.

3.7. Missing Data/Licence Type

A total of 95 (25.1%) local authorities did not respond to the FOI requests. Among them, 89.5% (n = 85) were located in England, 6.3% (n = 6) in Scotland, and 4.2% (n = 4) in Wales. On 17.3% (n = 206) of licences, there was no schedule of animals permitted for sale. For licences with amphibians and reptiles listed, 16.4% (issued by 48 and 39 local authorities, respectively) did not list a maximum number of animals permitted for sale. Where mammals were listed, 52.6% of licences (issued by 32 different local authorities) did not include a maximum number of animals permitted for sale, and for licences listing birds, a third (29.9%) (issued by 39 different local authorities) did not include the maximum number permitted for sale. Of the seven licences listing primates, 14.3% did not list the maximum number permitted for sale, and of those listing DWAs, 16.4% did not state the maximum number.

Of the local authorities that did respond to the FOI requests, 18.4% (n = 52) had solely issued licences under the old 1951 Pet Animals Act, 73.9% (n = 209) had issued licences under the 2018 regulations, and six local authorities (Dorset, South Lakeland, North Tyneside, Wakefield, Wirral, Kirklees) had issued a mixture of both old and new licences. Of the local authorities that had solely issued the 1951 Pet Animals Act licence, approximately half (48.1%; n = 25) were located in Scotland, 32.7% (n = 17) were located in Wales, and 19.2% (n = 11) in England (Bolsover, North East Derbyshire, Epping Forest, Peterborough City, Kensington & Chelsea, Waltham Forest, Isle of Wight, Purbeck District, Cannock Chase, Bradford and Leeds City) (Figure 4). For twelve local authorities, information on the licence type was not provided via the FOI request.

4. Discussion

This study provides important insight into the scope and scale of the licensed exotic pet market in the UK and the current geographical hotspots for this trade. Clearly, the exotic pet trade remains a prevalent business in the UK. In terms of trade volume, records show large numbers of individual wild animals across a wide range of species groups (2753 different descriptive terms) are being legally sold across England, Scotland, and Wales. Maximum numbers of exotic pets permitted for sale included 54,634 amphibians, 64,810 reptiles, 23,507 birds, and 6479 mammals. Moreover, nearly 2000 pet traders in 283 different local authority areas had permission to sell exotic pets between May and September 2019. Regionally, the highest proportion of licences had been issued in the South East of England. On a local scale, the authorities of Durham, Birmingham, Cornwall, Leeds, and Bradford had issued the highest number of licences overall.

The scope and scale of the exotic pet industry draws attention to the substantial animal welfare challenges associated with it [14]. In contrast to domesticated pets, exotic pets are adapted to a specific environment in the wild and, despite their presence in captivity, they retain complex social, physical and behavioural needs inherent in wild animals [28]. Therefore, substantial care and specialised knowledge are often required to maintain even a basic level of welfare in captivity [28]. In recognition of this fact, current guidance states that qualifications relevant to pet vending may not cover the care of non-domesticated species, particularly those that are less commonly traded [42]. Furthermore, it directs traders that are selling non-domesticated mammals to follow the minimum requirements as outlined in zoo standards, or industry or competent non-governmental organisation recommendations, and where these do not exist, standards for similar or related species must be considered and standards extrapolated [42].

4.1. Data Gaps and Compliance Issues

A robust and properly implemented regulatory system is required to help minimise negative impacts of pet trading on wild animal welfare [14]. Yet, our review serves to highlight several shortcomings associated with the licensed exotic pet trade in the UK. We found that the schedule of animals listed on pet shop licences often lacked detailed information about the specific type and number of animals permitted for sale. For example, in some cases, descriptions only stated “large selection of snakes” or “various birds”. In other cases, taxonomic information was missing completely, or taxa was listed without stating a maximum number of animals permitted for sale. The 2018 regulations state that no animal other than the type of animal specified in the licence may be sold. Further, according to the guidance for the conditions for selling animals as pets [42], the licence must state the numbers for each species or species group that may be kept on a premises (taking into account the number of staff to look after them), and that undeclared breach of these numbers can invalidate the licence. Missing information could therefore be grounds for complaint.

Such incomplete information not only raises compliance concerns, it also hinders efforts to carry out adequate inspection and monitoring. Specifically, with regards to the latter, under the 2018 regulations, ahead of granting, renewing or varying a licence, the local authority must appoint one or more suitably qualified inspectors to inspect any premises on which the licensable activity or any part of it is being or is to be carried on. Following that inspection, a licence will be granted, or renewed if the local authority is satisfied that the licence conditions will be met [54]. However, such spot checks can only work within the data provided, and without knowing the specific type and number of animal(s) that are permissible to be held on a given premises, it would be difficult for an inspector to determine whether a trader is compliant, particularly in relation to the general licence condition on the use, number, and type of animals. More generally, lack of species-specific data makes it difficult to identify the legality of species, or the type of training required for inspection, and to make meaningful assessments of the risk to human health and the welfare needs of the animals [33]. Given that the business operation may also include species considered as dangerous wild animals, or invasive or non-native species (listed on the Great Britain Non-native Species alert list [53]), this lack of detail on issued licences may also be hindering efforts to safeguard public safety and to conserve native wild animal species.

Records also show that 95 (9.5%) of the pet traders in England had been given a one star rating by their issuing local authority, indicating ‘Minor Failings’. In practice this means that each of these traders had failed to meet the minimum conditions set out in the 2018 regulations [55]. The procedural guidance confusingly heads the star system table under welfare standards, indicating that a one star means “Minor Failings” in welfare standards. However, the guidance goes on to state that a one star rating is only given if a trader fails to meet the administrative conditions (such as displaying licenses, record keeping), and no licence would be issued (or a licence would be revoked) if a trader fails to meet the conditions more specifically related to animal welfare (such as providing a suitable environment, protecting animals from pain, suffering, injury and disease). Regardless of whether minor failings include welfare standards, administrative failures, such as inadequate formal record keeping, can also pose significant, albeit perhaps less direct, risk for animal welfare, along with biosecurity and public health [15,29,56].

Furthermore, the records indicate that some local authorities in England were still operating under the old Pet Animals Act (1951). The 2018 regulations were introduced to strengthen animal welfare in England [44], and to specifically address concerns around the welfare and public safety risks presented by the sale of animals by applying further animal welfare conditions to pet shop licenses, including detailed guidance on specific taxa. The animal welfare standards under the provisions of the Pet Animals Act (1951) are based on the model conditions created by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health in 2013, which are industry-supported minimum animal welfare standards [57]. However, unlike the 2018 regulations, where specific conditions are attached to licences, and licences can be revoked or not issued if minimum standards are not met, under the Pet Animals Act (1951), while pet traders are required to provide a suitable environment, and suitable food and drink, there are no detailed conditions or guidance on animal welfare. The fact that so many pet shops were operating under the old licencing system in 2019 raises additional concerns that the welfare of exotic species may be seriously compromised within the UK exotic pet market in these instances.

4.2. Study Limitations

We acknowledge that while this study provides an important summary of the licensed exotic pet trade in the UK, it should not be considered as a complete inventory of the industry for a number of reasons. Firstly, our findings report on the formal licensed part of the exotic pet market (including both online and offline traders) in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) only (i.e., traders that have been granted formal permission to sell exotic pets by their local authority) and do not include the informal and illegal trade in wild animals as pets (e.g., [19,23,58]). Secondly, our analysis refers only to a limited number of local authorities in the UK because ninety-five did not respond to the FOI request. Furthermore, we capture the scale of trade in exotic pets at a point in time (the year 2019), and therefore the total numbers of individual animals being traded annually could vary substantially in other years. However, despite these limitations, to our knowledge, this study represents one of the most comprehensive summaries of the licensed exotic pet trade in the UK carried out in recent years.

4.3. Recommendations

Our findings can help to inform existing and future efforts to reduce the negative impacts of the exotic pet trade on animal welfare, conservation, and public health. In terms of improved compliance with existing legislation, we recommend that the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (given its role as the central regulator and policy maker) should prioritise and focus its resources towards local authorities in England that are not operating under the 2018 regulations, and those UK local authorities that did not provide any information following a FOI requests on this subject matter (see Appendix H). With regards to local authorities themselves, we also recommend that efforts focused on improved data reporting on all licenses issued (in particular taxonomic clarity (ideally to species level) and maximum number of individuals permissible for sale) should be prioritised to aid inspection, training, and monitoring.

More generally, our findings identify key geographical hotspots where other interested stakeholders (e.g., NGOs focused on rescuing and rehoming abandoned, confiscated or unwanted exotic pets) could look to focus their efforts. For example, the local authorities where the highest number of wild animals legally sold as pets in 2019 were Telford & Wrekin and Bassetlaw in the Midlands, and South Oxfordshire and Enfield in the South East of England. With reference to specific taxa, geographical hotspots for the sale of amphibians were found in Telford & Wrekin and Bassetlaw, along with South Oxfordshire, Epping Forest and Woking; hotspots for the sale of reptiles occurred in Enfield, Epping Forest, Derbyshire, Birmingham and Plymouth, hotspots for the sale of birds occurred in East Riding of Yorkshire, Enfield, Cornwall, and Wiltshire, and hotspots for the sale of mammals occurred in Richmondshire, Wrexham, Mansfield, Ipswich, and Wakefield.

The number of wild animals that can be legally sold as exotic pets in the UK as per the formal market (i.e., vendors who have a successfully acquired a license from their relevant local authority) is far lower than the number of live wild animals imported annually for commercial purposes [29]. For example, when comparing these two estimates, there are obvious discrepancies for each taxa (54,634 vs. 480,000 for amphibians, 64,810 vs. 100,000 for reptiles, 23,507 vs. 20,000 for birds, and 6479 vs. 40,000 for mammals). These discrepancies are even greater when one considers that imports are known to be only a part of overall trade in exotic animals (e.g., many are captive-bred, or ‘under the radar’) [1]. Consequently, we recommend that future research should look to gather more information to determine whether these discrepancies are due to poor record keeping, a high turnover rate of stock for some taxa in licensed UK pet shops (particularly with regards to amphibians and mammals), a large portion of imported wild animals being subsequently re-exported from the UK (and vice versa), or whether imported wild animals enter the UK’s informal exotic pet market, such as through online platforms [8,21,23]. The lack of data on sourcing of wild animals for the exotic pet trade is further highlighted in this regard [1,59].

5. Conclusions

The high volume and diversity of species in the exotic pet trade being sold by vendors throughout the UK introduces significant husbandry issues (for vendors and owners alike) and inspection issues due to a range of factors, including a lack of appropriate specialist veterinary care and the difficulties in identifying species and their legal status [14]. Existing standards, guidance, and protocols for the exotic pet trade in the UK have previously been criticised for being widely variable both locally and internationally across different UK nations, and because of the lack of cohesive evidence-based and expert guidance on animal husbandry and inspection, which has led to alternative scientific evidence-led guidance becoming available [14]. There are many socio-cultural, political, economic, and conservation factors that create a complex and nuanced debate around the exotic pet trade [6,12,26,60], with policy options being discussed in the scientific literature ranging from those that would restrict the exotic pet industry [56] to those that would facilitate its continued growth [61]. However, such future decision-making aside, given the scope and scale of the industry at this point in time, our study highlights compliance issues of concern, and draws attention to the lack of detailed information held on UK pet shop licences, all of which have the potential to hinder efforts to safeguard animal welfare.