When I was originally dealing with legislative drafters on this, one of the arguments they made was that exhaustive lists in the U.K. are included in prosecutorial guidelines and not in the actual legislation because of the dangers in the way our criminal system works. If you don't list everything, then judges may decide that, if something is not on the list, it's not covered.
Would it be sufficient, do you think, if prosecutorial guidelines included this specific example of pets?