Presiding Officer

As members will no doubt be aware, during the passage of the Nature Conservation Act 2004 the Environment and Rural Development Committee carried out a careful examination of snaring.  The Committee concluded that whilst there was room for improvement there remained a need for predator control in the countryside and that the other options available to land managers were not necessarily any better in terms of animal welfare.

The reason for this careful consideration was of course that the organisations which constantly try to restrict and criminalise our country sports put huge pressure at every level on politicians to achieve their own ends.

The Committee looked at all of the available evidence, and decided that, as all countrymen know, snaring is an essential tool in the control of foxes, and could not reasonably be banned while no viable alternative is available.

None the less, at Stage 3 of the Bill, the then Minister, Allan Wilson, announced a full public consultation on snaring. Within the 243 responses received  by February 2007 there was a  clear majority in favour of a complete ban although a breakdown of views indicates that it was individuals who were mostly in favour of a ban whereas organisations – and particularly countryside organisations – remained supportive of snaring in some form

This consultation exercise was perhaps a sop to these organisations, or, being cynical, a way of avoiding having to make a difficult decision at that time.

It is not surprising that numerically, the responses were in favour of a complete ban on snaring – perhaps by members of the public who have no understanding of the real issues and base their responses on emotion rather than knowledge, together with the organisations that hate country sports in any form.

Since then there have been a number of campaigns run by both sides of the argument. No doubt it is an extreme case, but in the last few weeks  my  own office has received more than 4,850 emails and cards seeking a ban, although only 54% of these have come from within Scotland (32% from the rest of the UK and 14% non-UK).    A very much smaller number of messages have supported the continuation of snaring. 

This shows clearly that those who oppose snaring have mobilised their supporters much more effectively than we have – a point which we should bear in mind for future consultations.

We have been fortunate that the Minister has taken a balanced judgement, looking at the facts rather than just the numbers.  It is worth noting, too, the number of responses against snaring which came from outside Scotland – the only area potentially affected by a ban.  Once again, this is likely to be supporters of the organisations which are against our country sports.

In recent months, I have been heavily engaged with this subject.  I have discussed snaring with representatives of many organisations, and have been on a number of fact-finding visits, including trips to see snaring in operation and to the Hessilhead Animal Rescue Centre which sometimes has to care for animals injured by snares.

We fully acknowledge the commitment of the Minister here – he has taken the time and trouble to establish the facts from people who actually KNOW about the issue and the consequences of any change he could make to the existing position before making a balanced judgement in an emotive issue.

Presiding Officer, I greatly respect those who campaign for a complete ban on snaring and I empathise with them.   We should be justly proud that Scotland has some of the strongest wildlife protection legislation in the world.

It is important that we continue to maintain the highest standards and that everything done in the countryside – including everything done to control pests and predators – is consistent with those high standards.

We can only agree with this – and do everything in our power as sportsmen to ensure that we do nothing to disgrace ourselves and others by failing to maintain these high standards as individuals.

Yet no responsible politician can ignore the fact that there are those argue equally passionately that snaring is a regrettable but essential tool for high quality land management in Scotland.   Such people also have a keen interest in and concern for wildlife and their view - that snaring plays a key role in maintaining the iconic Scottish landscape of heather clad hillsides, alive with a rich diversity of species – cannot be lightly set aside.

They base their argument on three pillars – those of shooting, biodiversity and agricultural imperatives. 

We agree

They contend firstly that effective predator control is essential for the maintenance of the sort of shooting for which Scotland is world-famous, whether upland grouse moors or lowland pheasant shoots.  Such shooting also provides considerable economic benefit to rural areas where jobs and income can be scarce – for example the 2006 PACEC Report calculated that shooting is worth £240m each year to the Scottish economy.    It generates approximately 1.75 million visitor nights, most of which take place during the autumn and winter months when other visitors are thin on the ground.  There are 58,000 workers paid by the shooting sector and this amounts to the equivalent of 11,000 full-time jobs. The sport also provides the equivalent of 2,000 full-time conservation jobs and spends £43 million a year on improving habitat and wildlife management. 

The importance of this factor when governments and other agencies are making decisions on the future of our sports cannot be over-stated.

The PACEC report, which provided up to date figures for inward spending, employment in the countryside and other related matters, shows clearly the huge economic and social benefits to Scotland which come entirely as a result of our having such high-quality country sports.

Secondly they assert that control of predators, and foxes in particular is a key factor in maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. 

A Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust field experiment showed that predator control increased the breeding stock of the wild gray partridge by 42%.  Without such control, stocks declined in most years.  The National Parks staff at Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms have, amongst others, made it clear that without snaring being available to them as a means of predator control they fear they would be unable to meet their statutory objectives in maintaining biodiversity.

As time passes, the need for us to have the scientific evidence to counter the wild claims and allegations made by those who disapprove of country sports becomes increasingly stronger.

It is no longer safe to assume that decision-makers will put the appropriate weight on the huge mass of practical experience which countrymen have acquired over hundreds of years – our opponents ‘rubbish’ this very effectively with their huge publicity machines.

They cannot, however, ‘rubbish’ the science, and we need to support all scientific work being done on countryside matters, even though in many cases we already know what it is going to ‘prove’.

The two issues – of shooting and biodiversity – are also linked.   It is no accident that managed moorland contains many more species of ground nesting birds such lapwing, golden plover and curlew than unmanaged land.  The key factor here is that predators such as foxes are controlled – essential for innovations such as the new Langholm Moor Project, amongst whose partners are SNH, RSPB and the Buccleuch Estates.  

It is excellent that the Minister has formally and publicly acknowledged this fact.  Even members of the public with neutral views on country sports, or those who are against them, have now to accept that the way we run the countryside for our sports has an immense beneficial knock-on effect on almost all forms of wildlife and biodiversity.

And of course we have to accept that farmers throughout Scotland depend heavily on efficient predator control for protection of their animals.   Lambs are the best known target but other free-range stock such as poultry and pigs are also at risk.   Many farmers and crofters will also on occasion need to protect crops from the extensive damage that can be done by rabbits and snaring is a tool in that matter as well.  

Perhaps the most interesting point here is the fact that the snaring of rabbits and rats, or indeed hunting them with dogs, has always been excluded from control measures.  This makes a mockery of the ‘cruelty’ argument so often used by our opponents.

Of course there are alternatives to snaring.      Shooting disposes of more than 70% of   foxes which are killed each year but clean, efficient shooting that does not leave wounded animals is very dependent on the skill of the shooter and the lie of the land.  It is not suitable in every area or case.      Other  methods of predator control such as  trapping in cages, hunting with hounds, poisoning or gassing are either illegal, or ineffective or are dangerous to the operator  and often also to a wider range of wildlife.

The remaining 30% is still a HUGE number of foxes – without snaring and the lawful use of dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns, many parts of the country would still be over-run by foxes.

The use of snares is the only remaining lawful method of fox control which is not hugely time and labour-intensive, and often the only method available to the ‘ordinary’ men and women who manage smaller shoots or farms on a part-time basis.

The welfare implications of snaring itself are also the matter of some debate.  There has never been any scientific study on the welfare issues associated with snaring though it is clear that snares that are set badly or snares that are set close to urban environments or are not regularly checked all have the potential to injure wildlife and domestic animals and sometimes do.    I have no doubt that it is these sort of snares which are regularly brought to the attention of bodies like the SSPCA and rightly so.    Those who set them are wildlife criminals.

Yet scientists who wish to catch animals for radio-tagging experiments use snares without any apparent harm and members will wish to note that the British Veterinary Association Ethics and Welfare Group recently commented that “in some circumstances snaring might be the least inhumane method where control is necessary”.  This conclusion was also reached by the 2005 Independent Working Group on Snares.

This is a well-made point by the Minister – the whole concept of ‘cruelty’ to foxes and other creatures has never been scientifically investigated – it is entirely a human concept.

The use of ‘stops’ on snares to prevent them catching mammals by a foot is well established, and widely accepted by countrymen as useful and reasonable.

There is actually scientific research which shows that if the air or blood supply to a mammal’s brain is restricted, it will become unconscious within around 30 seconds.  Thereafter, anything which happens to it happens without the knowledge of the mammal, and cannot therefore be distressing to it.

It could be argued that this would in fact be LESS ‘cruel’ than holding the creature for up to 24 hours in a snare to wait for despatch in a way that WE call ‘humane’.

This could even indicate that perhaps, with careful study and design improvements, locking snares could actually be more ‘humane’ than the free-running snares we are now using.

He is also quite correct that the use of snares in certain areas, or improperly set snares is unwise because of the abnormally high risk of catching non-target species or catching target species in an unacceptable way.

We must all strive to make sure that we only use snares in accordance with ‘best practice’ to minimise this.

In weighing all this evidence the key issue I have had to consider is whether the protection of our unique biodiversity, the management of our successful shooting industries and the safeguarding of our key agricultural production could be undertaken without the option of using snaring – that is could it be done in any more humane and more appropriate way both in terms of cost effectiveness and in terms of actual results on the ground.    If it could then snaring might well be able to be dispensed with.  If not, then snaring, regrettably, would have to remain within the range of tools necessary for good land management in Scotland. 

This is excellent – a non-emotive summary of the factual position by the Minister.

Importantly, it accepts that fox-control is necessary for the economic well-being of our countryside.

Presiding Officer, at the end of a very lengthy process of discussion and reflection I have come to the conclusion that snaring is still necessary in some circumstances.  However it is also clear to me that we can and must do better in terms of eliminating bad practice for I believe it is bad practice – and sometimes criminally bad practice – which is responsible for some of the dreadful cases brought forward by animal rights organisations

We agree

The public are rightly concerned about what happens to the wildlife that is part of all our heritage. They need to be absolutely confident that where snaring is necessary, there is no room for any doubt about what is allowed , that the practice is undertaken by competent and responsible individuals ,that  we have outlawed any  practices which do not match up to welfare standards – and that we are vigorously enforcing that law. 

We agree

Accordingly I intend to bring forward a package of regulations and – where necessary - primary legislation which will aim to make fundamental changes to the practice of snaring in Scotland.    I, and my officials, have discussed these changes with industry representatives – landowners and managers, gamekeepers and sporting interests – and I believe that they will command widespread support.    I would also like to have the co-operation of welfare and other organisations such as Advocates for Animals and the League against Cruel Sports but unfortunately they indicated to me as recently as last Friday that they are not prepared to countenance any alternative to a total ban.   I regret that and I want to assure them today that the door remains open to them, if they are willing to work with this Government to introduce the best possible practice in this matter.

The package that we intend to bring forward will I believe make a significant difference in terms of animal welfare.

The bold text is highlighted to draw attention here – it was not highlighted in the Minister’s statement.

Perhaps this will help to convince decision makers in future of what we have always maintained – these and other similar groups, will NEVER be reasonable, or take a balanced view, or compromise.

They wish to impose their views on the rest of the population – they will never look beyond their own narrow viewpoints.

·        We will require the compulsory fitting of crimped safety stops to prevent the noose closing too far and inflicting damage.  This is arguably something which should have been done long ago and on its own it has the potential to bring about a huge improvement in the welfare of animals restrained by snares.

This is already regarded as good practice, and will not cause any difficulties for land managers.

It will introduce an extra difficulty for those who currently make their own snares, but in view of the existing and proposed regulations, home-made snares are longer be in common use.

·        We will require the compulsory fitting of ID tags on snares which will allow identification of their owner by the authorities, but will not allow identification by casual passers-by.  

This point will need detailed discussions at the next stage.  While it is intended to allow the authorities to identify the person who set the snares, there are potential difficulties – such as if snares were to be stolen.

The administration of any proposed system will need to be considered carefully, and agreed with those who will be using the snares in practice to ensure that the system is workable in practice.

·       We will specify that the action of a snare must be checked before it is set

This proposal would place the responsibility of making sure that the snare complies with all current regulations on the user, rather than the supplier.

·        We will make clear that any snare which is not staked in place must be fixed with an anchor that cannot be dragged away

This is currently good practice, and is unlikely to cause serious problems to land managers.

·        We will prohibit the setting of snares on posts, over water courses, on planks or fences as this can cause unnecessary suffering to the target

There are practical concerns over this proposal, since fence-lines and similar locations are often the most effective locations for snaring.

Currently, there are concerns that setting snares in such locations can lead to an animal being asphyxiated by either tangling the snare or hanging itself over a fence.

We are not yet convinced that death by rapid asphyxiation or hanging is in fact in all circumstances inhumane by comparison with the alternatives, and hope that the proposed scientific research will clarify this point in the future before any such regulation is promoted.

·        We will specify that areas where snaring is taking place are clearly marked with signs.

There are concerns over this point.  While we can appreciate that such signs may let members of the public know that legal snaring is taking place and perhaps re-assure them, we are concerned that such signs will simply draw public attention to the use of snares, and allow or even encourage people to interfere with them.

While this problem is addressed in the next section, it would be essential that any such regulation on signage is not enacted until the primary legislation to make tampering with snares a specific offence is in place, widely known AND working.

The measures I have mentioned so far can, I believe be brought forward by means of regulations under s11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.  When the opportunity arises to bring forward primary legislation we will also

·        Consider, the way in which we could create a new offence of tampering with a lawfully set snare.    This is required both in terms of good governance and because tampering with snares, even for the best of reasons, can sometimes (even unwittingly) make their effects more deadly and cruel.  

We welcome this suggestion, which could in fact be usefully extended to include all legal traps and control methods such as Larsen and Fenn  traps, and we will work with the Executive to achieve this.

·      Give legal status to a new land management industry accreditation scheme.  The aim will be that within a fixed period everyone who sets a snare will require have received training in best practice and the law.  Eventually no one without such training will be allowed to set a snare.

This is a difficult point – while the concept that anyone who sets a snare should be competent before doing so is not unreasonable, the details of any such accreditation scheme will need to be carefully worked out.

While it is relatively easy to ensure that such training is automatically given as part of a course at one of the existing Agricultural Colleges which provide Gamekeeping courses, this will only include a very small proportion of those who need to use snares.

Arrangements to provide certification for others will need to be both inexpensive and freely available in all areas, and the timescale for the ‘fixed period’ referred to will need to be adequate.

We will work closely with the Executive on this proposal.

We will also put in place arrangements to assist with technical developments in the use of snares, and for those developments to be reported back to Ministers with the aim of incorporating them into best practice.

We welcome this proposal.

By implementing this package Scotland will have established the best possible practice in terms of animal welfare whilst allowing effective land management to continue with all the economic and conservation benefits that accrue.

We agree.

We will also be sending a clear signal to those wildlife cowboys and criminals who use snares illegally and indiscriminately that their methods will vigorously pursued and punished. 

Presiding Officer this statement charts a new way forward, I hope it will command the support of the whole chamber

We agree