Details
Yet another bid has been launched in Scotland by animal charities to have a perfectly legal method of vermin control banned.
Crow control is one of the best conservation methods any of us can use to help the whole environment, and we do this legally under the Public General Licenses which are issued each year by the Scottish Executive.
Recently, a new type of crow trap, commonly called a ‘clam’ trap, has been devised, and when used correctly it has proved to be a very effective method of catching corvids, especially those which have become wary of other types of traps. These traps are marketed by various companies, and they can also be made easily by anyone who is competent at DIY.
What appears to have happened is that the animal charities, such as the RSPB and SSPCA just don’t like us controlling crows, and they have tried to convince the Scottish Executive that these traps are illegal.
The Executive issued an urgent consultation request, and our response is shown below
Having seen a number of the responses, they split into two clear categories – the countryside organisations have looked carefully at the law, and the way these traps are used, and have made it clear to Government that these are not only completely legal, they are a useful management tool for those of us who control corvids.
The animal charities responses are full of supposition and innuendo about these traps being used illegally to catch birds of prey, which in our view is the real reason behind their bid to have the traps criminalised.
The outcome of the consultation is not yet known – as soon as we have the government decision it will appear here.
Scottish Association for Country Sports
Netherholm
Netherburn
LARKHALL
Lanarkshire
ML9 3DG
Submission to the Scottish Government on the use of ‘clam traps’
19 May 2011
We agree entirely with the helpful summary of the effects of the legislation in respect of the inclusion/exclusion of these traps contained in the third column highlighted in blue, subject to the following comments:
Extract 15. While the blue text is seductive on first reading, we think that it is also possible to take a different view.
As Sheriff Drummond pointed out recently, in interpreting legislation we should have regard to the intention of the legislation, but also to the exact wording.
We should, I think, also keep in mind that strictly speaking, the terms Larsen trap and cage trap are not mutually exclusive – a Larsen trap is also a cage trap, and in some circumstances a cage trap may of course be a Larsen trap
When any cage trap is not in use it must be immobilised and rendered incapable of use in such a way that the immobilisation could not be reversed without considerable forethought or considerable difficulty.
We don’t think that there is any doubt that these clam traps are cage traps, but they are perfectly capable of being immobilised and/or rendered incapable of use, and are therefore not excluded by this part
Doors or panels of cage traps must be removed from the site or, if they are not removed from the site, they must be taken off the trap and secured by a locked padlock.
It may appear to be a little semantic, but these traps comprise two panels, one or both of which could be removed from the site, or padlocked to one another in such a way that they could not be used as a trap or indeed to something else to the same end. One panel can also be removed from the other.
I would also suggest that care must be taken to include in this consideration not only the commercially available versions, but any version which may be fabricated by individuals. The physical size and shape of such traps could vary widely, and the method of closing the trap does not require tobe a spring – it could be an elasticated strap such as a ‘bungee’ or even weights.
Those clam traps currently being marketed commercially are principally triangular in shape, but this does not preclude the construction and use of other shapes which would operate on the same principle such as a box shape. The law, and the interpretation of it, must apply equally to all versions.
It is therefore quite possible to take the view that clam traps are not excluded by this wording.
We are content that clam traps are not Larsen traps, but we think that a court could find that they are cage traps. In fact, simple common sense would suggest that a trap which is a cage could only with considerable ingenuity be held not to be a cage trap.
Other Considerations
Moving from the helpful summary document to more general observations, we refer to the actual wording of the PGL, and using the license in relation to the conservation of wild birds as an example, to Section 4, where the words ‘any other crow cage trap’ appear.
In one view, this definition accepts the fact that there are a number of different types of cage traps, all of which are thereby permitted (unless they are ‘spring-over’ traps). Subject to that exception, the wording is capable of covering (and therefore making lawful) every variation of cage trap designed to catch crows, including any variation or development which had not yet occurred at the time the legislation was made. Accordingly, giving the words in the license their ordinary meaning, a clam trap is a cage trap and therefore permitted under the terms of the PGL.
Again using the words in their simple ordinary meaning, we do not think that these clam traps are spring-over traps. The most common way of using them is for the opening to be at the top, with the sides coming together if the trap is sprung, and there is nothing which could be described as springing over in that operation. It might perhaps even be possible to set these traps on their side, if the location was suitable and if there was a reason to do that – once again there would be nothing in the action of the trap as it closed which could be described as springing over.
Since, in practice, clam traps are generally used in conjunction with a Larsen trap and physically adjacent to it, there could also be an argument that when thus used, it becomes part of a Larsen trap, although we do not think that it should be necessary to argue this in view of our comments above.
The possible counter-argument against it being part of a Larsen trap, (that there is no physical attachment) if that was felt to be crucial, could simply be negated by physically connecting the two traps in some way, and the clam compartment would simply become another catching compartment on the Larsen.
Summary
It appears that this matter may have arisen because of the desire of certain individuals or groups to have criminalised the use of what is a relatively new but extremely humane and effective method of catching permitted target species. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there are any welfare issues involved in the use of clam traps – to the contrary, they have quickly proved to be a useful and humane way of trapping crow species and allowing the safe release of non-target species.
In our view, the purpose of the PGL should be to facilitate the control of these species for sound environmental reasons, subject only to regulating this process so as to prevent unnecessary suffering to the species concerned, and attempts to have the licenses made more restrictive for any reason other than in connection with these welfare issues are misplaced and unhelpful.
In particular, we feel that the concept of attempting to have made unlawful the use of a humane and effective trap because it is perhaps capable of being misused for an unlawful activity is completely unsound and should be strongly discouraged.
In our view, we feel that the clam trap is capable of being included in the wording of the PGL without amendment, and we recommend that this advice be given to the COPFS.
18 May 2011
Ian Clark
Director, SACS
|
