Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill - use of snares and powers of Scottish SPCA inspectors: consultation analysis

Chapter 3 The use of snares and cable restraints in Scotland (Qs 1 – 4)

Overview

The consultation paper set out that the continued use of snares can cause significant injury, prolonged suffering and death to wildlife, as well as a risk that non-target wildlife species and pets can be caught in them.

Question 1

Do you agree with our proposals to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Act so that it is an offence to: a) use a snare or other type of cable restraint for the purpose of killing or trapping a wild animal and; b) use a snare or other type of cable restraint in any way that is likely to injure a wild animal.

A majority – 70% of those who answered the question – agreed with the proposals to prohibit the use of snares and other cable restraints. 29% disagreed and less than 1% were unsure.

Slightly more organisational respondents agreed than disagreed, 53% and 44% respectively, and 3% were unsure. While a clear majority of ‘Animal welfare’, ‘Conservation’, ‘Public body’ and ‘Other’ respondents were in favour of the proposals, a majority of ‘Land management’ and ‘Sporting organisations’ respondents opposed them.

Overall positions on snaring

The analysis of comments across the section on snaring suggests that many of those who commented took one of two overall positions. These were:

• That snaring should be completely banned and there should be no exceptions, for any reason.
• That snaring should either be allowed to continue as it is, or that the use of Humane Cable Restraints (“HCRs”) be allowed.

Ethical concerns and animal welfare

Respondents who agreed with the proposal to prohibit the use of snares almost unanimously emphasised their inhumane nature, detailing the severe suffering experienced by animals caught in them. Many highlighted injuries, strangulation, exhaustion, hunger, fear, and distress, leading to self-mutilation and exposure to predators and the elements. Others shared experience of finding dead animals caught in snares, or animals rescued from snares dying from their injuries. Those respondents frequently referred to snares as “barbaric”.

Comments included statistics indicating strong public support for a snaring ban in Scotland. Respondents also referenced the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and the British Veterinary Association's recommendations for a ban, which they felt underscored a professional consensus on the need for such regulation. Some respondents also referenced scientific evidence and case studies that supported the view that snares are inherently cruel and cause prolonged suffering.

A few respondents also stated that some land-management charities, including the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts, and the Woodland Trust, abstain from using snares, which they felt discredited claims of their necessity for managing wildlife.

Many respondents who disagreed with the proposal to ban snares did so because they believe the current legislation to be robust and ensures the welfare of animals. Some point to current requirement that snare operators be extensively trained, hold a snare operator’s identification number and keep records of how their snares are used. A few respondents clarified that it is already illegal to use a snare to kill an animal.

Humane Cable Restraints (HCRs)

Many respondents who agreed with the proposal to prohibit the use of snares challenge the claim that HCRs are a distinct and humane alternative to snares, presenting evidence that these are simply a rebranding of traditional snares. In particular, they highlight the shared design features between HCRs and standard snares, reinforcing the need for a ban on both.

They disagreed with claims that HCRs reduce bycatch and risk of strangulation to caught animals stating that HCRs do not eliminate these risks. Respondents also stated that HCRs do nothing to reduce other harms to trapped animals, including fear, exposure to the elements, starvation and thirst, predation risk and self-injury caused by attempts to escape.

Those respondents also disagree with the claim that HCRs pass the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (“AIHTS”)^[1] welfare standard as a live-capture device for foxes. They clarify that foxes are not included in the AIHTS and there is no specific standard for live-capture devices for that species. In addition, they refer to long standing criticism of the AIHTS for low welfare standards.

Contrary to these perceptions, respondents who disagreed with the proposal to prohibit the use of snares asserted that HCRs are substantially different to ‘traditional’ snares and are more humane, meeting the AIHTS welfare standard.

Some respondents emphasise the effectiveness of HCRs in minimising risks of strangulation, asphyxiation or evisceration, by incorporating features such as breakaway components, swivels, stops and free-running eyes. They conclude that HCRs can therefore be used ethically, ensuring minimal harm to non-target species. Many claim that failure to retain HCRs would result in irreparable harm to rural businesses and biodiversity.

They also challenge the claim that live capture traps are superior to HCRs. They emphasise that both methods meet the same humaneness standards and highlight the inefficacy of live capture traps, citing instances where traps deployed across several estates failed to capture a single fox. This inefficacy, they argue, makes HCRs indispensable.

By-catch and effect on biodiversity

Many respondents who agreed with the proposal to prohibit the use of snares commented that snares are inherently indiscriminate, and catch a wide range of non-target species. Many recounted experiences of finding non-target animals in snares, ranging from protected wild animals such as badgers, to companion animals including cats and dogs.

A few respondents commented that snaring contributes to the decline and degradation of natural habitats, as their indiscriminate nature harms keystone species. Some respondents also spoke of the considerable emotional toll and financial cost of treating companion animals that had been injured by snares.

Many respondents who disagreed with the proposal to ban snares stressed the critical role of snares in conservation efforts. Many of those respondents also stated that snares are essential for protecting endangered and threatened species, preserving biodiversity, and mitigating damage to agriculture. They believe that the potential consequences of banning snares would be catastrophic for rural businesses, biodiversity, and threatened species like capercaillie, curlew, lapwing, and golden plover.

Societal perceptions and alternatives

Several respondents who agreed with the proposal to prohibit the use of snares objected to them on a moral basis, stating that snares are an outdated tool from the past and have no place in a modern, civilised society. Some stated that as the animals caught by snares are sentient and have the capacity to suffer, the continued use of snares is objectionable on a moral basis. Further to this, many respondents contend that snaring is unnecessary and counter-productive, especially on shooting estates targeting foxes. Alternative methods, such as cage trapping, the use of guard animals, and nocturnal shooting with thermal imaging, are proposed as more humane and effective options for wildlife management.

Contrary to this, some respondents who disagreed with the proposal to ban snares highlighted that snares are an essential tool for wildlife management often the only available method of wildlife management due to safety concerns associated with shooting in dense cover and undulating terrain. They argue that identifying a safe backstop, that could capture a bullet and bullet fragments without causing ricochet, damage or danger, is often impossible, rendering shooting impractical. Consequently, snares are presented as necessary alternatives due to their effectiveness in these challenging environments, ensuring both human and animal safety.

A few respondents also point to the ineffectiveness of other alternatives to snares, such as live capture traps, due to the limits on the number of animals that can be caught at any time and the ability of some animals to actively avoid such traps.

Lastly, some respondents argued that because many snares could be set across a large area and work “in the absence of humans”, they are a cost and time effective way of managing wildlife. They stated that alternatives to snares would incur increased cost to land managers, as a result of either the cost of purchasing equipment, such as thermal imaging technology, or increased time spent either shooting or checking live capture traps.

A few respondents also stated that a prohibition on the use of snares to manage wildlife would result in an increase of gun ownership and gun use in the Scottish countryside.

Question 2

Do you think that the Scottish Government should consider allowing an exception for the use of snares for the live capture of mammals for research purposes for example, catching foxes to allow tracking devices to be fitted?

A majority – 71% of those who answered the question – thought that there should not be an exception that would allow the use of snares and other cable restraints for research purposes. 21% of all respondents thought there should be an exception for research and 8% were unsure.

Organisational respondents were more evenly divided with 41% disagreeing with an exception, 50% agreeing and 9% unsure. While a clear majority of ‘Animal welfare’, ‘Conservation’, and ‘Other’ respondents disagreed with the proposals, a majority of ‘Land management’ and ‘Sporting organisations’ respondents agreed.

Ethical Concerns and Animal Welfare

Many respondents who disagreed with the proposal to allow the use of snares for the purpose of research expressed deep concern about the ethical implications and animal welfare issues associated with the use of snares. They emphasised the inherent cruelty of snares, regardless of the purpose, and argued that no exceptions should be made due to the immense suffering caused to animals. Some asserted that any form of snaring causes unnecessary distress and suffering, and others believed that no legitimate scientific purpose justifies this level of harm. Several respondents commented that ethical considerations should guide research methods, and alternatives such as humane cage traps are readily available, making the use of snares unnecessary and unacceptable.

Of the respondents who agreed with the proposal, some expressed cautious support for allowing exceptions for research purposes, but only under strict conditions that prioritise animal welfare. They emphasised the importance of ensuring that live capture does not cause lasting damage or trauma to animals. Some stated that if exceptions are made, they must be strictly controlled to prevent animals from suffering or being trapped for extended periods. Others believed that ethical concerns should guide the decision-making process, with a focus on minimising stress and fear among animals during the capture process.

Respondents who were unsure about the proposal expressed concern about the ethical implications of allowing exceptions for research purposes. Some emphasised the importance of ensuring that live capture methods, including snares, do not cause pain, trauma, or harm to animals. Many of those respondents questioned the humane aspect of using snares, highlighting worries about the distress and injuries that snaring might cause.

Effectiveness and Alternatives

Many respondents who disagree with the proposed exception argue that snares are not only inhumane but also ineffective and indiscriminate in capturing animals. They contend that other non-invasive research methods, such as camera trapping, provide effective alternatives for studying animal behaviour without causing harm. Additionally, some respondents highlight the availability of more appropriate trapping methods, such as live cage traps, stating they are more effective and humane.

Some respondents stressed the importance of upholding ethical standards in scientific research. They argued that allowing exceptions for research purposes would compromise the ethical integrity of scientific studies, especially considering the availability of alternative, humane methods.

Many respondents who agree with the proposal suggested the use of HCRs as an alternative to traditional snares, emphasising their effectiveness in capturing animals without causing harm. A few respondents give examples of circumstances where HCRs have been successful in live capture and advocate for their use under licence for scientific research.

Respondents who were unsure about the proposal raised questions about the necessity of using snares for research purposes. Some were unconvinced of any justification for choosing snares over what they consider to be alternative, less harmful methods of live capture. A few of those respondents expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of snares in the context of research. Instead they advocate for exploring and employing alternative, more humane methods for live capture, emphasising the need for a strong rationale if snares are to be considered.

Regulation and Enforcement Challenges

Respondents who disagree with the proposal expressed scepticism regarding the feasibility of regulating and enforcing exceptions for research purposes. They argued that creating exceptions would lead to loopholes in legislation that could be exploited, making it difficult to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate uses of snares. Some respondents emphasise the challenges of monitoring and policing such exceptions, raising concerns about the potential abuse and continued suffering of animals.

Respondents who agree with the proposal discussed the necessity of licensing and regulation in the context of allowing exceptions for research purposes. Both respondents who agreed with the proposals and those who were unsure argued that if exceptions are granted, they should be strictly regulated, with licences issued only to qualified researchers affiliated with legitimate research organisations. Some express concerns about the burden placed on regulatory bodies, such as NatureScot, in administering and overseeing these licences.

Respondents who were unsure about the proposal expressed concern about the practicality of monitoring and enforcement. They questioned how the use of snares for research purposes would be policed and express doubts about the feasibility of ensuring strict adherence to regulations. A few respondents called for robust enforcement mechanisms to prevent misuse of any exceptions.

Double Standard and Hypocrisy

Several respondents highlighted a perceived contradiction in allowing exceptions for research purposes while advocating for bans or restrictions on snares for other uses, irrespective of whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposal. Many held the view that exceptions for research purposes would create a double standard, undermining the credibility of scientific research and raising questions about the motivations behind such decisions. Others questioned the rationale behind permitting snares for research but not for other purposes, such as preventing damage to livestock. Some respondents expressed concern about potential hypocrisy in the decision-making process, urging the government to maintain consistency in its approach to snaring practices. Some respondents called for transparency and clarity in the decision-making process to address these concerns.

Question 3

If you answered yes question 2, do you agree than anyone using snares for this purpose would require a licence from NatureScot.

Just over half - 53% of those who answered the question – agreed that any exception to use snares should require a licence from NatureScot, 39% disagreed and 8% were unsure.

However, organisational respondents were more divided with 80% agreeing, 9% disagreeing and 11% unsure.

Question 4

Other than for the purpose set out in question 2, are there any other purposes for which you think an exemption should be available to allow a person to use a snare or cable restraint to temporarily capture a wild animal?

A majority – 73% of those who answered the question – thought that there should be no other exceptions to allow the use of snares and other cable restraints. 29% thought there should be other exceptions to allow their use and 5% were unsure.

However, organisational respondents were more evenly divided with 54% agreeing that there should not be other exceptions, 41% agreeing that there should be other exceptions and 5% unsure. While a clear majority of ‘Animal welfare’, ‘Conservation’, and ‘Other’ respondents wanted no further exceptions, a majority of ‘Land management’ and ‘Sporting organisations’ did want further exceptions.

Respondents who answered yes to question four presented diverse viewpoints concerning exemptions for using snares or cable restraints for purposes other than research. Many individuals advocated for exemptions primarily related to conservation, safeguarding of livestock, prevention of agricultural damage, and preservation of gamebirds. These respondents argued that snares are indispensable tools for controlling predators like foxes, safeguarding ground-nesting birds, and ensuring the economic sustainability of rural communities. They stressed the need for meticulous regulation to prevent misuse and encourage humane practices.

The purposes mentioned in responses are as follows, it is noteworthy that while these exemptions were mentioned, the discussion highlighted varying opinions on their necessity, regulation, and ethical implications:

• Conservation
• Protection of Livestock and Gamebirds
• Pest Control
• Human Safety
• Animal Welfare
• Research and Conservation Projects
• Gamekeeping and Wildlife Management
• Emergency Situations e.g. survival training or disease outbreaks

While agreeing with the need for limited exemptions to the ban, some respondents expressed reservations about the welfare of animals snared, calling for stricter regulations based on ethical considerations. They questioned the necessity of any exemptions, highlighting the potential harm and distress caused to animals, including non-target species. Some respondents suggested exemptions only in cases of humane dispatch, animal relocation, or medical treatment, emphasising the importance of ethical conduct.

Most respondents who answered no to question four however, commented that they support an outright ban on snares and other cable restraints, citing many of the same reasons as discussed at question one. Some argued that there are viable alternatives available, including cage trapping and shooting, making exemptions unnecessary. Many stressed that snares, regardless of their purpose, are inherently cruel and indiscriminate, causing significant suffering to both target and non-target species. A few respondents expressed the belief that exemptions would create loopholes in the legislation, leading to abuse and rendering the ban ineffective.

Respondents who were unsure about the proposal to include an exemption to the ban on snaring emphasised the need for stringent regulations. They acknowledged rare scenarios where exemptions might be considered, mostly situations involving sick or injured animals, or animals in extremely hazardous environments. Similar to the other respondents, a recurring concern about the use of snares was the potential for injury, with unsure respondents questioning how snares could be used without causing harm. Some suggested exceptions for specific organisations, such as the Scottish SPCA, if handheld wire loop capture devices were necessary for animal rescue efforts. Overall, unsure respondents urged caution, advocating for careful consideration and ethical justifiability in any exemption decisions, and emphasising the importance of public scrutiny and transparent documentation in such cases.