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

Annex B

Campaign texts

BASC guide to the consultation

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) provided a guide for supporters to complete the consultation questionnaire.^[2]

Section 1 – Snaring

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

NO.

Amid climate and nature crises, effective predator control must continue to play a crucial role in protecting endangered and threatened species, such as capercaillie, curlew, lapwing and golden plover.

BASC believes that the Scottish Government has not fully analysed nor evidenced the potential and catastrophic consequences of a total ban on snares (also known as humane cable restraints).

Crucially, there has no impact assessment been carried out on biodiversity, conservation, agricultural damage, or the wider rural economy.

Fundamentally, this proposal removes a key option in the predator control toolkit which will spell disastrous consequences for threatened species. With the introduction of the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023, limiting the use of dogs, shooting will be the only remaining predator control method, which is ineffective in certain terrain.

It is vital that snares are retained under the powers of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Snares are necessary in places and at times of the year when rifle shooting is impossible because of dense cover or the absence of safety backstops, yet when fox predation has critical impact and control can mitigate the damage.

Modern snares address animal welfare concerns. They are compliant with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) and the breakaway component is indiscriminate, meaning that it effectively reduces the risk of non-target catch.

BASC Scotland alongside other rural organisations produced the Practitioners’ Review in 2022, highlighting the importance of snares, supported with robust scientific evidence pertaining to animal welfare.

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?

YES.

BASC believes that snares must be retained so that research can be conducted into the behaviour of and populations of wild mammals, such as foxes.

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

YES.

BASC remains opposed to a ban, but acknowledges, by default, it would be NatureScot who could issue licences. We remain deeply concerned at the pressure placed on NatureScot at a time when resources are stretched. With the sheer volume of new legislation, licences and other functions, it is entirely conceivable that NatureScot will experience delays and issues when administering the volume of new licences as a result of new legislation.

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?

YES.

BASC believes that an exemption should be available for the purposes of limiting agricultural damage and for the interests of conservation, should the use of snares be restricted.

With the potential removal of snares and the restrictions of the two-dog limit imposed by the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023, there will be a disastrous consequence for threatened species such as capercaillie and curlew, conservation projects and young livestock, thus impacting significantly on fragile rural communities and livelihoods.

BASC is concerned about the predation of agricultural livestock and gamebirds, namely lambs, partridge, and pheasant. The Scottish Government has not provided a sufficient economic evaluation of the potential outcomes for lowland shoots and farming businesses of a potential ban.

Failing to provide an exemption would be a dereliction of duty of the Scottish Government, leading to a rise in predators, over-predation, biodiversity loss, habitat loss and economic loss within the rural economy.

Section 2 – SSPCA powers

5. Do you agree with our proposal to provide Scottish SPCA inspectors who are acting under their existing powers under the 2006 Act, with additional powers to search, examine and seize evidence in connection with specific offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981?

NO.

From the outset, SSPCA is a charity and should not be granted statutory powers.

Extending the investigatory powers available to the SSPCA goes against the advice of an independent taskforce set up by the Scottish Government.

The concluding report from SSPCA taskforce examined three possible scenarios for future SSPCA powers and concluded that enhanced partnership working for the charity, rather than new investigatory powers was the best way forward.

The SSPCA taskforce concluded that there would be problems in allowing the SSPCA to retain its campaign functions as an organisation and to also hold key powers in investigating alleged criminality.

It is paramount that any form of search, examination or seizing of evidence is conducted by Police Scotland. Police Scotland should be provided with additional resources to tackle wildlife crime, instead of powers being granted to a charity.

BASC believes that granting additional powers to the SSPCA will erode the trust and confidence of the public that wildlife crime is being investigated seriously given it is not being afforded the police attention it requires.

6. Do you agree with our proposal to provide Scottish SPCA inspectors who are acting under their existing powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, with additional powers to search, examine and seize evidence in connection with specific offences under the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill.

NO.

Extending the investigatory powers available to the SSPCA goes against the advice of an independent taskforce set up by the Scottish Government.

Again, BASC has grave concerns for a charity having both investigatory and political lobbying powers, this is a serious conflict of interest.

7. Do you agree with the limitations and conditions placed on these proposals set out below?

these powers would only be given to a Scottish SPCA inspector appointed by the Scottish Ministers under section 49(2)(a) of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006;

inspectors would be individually authorised by the Scottish Government and that authorisations could be withdrawn at the discretion of the Scottish Government; all inspectors would be required to undertake specified training prior to being given authorisation to exercise the new powers.

YES.

As per answers set out above, the SSPCA should not be granted additional powers.

BASC has concerns over these limitation and conditions, especially about their application within the context of the SSPCA.

BASC is concerned that SSPCA officers are not trained to the same standards as Police Scotland officers, and we are not satisfied that inspectors can discharge these powers, whilst not prejudicing or inflicting bias on a potential investigation.

There is no robust or transparent screening process currently in place to ascertain whether an SSPCA inspector would bias or prejudice an investigation (e.g. through an affiliation to an anti-shooting/farming/land management charity or organisation).

Fundamentally, any powers afforded to an individual on this magnitude should be to an individual working for Police Scotland.

OneKind guide to the consultation

OneKind provided a guide for supporters to complete the questionnaire^[3].

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

We suggest answering Yes.

We strongly support this proposal by the Scottish Government. We have been campaigning for a ban on snares for years.

You may want to mention:

The harms caused by snaring, which can include: injuries, such as internal organ damage; strangulation; exhaustion; hunger and thirst; self-mutilation in an attempt to escape; fear and distress; risk from predators and exposure to the elements while trapped.

Animals may suffer for hours. See examples here and here.

A wide range of species are found caught in snares, including foxes, badgers, deer, otters, and companion cats and dogs. Up to 72% of animals caught in snares are ‘non-target’ species.

76% of the Scottish public support a snaring ban in Scotland.

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has recommended that the sale of snares and their use by both public and industry are banned in Scotland, on animal welfare grounds. The British Veterinary Association has also recommended a ban on snares.

No changes to design or name can make snares humane, as the method inherently causes suffering.

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?

We suggest answering No.

You may want to mention:

The harms snares can cause are still a risk to any animal trapped in them, regardless of the reason.

Research should be carried out ethically. The use of snares is never justified, regardless of any research benefits.

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

We suggest you do not answer.

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?

We suggest answering No.

The harms snares can cause are still a risk to any animal trapped in them, regardless of the reason.

The use of snares is never justified.

Questions 5, 6 and 7 ask if you agree with the proposal to provide the Scottish SPCA with additional powers to investigate wildlife crime. We support this proposal and the excellent investigative work of the Scottish SPCA, and suggest answering yes to all of these questions.

Animal Aid guide to the consultation

Animal Aid provided a guide for supporters to complete the questionnaire^[4].

Q1: Do you agree with our proposals to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 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

Please answer ‘yes’.

You may wish to add some of the following points:

Snares are inhumane and cause tremendous suffering and death. Panicked animals struggle to escape, causing injuries and tears to their flesh or muscle and possibly leading to strangulation. Animals can be trapped by other parts of their bodies causing horrific injuries, with animals being known to gnaw off part of their own bodies trying to escape.

Snares are indiscriminate and catch non-target animals such as cats, dogs or badgers. There are numerous stories in the press of companion animals being caught and even dying in snares.

Snared parent animals cannot return to their offspring leading to the deaths of their babies.

Snared, trapped animals may be attacked and killed whilst still conscious.

Trapped animals can die of dehydration (especially in hot weather) or exposure (in cold weather)

Cable restraints are the same as a snare, and therefore just as cruel.

Snares are most commonly used by the shooting industry, which sets snares to catch any animal considered a threat to game birds – birds who themselves are destined to be shot for sport. Killing wildlife to protect mass-produced birds who will later be shot and killed is inhumane and immoral.

Q2: 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?

Please answer ‘no’

You may wish to add some of the following points:

Animals will suffer when snared regardless of who carries out the snaring and for what purpose.

Exceptions will create loopholes in robust legislation, which will be exploited by those who already snare animals.

It is impossible to police and check on ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ snare use, so, in order to ensure that animals do not suffer, a total ban is needed.

Q3: If you answered yes to question 2, do you agree that anyone using snares for this purpose would require a licence from NatureScot?

Please do not answer.

Q4: 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?

Please answer ‘no’

You may wish to add some of the following points:

As previously described in Q1, snares are cruel and indiscriminate.

The Welsh Government has already banned the use of snares without exceptions, so the Scottish Government should follow its lead to ensure that no more animals suffer and die in snares.

Q5,6 & 7 ask about providing the Scottish SPCA with more powers to allow them to tackle wildlife crime.

We feel that it is best to answer ‘yes’ to all of these questions.

REVIVE Coalition guide to the consultation

REVIVE Coalition provided a guide for supporters to complete the questionnaire^[5].

Q1. 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.

Yes: You may wish to highlight the following points:

Snaring is inhumane, causing severe suffering to animals.

Many case studies and scientific reports demonstrate that snares are inherently inhumane, causing prolonged suffering and often a slow agonising death to wild and domestic animals. Much of this occurs when the wire can twist and tighten leading to strangulation or other severe injuries.

Sites where animals have been caught in snares show signs of extreme disturbance to the surrounding ground - known as “doughnuts” - where the animal has tried to run jump or scramble its way out of the trap.

Snares are indiscriminate

Snares and inherently indiscriminate and regularly catch a wide range of non-target species including Scottish wildcats, mountain hares, badgers, hedgehogs, deer, otters, and family pets. Scientific reports estimate that between 21% and 69% of animals caught in snares were not target species.

Snares are unnecessary and counter-productive.

Most snares are set on shooting estates to target foxes so that there can be more grouse to shoot for sport. Science shows that if a fox is killed it is usually replaced by another fox within a short space of time.

There are alternatives to cruel and indiscriminate snares.

These include cage trapping, the use of guard species, such as llamas who can protect lambs from foxes and shooting foxes at night using thermal imaging sights.

Q2. 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?

No: You may wish to highlight the following point:

Because of the reasons given in Question 1 that snares are cruel and indiscriminate – there can be no circumstances where they could be used without endangering both target and non-target animals.

Q3. If you answered yes question 2, do you agree than anyone using snares for this purpose would require a licence from NatureScot?

Leave unanswered.

Q4. 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?

No: You might want to highlight the following point:

Because of the reasons given in Question 1 that snares are cruel and indiscriminate – there can be no circumstances where they could be used without endangering both target and non-target animals.

Powers of the Scottish SPCA Inspectors

Q5. Do you agree with our proposal to provide Scottish SPCA inspectors who are acting under their existing powers under the 2006 Act, with additional powers to search, examine and seize evidence in connection with specific offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981?

Yes: You might want to discuss your views on the following:

Point out that these powers would allow SSPCA inspectors, who are already on location investigating wildlife crime, to search, examine and seize evidence. For example, if inspectors were investigating an animal welfare incident where it appeared that there was evidence of wildlife crime on that land, then they would be able to seize other potential evidence in the area. Previously, they would have needed the assistance of Police Scotland to do this.

This should lead to more effective policing of wildlife crime in Scotland and could help decrease the number of wildlife crimes committed, as more cases would be investigated with additional expertise.

This would not only deter potential offenders, but also help achieve a higher detection rate and reduce suffering to wild animals.

Q6. Do you agree with our proposal to provide Scottish SPCA inspectors who are acting under their existing powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, with additional powers to search, examine and seize evidence in connection with specific offences under the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill?

Yes: You might want to discuss your views on the following:

Point out that these powers would allow SSPCA inspectors, who are already on location investigating wildlife crime, to search, examine and seize evidence. For example, if inspectors were investigating an animal welfare incident where it appeared that there was evidence of wildlife crime on that land, then they would be able to seize other potential evidence in the area. Previously, they would have needed the assistance of Police Scotland to do this.

This will lead to more effective policing of wildlife crime in Scotland and could help decrease the number of wildlife crimes committed, as more cases would be investigated with additional expertise.

This would not only deter potential offenders, but also help achieve a higher detection rate and reduce suffering to wild animals.

Q7.

Yes. Point out that these conditions appear to be sensible.