Wildlife management: consultation analysis

4. Trapping and snaring

Wildlife Traps

The control of mammal predators is regulated by the laws on animal cruelty and controls on the sort of traps and snares that can be used, with new regulations on certain forms of traps in the course of being implemented in accordance with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (affecting traps for stoats). The protected status of some predatory species (e.g. badgers) must also be taken into account.

Increased regulation on the use of snares was introduced a few years ago and provides a model for other activities. For both cage traps and spring traps, further measures are recommended in addition to the existing rules applying to each type of trap.

The lawful use of traps to catch corvids (members of the crow family) can result in the capture of, and on occasion, injury to, raptors and other traps can also cause unintended harm to wildlife. The Scottish Government proposes new legislation to mitigate the risk of this occurring.

Question 25: The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap must apply for a unique identification number which they must then attach to any traps that they set outdoors, do you agree that this proposal should apply to (select all that apply): i Live capture traps for birds ii Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) iii Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order iv Rodent kill traps v Live capture traps for rodents vi None of the above vii Unsure viii Other traps (please specify)

Responses to Question 25 by respondent type are set out in Table 15 below.

Table 15: Question 25

Organisations:	Live capture traps for birds	Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents)	Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order	Rodent kill traps	Live capture traps for rodents	None of the above	Unsure
Animal welfare	16	15	15	14	15
Conservation, including representative bodies	22	22	21	19	20
Land management, including representative bodies	23	20	14	6	8	8	4
Pest control, including representative bodies	3	3	1	1	2	1	3
Public body, including law enforcement	4	4	4	3	4		1
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	1					2
Other - private sector	7	7	3	3	3		2
Other - non private sector	6	6	6	6	6		1
Total organisations	82	77	64	52	58	11	11
% of organisations	79%	74%	62%	50%	56%	11%	11%
Individuals	3760	3604	3248	2560	2577	484	159
% of individuals	85%	82%	74%	58%	58%	11%	4%
All respondents	3842	3681	3312	2612	2635	495	170
% of all respondents	85%	81%	73%	58%	58%	11%	4%

The highest level of support – 85% of those answering the question – was for a unique identification number to be attached to live capture traps for birds, with 81% support for a similar requirement for live capture traps for mammals (except rodents), and 73% for traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order. Live capture traps for rodents and rodent kill traps attracted a rather lower level of support at 58% in each case. While 11% of respondents selected 'none of the above', 51% supported a unique identification number for all five types of trap.

The level of support from organisational respondents was rather lower than among individuals, although still with a majority in favour of a unique identification number for all but rodent kill traps, where 50% approved. Among organisations, 39% supported a unique identification number for all five types of trap.

Other traps (please specify)

Around 340 respondents made a comment at Question 25, although many of these used the opportunity to elaborate on their views around licensing of traps. Around 220 of those commenting suggested other traps.

The majority of these respondents wished to see proposals applied to all wildlife traps. This included calls for unique ID numbers to be applied to snares and glue traps.

In terms of other specific types of wildlife traps which respondents wished to see covered by proposals, these were:

• Camera traps set in the vicinity of protected birds or mammals.
• Crow traps.
• Fenn traps.
• Live traps for amphibians or fish.
• Rabbit drop traps.
• Rodenticide bait boxes or traps.
• Cage traps used for neuter and return of feral cats.
• Traps set indoors.
• Tunnel-type traps.

Some respondents were looking for clarity about the scope of the traps listed at Question 25. For example, it was noted that rodent traps could cover traps for beavers; respondents suggested that proposals should be clear around whether this was the intention of proposals.

Question 26: The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap outdoors must successfully complete an approved course dealing with the relevant category of trap, do you agree that this proposal should apply to (select all that apply): i Live capture traps for birds ii Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) iii Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order iv Rodent kill traps v Live capture traps for rodents vi None of the above vii Unsure viii Other traps (please specify)

Responses to Question 26 by respondent type are set out in Table 16 below.

Table 16: Question 26

Organisations:	Live capture traps for birds	Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents)	Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order	Rodent kill traps	Live capture traps for rodents	None of the above	Unsure
Animal welfare	15	14	14	13	14
Conservation, including representative bodies	22	22	21	21	21
Land management, including representative bodies	24	24	20	4	5	6	5
Pest control, including representative bodies	4	4	2	2	3		3
Public body, including law enforcement	4	4	4	3	4		1
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	1	1	1	1	1	2
Other - private sector	7	7	3	3	3		2
Other - non private sector	6	6	6	6	6		1
Total organisations	83	82	71	53	57	8	12
% of organisations	81%	80%	69%	51%	55%	8%	12%
Individuals	3774	3705	3426	2660	2682	436	169
% of individuals	86%	84%	78%	60%	61%	10%	4%
All respondents	3857	3787	3497	2713	2739	444	181
% of all respondents	85%	84%	77%	60%	61%	10%	4%

The highest level of support – 85% of those answering the question – was for a person operating a live capture traps for birds to successfully complete an approved course, with 84% support for a similar requirement for live capture traps for mammals (except rodents), and 77% for traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order. Live capture traps for rodents and rodent kill traps attracted a rather lower level of support at 61% and 60% respectively. While 10% of respondents selected 'none of the above', 53% of all respondents supported a training requirement for five types of trap.

The level of support from organisational respondents was a little lower than among individuals, although still with a majority in favour of successful completion of an approved course in all cases, although this dropped to only 51% approval with respect to rodent kill traps. Among organisations, 40% supported a training requirement for all five types of trap.

Other traps (please specify)

Around 240 respondents made a comment at Question 26. As at Question 25, many of commenting used the opportunity to elaborate on their views around training requirements for traps. Around 160 of those commenting suggested other traps.

Again, the majority of these respondents wished to see proposals applied to all wildlife traps. This included calls for training requirements to be applied to snares and glue traps. Other specific types of wildlife traps referenced by respondents were also similar to those highlighted at Question 25, including:

• Camera traps.
• Crow traps.
• Live traps for amphibians or fish.
• Rodenticide bait boxes or traps.
• Cage traps used for neuter and return of feral cats.
• Traps set indoors.

Question 27: This question should only be answered if you agree that training should be required for at least one of the traps listed in Question 26. The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap outdoors must undergo refresher training every 10 years, do you agree that this proposal should apply to: i Live capture traps for birds ii Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents) iii Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order iv Rodent kill traps v Live capture traps for rodents vi None of the above vii Unsure viii Other traps (please specify)

Responses to Question 27 by respondent type are set out in Table 17 below.

Table 17: Question 27

Organisations:	Live capture traps for birds	Live capture traps for mammals (except rodents)	Traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order	Rodent kill traps	Live capture traps for rodents	None of the above	Unsure
Animal welfare	15	14	14	13	14
Conservation, including representative bodies	22	22	22	20	21
Land management, including representative bodies	21	22	20	4	5	5	3
Pest control, including representative bodies	4	4	2	2	3		3
Public body, including law enforcement	4	4	4	3	4		1
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	1	1	1	1	1	1
Other - private sector	6	6	3	3	3	1	2
Other - non private sector	6	6	6	6	6		1
Total organisations	79	79	72	52	57	7	10
% of organisations	81%	81%	73%	53%	58%	7%	10%
Individuals	3643	3587	3305	2530	2548	287	160
% of individuals	89%	88%	81%	62%	62%	7%	4%
All respondents	3722	3666	3377	2582	2605	294	170
% of all respondents	89%	87%	80%	62%	62%	7%	4%

The highest level of support – 89% of those answering the question – was for a person operating a live capture trap for birds to undergo refresher training every 10 years, with 87% support for a similar requirement for live capture traps for mammals (except rodents), and 80% for traps listed in the Spring Trap Approval Order. Live capture traps for rodents and rodent kill traps attracted a rather lower level of support at 62% in each case. While 7% of respondents selected 'none of the above', 51% of all respondents supported requirement for refresher training for five types of trap.

The level of support from organisational respondents was a little lower than among individuals, although still with a majority in favour of successful completion of an approved course in all cases, although this dropped to only 53% approval with respect to rodent kill traps. Among organisations, 40% supported a requirement for refresher training for all five types of trap.Other traps (please specify)

Around 240 respondents made a comment at Question 27, and again many used the opportunity to elaborate on their views around proposals for refresher training. Around 140 of those commenting suggested other traps.

As at Questions 25 and 26, the majority of respondents wished to see proposals applied to all wildlife traps. This included calls for training requirements to be applied to snares and glue traps. Other specific types of wildlife traps referenced by respondents were also similar to those highlighted at previous questions and included:

• Camera traps.
• Live traps for amphibians or fish.
• Rodenticide bait boxes or traps.
• Cage traps used for neuter and return of feral cats.
• Traps set indoors.

Question 28 – Do you agree that record keeping and reporting requirements should be part of the registration scheme?

• Record keeping
• Reporting requirements
• Neither
• Unsure

Please note that record keeping would involve noting down the activities carried out under the licence ( e.g. the number and kind of traps used under the licence, the number of each species caught or killed using licenced traps, and the number of days the traps were set for) and providing these if/when they are requested. Reporting requirements would involve the active reporting of activities carried out under the licence on a regular basis.

Responses to Question 28 by respondent type are set out in Table 18 below.

Table 18: Question 28

Organisations:	Both record keeping and reporting	Record keeping only	Reporting only	Neither	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	13	1	2	1	0	17
Conservation, including representative bodies	21	1	0	0	0	22
Land management, including representative bodies	7	15	0	10	2	34
Pest control, including representative bodies	2	1	1	0	3	7
Public body, including law enforcement	3	0	0	0	2	5
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	0	0	3	0	3
Other - private sector	2	1	0	6	0	9
Other - non private sector	5	2	0	0	0	7
Total organisations	53	21	3	20	7	104
% of organisations	51%	20%	3%	19%	7%
Individuals	2693	591	233	803	118	4438
% of individuals	61%	13%	5%	18%	3%
All respondents	2746	612	236	823	125	4542
% of all respondents	60%	13%	5%	18%	3%

Overall, 60% of those who answered the question agreed with a requirement for both record keeping and reporting. Of the remaining respondents, 13% supported record keeping only, 5% reporting only and 18% thought neither should be required.

Question 29: Do you agree that an individual found guilty of the offence of:

• using a trap without valid training from an approved body;
• using a trap without being registered to do so;
• using a trap without displaying an identification number correctly on the trap;
• falsifying records or identification number;
• using a trap on land without landowner permission;
• failing to comply with the duty to keep trapping records.

should be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both). A level 5 fine is currently £5,000.

Responses to Question 29 by respondent type are set out in Table 19 below.

Table 19: Question 29

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	12	3	1	16
Conservation, including representative bodies	20	1	0	21
Land management, including representative bodies	10	21	4	35
Pest control, including representative bodies	3	1	3	7
Public body, including law enforcement	4	0	1	5
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	3	0	3
Other - private sector	2	6	1	9
Other - non private sector	5	0	1	6
Total organisations	56	35	11	102
% of organisations	55%	34%	11%
Individuals	3146	1087	230	4463
% of individuals	70%	24%	5%
All respondents	3202	1122	241	4565
% of all respondents	70%	25%	5%

Please note that some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority – 70% of those who answered the question – agreed with the proposed penalties with respect to the offences listed. Of the remaining respondents, 25% disagreed and 5% were unsure.

Among organisational respondents a smaller majority – 55% – agreed, while 34% disagreed and 11% were unsure. A majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation', 'Public body' and 'Other – non private sector' respondents agreed, while the majority of 'Land management', 'Sporting organisations', and 'Other – private sector' respondents disagreed. 'Pest control' respondents were divided on this issue.

Question 30 – If you answered 'No' to Question 29, explain the reason for your answer.

Around 1,125 respondents made a comment at Question 30. Of these, around 990 respondents had answered 'No' at Question 30 and around 135 had answered 'Yes' or that they were 'Unsure'.

The analysis of written comments across the questions on traps suggests that most of those who disagreed with proposals were either of the view that the proposed punishment would be disproportionate for administrative and training-related offences, or that the proposals do not go far enough and stronger penalties should be available.

It is also notable that some of those commenting indicated that they were drawing on first-hand experience. These respondents referred to experience from the point of view of a land manager, including of accidental or deliberate damage to traps, and of being involved in prosecution of similar offences.

Proportionality of proposals

The most frequently given reason for those objecting to the proposals was that they are excessive, with particular concerns about the potential for a custodial sentence. Some of those answering 'No' at Question 29 agreed that financial penalties could have a role to play, but felt that a custodial sentence would be excessive. It was also noted that a custodial sentence could result in individuals losing their livelihood, home and employment; this was seen as a disproportionate response to the listed offences. There was also a view that the level of punishment proposed equates to discrimination against the hunting sector.

Some respondents were concerned about the proposed punishments being applied to what were seen as 'administrative' offences, such as failure to keep records, registration and training, where these do not have a direct impact on animal welfare. It was also suggested that:

• The proposed punishments would be excessive for first-time offenders.
• There is the potential for honest mistakes or a misunderstanding of the law to result in an offence. There was concern that proposals would mean that this kind of error could lead to a severe punishment.

Reflecting these concerns, it was suggested that the proposals should not apply to 'administrative' offences such as record keeping, reporting and training. Others went further and wished to see the proposed punishment applied only to unlawful or improper use of traps which results in animal suffering.

Respondents also suggested alternative, lesser penalties for the offences listed at Question 29. In addition to suggestions of lower fines and/or shorter prison sentences, respondents proposed the following as alternative punishments:

• Withdrawal of trapping licences.
• A ban on other wildlife or animal-related activities.
• Mandatory attendance at an education or awareness raising course (speed awareness courses were cited as a potential model).
• A written warning for a first offence.

There were also suggestions for when exceptions should be in place, including trapping for research purposes, and organisations using live capture traps for the purposes of trapping, neutering and releasing for population control.

Potential for abuse of regulations

The potential for malicious tampering with, or damage to, traps was a key concern of some of those who felt that the proposed penalties are too severe. These respondents referred to examples of accidental or deliberate tampering with traps, and it was suggested that the proposals risk imposing severe punishment on land managers as a result of the action by members of the public or campaign organisations.

Similar concerns were raised around the potential for land managers to be 'set up' by malicious parties setting illegal traps on their land, or for issues such as ID tags detaching from traps as a result of weather or wildlife. Again there was concern that proposals could result in substantial penalties being imposed on land managers or game keepers in these circumstances.

An equivalent offence for interfering with traps

Some of those who disagreed at Question 29 suggested that, if proposals are taken forward, there should be an equivalent offence of interfering with legally-set traps. This appeared to be linked to a wider view that lawbreaking should be treated equally whether it is by land managers or members of the public. This was also reflected in suggestions that punishments for interfering with traps should be equivalent to those imposed on land managers.

Need for, and possible consequences of, proposals

Some of those who felt that proposed offences and punishments are excessive also suggested that proposals are not necessary. These respondents were of the view that existing regulations and penalties are sufficient, and that further regulation would be disproportionate.

Some of these respondents noted the strengthening of existing regulation over recent years, such as in relation to animal welfare protections and raptor persecution, and suggested that there is limited evidence of continuing abuse of regulations. Reference was also made to improvements in trap technologies and training standards as having reduced the risk of inappropriate use of traps. In this context, it was suggested that more effective enforcement of existing regulations should be sufficient. This also appeared to reflect a wider view that regulation and enforcement should be focused on the functionality and use of traps, rather than administrative issues such as registration and record keeping.

Finally for those who felt that proposals are excessive, some pointed to the potential for unintended consequences. For example, it was suggested that additional regulation could make it more difficult to eradicate non-native species.

Sufficiency of proposals

As noted earlier, many others who answered 'No' at Question 29 thought that the proposals do not go far enough to deter offending and prevent animal cruelty. This included some who wished to see a ban on all trapping but who felt that, in the absence of an outright ban, regulation should reflect a 'zero tolerance' approach to animal cruelty.

Some of those who felt that the proposed penalties are insufficient wished to see harsher punishment for the listed offences. Several specific offences or circumstances were highlighted as requiring stronger penalties. These included cases where there has been unnecessary harm to animals, offences affecting protected species and/or locations, falsifying records and repeat offending.

Specific proposals for stronger offences were primarily focused on larger fines and/or longer prison sentences. In relation to financial penalties, it was suggested that a fine of £5,000 would not be a sufficient deterrent for many larger estates. Some suggested fines of £10 -15,000 or more, and there was a view that larger fines should be imposed on businesses or estates. Some were also of the view that, to act as a meaningful deterrent, longer prison sentences would be required, and there was reference to the maximum sentencing set out in Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2000 as a potential guide. Additional penalties suggested by respondents included revocation of wildlife-related or other licences.

Implementation of proposals

Respondents also highlighted several issues relating to how proposals would be implemented. For example, there was concern about the evidence required to justify the proposed punishments, with some suggesting that a criminal burden of proof would be required. Other comments included that:

• A right of appeal should be available, again reflecting the significant proposed punishments.
• The effectiveness of proposals would be dependent on enforcement, with some suggesting that the nature of any punishment would be an academic issue without effective enforcement. Respondents noted that additional resourcing would be required to support effective enforcement and associated activities.
• Awareness raising activity will be required to support compliance with any new regulations.

Several queries were also raised, including which traps the proposed offences would relate to, and which parties would be held liable for offences? In relation to the latter point, some asked whether the land manager or owner should also be liable, where the offender is an employee or agent?

Question 31 – Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Around 1,660 respondents made a comment at Question 31, albeit many addressed issues already covered at the previous questions on traps.

Concerns around the impact of trapping

The most commonly raised issue was animal welfare impacts of trapping, including that traps can cause severe and prolonged suffering for wildlife. There were calls for specific types of wildlife traps to be banned, or for an outright ban on all trapping. For some respondents this was linked to a particularly strong objection to trapping for the purposes of sport. In particular, there was a view that 'kill to kill' trap setting should not be permitted.

Respondents also suggested additional regulation to ensure that available traps are humane, and avoid unnecessary animal suffering. This included reference to specific standards having a potential role in ensuring that regulation minimises unnecessary suffering – for example international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control, those set out in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and the AnimalKind Wildlife and Rodent Control Standards.

Calls for a review of the animal welfare impact of traps

Many of those raising concerns around the impacts of trapping called for a specific review of animal welfare in relation to traps. This was linked to concerns that the existing regulatory framework is open to abuse; there was reference to particular issues associated with the impact on non-target species, and to the persecution of protected raptors continuing under the current system.

In this context, there was thought to be a need for further research, including into the development of alternative wildlife deterrents and more humane methods of trapping and killing wildlife. Some also wished to see an overall approach that prioritises mitigation measures, with lethal options treated as a last resort and only permitted after non-lethal measures have been considered and tried.

Proposals for additional regulation

Respondents also suggested specific changes or additions to the existing regulatory framework to minimise the negative impact of trapping on animal welfare. These included calls for:

• Development of a stronger evidence base to inform regulation.
• A stronger focus on training, including reference to a potential role for specific training bodies.
• Standardisation of trap design.

The necessity of trapping

Others who commented suggested that trapping is sometimes necessary for effective wildlife management, and raised concerns that proposals are overly restrictive in terms of ensuring land managers have access to the tools they need. There were associated concerns that further restrictions and/or the banning of some traps could lead to negative, unintended consequences.

Linked to concerns about the impact of the proposals on land managers, a number of respondents repeated concerns raised at Question 30 around potential for proposals to incentivise sabotage of legally set traps. As noted earlier, there were calls for tampering, vandalism or theft of legally set traps to be regarded as a bespoke criminal offence.

Respondents also highlighted other concerns or sought clarification regarding:

• The burden of proof that should be applied.
• The scope of liability where individuals are acting on behalf of a land owner or organisation.

Points on other closed questions

Some respondents used Question 31 to note their views relating to topics at closed Questions 25 – 29. These are summarised below where not already recorded elsewhere.

The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap must apply for a unique identification number which they must then attach to any traps that they set outdoors, do you agree that this proposal should apply to the following types of trap? (Question 25)

The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap outdoors must successfully complete an approved course dealing with the relevant category of trap, do you agree that this proposal should apply to the following types of trap? (Question 26)

The Scottish Government proposes that a person operating a wildlife management trap outdoors must undergo refresher training every 10 years, do you agree that this proposal should apply to the following types of trap? (Question 27)

With reference to the types of trap, and the proposals considered previously at Questions 25, 26 and 27, comments included that they should not apply to rodent kill traps. These were said to raise more limited animal welfare issues, and there was also concern about the potential for the proposals to lead to greater use of rodenticides by households left to deal with rodent issues in private spaces. There was also concern that extending the application of unique ID numbers beyond live capture traps for birds could create an unreasonable administrative burden for estates, given that other trap types are more regularly and extensively deployed.

Finally, there was reference to specific types of trap as potentially requiring further regulation including year-round use of crow traps, and large aperture traps in forest rides or at high altitude. It was also suggested that consideration should be given to controls on the use of other indiscriminate wildlife traps (such as invertebrate traps) to prevent unnecessary biodiversity loss.

Do you agree that record keeping and reporting requirements should be part of the registration scheme? (Question 28)

Respondents highlighted a number of points in relation to proposed record keeping and reporting requirements, considered earlier at Question 28. They included that better reporting would have the potential to improve the evidence base to support policy development and enforcement. There were calls for recording of non-target species caught or killed using licensed traps and the altitude of large aperture crow traps.

Other comments included that there may be a need for additional support around reporting requirements to ensure these are not a barrier to community engagement in conservation. However, it was also suggested that public dissemination of reports could breach data protection regulations.

Glue traps

There has been significant and ongoing concern regarding the welfare implications of the use of rodent glue traps. They can result in prolonged suffering and are indiscriminate in nature, meaning that non-target species can easily be caught. They are only one in a number of pest control methods available and glue traps are often cited as being used as a last resort.

In response to a recent report from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, the Scottish Government has committed to ban the use of glue traps in this parliamentary term. It is also proposing a ban on the sale of glue traps in Scotland, provided that this can be achieved under the terms of the Internal Market Act 2020.

Question 32 – Do you agree that the use of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland?

Responses to Question 32 by respondent type are set out in Table 20 below.

Table 20: Question 32

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	16	1	0	17
Conservation, including representative bodies	22	0	0	22
Land management, including representative bodies	9	7	14	30
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	6	0	7
Public body, including law enforcement	3	1	1	5
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	1	2	1	4
Other - private sector	5	4	0	9
Other - non private sector	7	1	0	8
Total organisations	64	22	16	102
% of organisations	63%	22%	16%
Individuals	3380	486	429	4295
% of individuals	79%	11%	10%
All respondents	3444	508	445	4397
% of all respondents	78%	12%	10%

Please note that some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority – 78% of those who answered the question – agreed that the use of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland. Of the remaining respondents, 12% disagreed and 10% were unsure.

Among organisational respondents a smaller majority – 63% – agreed that the use of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned, while 22% disagreed and 16% were unsure. 'Pest control' respondents were the only group while where a majority of respondents disagreed, while a clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation', and 'Other – non private sector' respondents agreed with the proposal.

Question 33 – Do you agree that the sale of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland?

Responses to Question 33 by respondent type are set out in Table 21 below.

Table 21: Question

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	16	1	0	17
Conservation, including representative bodies	22	0	0	22
Land management, including representative bodies	10	6	13	29
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	6	0	7
Public body, including law enforcement	3	1	1	5
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	1	2	1	4
Other - private sector	5	4	0	9
Other - non private sector	7	1	0	8
Total organisations	65	21	15	101
% of organisations	64%	21%	15%
Individuals	3386	486	420	4292
% of individuals	79%	11%	10%
All respondents	3451	507	435	4393
% of all respondents	79%	12%	10%

Please note that some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority – 79% of those who answered the question – agreed that the sale of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland. Of the remaining respondents, 12% disagreed and 10% were unsure.

Among organisational respondents a smaller majority – 64% – agreed that the sale of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned, while 21% disagreed and 15% were unsure. 'Pest control' respondents were the only group while where a majority of respondents disagreed, while a clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation', and 'Other – non private sector' respondents agreed with the proposal.

Question 34 – Do you agree that there should be a two year transition period before the ban on glue traps comes into force?

Responses to Question 34 by respondent type are set out in Table 22 below.

Table 22: Question 34

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	3	13	1	17
Conservation, including representative bodies	2	18	2	22
Land management, including representative bodies	4	13	13	30
Pest control, including representative bodies	2	3	1	6
Public body, including law enforcement	1	3	1	5
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	0	2	2	4
Other - private sector	4	3	2	9
Other - non private sector	1	6	1	8
Total organisations	17	61	23	101
% of organisations	17%	60%	23%
Individuals	698	2957	628	4283
% of individuals	16%	69%	15%
All respondents	715	3018	651	4384
% of all respondents	16%	69%	15%

A majority – 69% of those who answered the question – did not agree that there should be a two-year transition period before a ban on glue traps comes into force. Of the remaining respondents, 16% agreed with the proposed transition period and 15% were unsure.

Among organisational respondents, there were no groups where a majority of respondents agreed with a two-year transition period.

Question 35 – Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Around 1,955 respondents made a comment at Question 35.

The necessity of glue traps

The main issue for many was whether there is a continuing need for glue traps. Some respondents were strongly opposed to any continuing use of glue traps, with the majority of those commenting at Question 35 wishing to see the proposed ban introduced immediately. Some of these respondents suggested that the availability of alternative wildlife management options makes the use of glue traps unnecessary. Alternatives that were described as more humane options than glue traps included deterrence and exclusion-based rodent management, spring traps, electrocution traps and cyanide fumigation.

However, others suggested that there is still a place for responsible use of glue traps. These respondents described glue traps as an effective 'last resort' means of rodent control in cases where other methods would not resolve the issue; there was reference, for example to rodenticide resistance or 'bait shyness'.

There was also reference to specific circumstances where the use of glue traps may be necessary, most commonly at 'high risk' sites where rapid control is required and animal welfare must be weighed against public health. Specific 'high risk' sites cited included schools, healthcare locations, where there is pharmaceutical or food production and in relation to critical infrastructure. In this context, some felt that glue traps should only be used for public health reasons, and not as wildlife management products. Some also highlighted potential adverse impacts associated with any increase in use of rodenticides as a result of a ban on glue traps.

Those who saw a continuing role for glue traps also suggested alternatives to the proposed ban on sale and use of these traps. Specific suggestions included a ban only on their use by the public, and a licensing scheme for sale of glue traps to professional pest control operators. Some referred to equivalent schemes operating elsewhere in the UK, and noted the potential for confusion and compliance issues if different approaches are taken across Scotland, England and Wales.

Some of those commenting also noted that glue traps are not relevant to grouse moor management or raptor persecution. This included some concern that the consultation has associated a ban on glue traps with grouse management.

Points on other closed questions

Some respondents used Question 35 to note their views relating to topics at closed Questions 32 – 34.

Do you agree that the use of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland? (Question 32)

Do you agree that the sale of glue traps designed to catch rodents should be banned in Scotland? (Question 33)

Many of those commenting reiterated their support for a ban on sale and use of glue traps. This support was primarily linked to the animal welfare impacts of glue traps, including their indiscriminate nature and risks to non-target wild and domestic species. These respondents cited specific evidence of the animal welfare impacts of glue traps, with reference to potential for traps to result in dehydration, hunger, distress, torn skin, broken limbs, hair removal, suffocation, starvation, exhaustion and self-mutilation. Some described such traps as 'inhumane' and 'outdated'.

Do you agree that there should be a two-year transition period before the ban on glue traps comes into force? (Question 34)

The majority of commenting on Question 35 were opposed to a transition period before the ban on glue traps comes into force, or felt that a two year transition period would be too long.

These respondents noted that alternative trapping options are already available, and suggested that industry and stakeholders have had sufficient time to consider a move away from glue traps (e.g. following introduction of legislation in England and Wales). On this basis, many respondents wished to see the ban introduced immediately. However, others suggested a shorter transition period, with most suggestions falling in the range of 6 – 12 months.

Other comments on the proposed transition period included recommendations that the Scottish Government should make best use of this period for evaluation of alternative rodent trapping methods, industry education and carrying out a public awareness campaign. It was also suggested that engagement with industry should be used to identify and assess instances where pest controllers felt they were unable to tackle an infestation without use of glue traps.

Snares

The Scottish Government recognises that there is the potential for snares to cause significant injury, prolonged suffering and death to wildlife. There is also a risk that non-target wildlife species and pet animals such as cats and dogs can be caught in them. However, snares can be a useful tool needed for the control of some species, such as rabbits and foxes in order to protect livestock and agriculture. In view of this balance, Scotland already has robust rules and regulations on the use of snaring. However, in reflection of the importance of this discussion, the Scottish Government is required to undertake a review of snaring every 5 years. The latest statutory Review of Snaring was undertaken in 2021/2022 and the Scottish Government proposes to implement its recommendations.

A further review of the impacts of snaring on land management and on animal welfare is also in progress, with a remit including consideration of whether a ban on the use of snares should be introduced. Depending on the outcome, there may be further proposals to be brought forward for this Bill at a later stage.

Question 36 – Do you agree with the recommendations from the statutory review of snaring that operators should be required to update their records at least once every 48 hours, unless they have a reasonable excuse not to and that these records should be made available to the Police on demand if the police arrive at the location where the records are kept, or within 7 days to the police station?

Responses to Question 36 by respondent type are set out in Table 23 below.

Table 23: Question 36

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	7	1	1	9
Conservation, including representative bodies	13	1	1	15
Land management, including representative bodies	13	20	2	35
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	0	4	5
Public body, including law enforcement	3	0	1	4
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	2	1	0	3
Other - private sector	3	5	1	9
Other - non private sector	3	1	0	4
Total organisations	45	29	10	84
% of organisations	54%	35%	12%
Individuals	2851	730	288	3869
% of individuals	74%	19%	7%
All respondents	2896	759	298	3953
% of all respondents	73%	19%	8%

Please note that some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority – 73% of those who answered the question – agreed that operators should be required to update their records at least once every 48 hours, unless they have a reasonable excuse not to and that these records should be made available to the Police on demand if the police arrive at the location where the records are kept, or within 7 days to the police station. Of the remaining respondents, 19% disagreed and 8% were unsure.

Among organisational respondents a smaller majority – 54% – agreed with the proposal, while 35% disagreed and 12% were unsure. A majority of 'Land management' and 'Other – private sector' respondents disagreed.

Question 37 – Do you agree with the recommendations from the statutory review of snaring that a power of disqualification should be introduced for snaring offences?

A disqualification order can stop you from owning, keeping, selling, transporting or working with animals or running a service which involves being in charge of animals.

Responses to Question 37 by respondent type are set out in Table 24 below.

Table 24: Question 37

Organisations:	Yes	No	Unsure	Total
Animal welfare	8	1	1	10
Conservation, including representative bodies	13	1	1	15
Land management, including representative bodies	8	24	3	35
Pest control, including representative bodies	1	0	4	5
Public body, including law enforcement	2	0	2	4
Sporting organisations, including representative bodies	1	2	0	3
Other - private sector	3	7	1	11
Other - non private sector	4	0	0	4
Total organisations	40	35	12	87
% of organisations	46%	40%	14%
Individuals	2765	959	203	3927
% of individuals	70%	24%	5%
All respondents	2805	994	215	4014
% of all respondents	70%	25%	5%

Please note that some percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

A majority – 70% of those who answered the question – agreed that a power of disqualification should be introduced for snaring offences. Of the remaining respondents, 25% disagreed and 5% were unsure.

However, among organisational respondents only 46% of respondents agreed with the proposal, while 40% disagreed and 14% were unsure. While a clear majority of 'Animal welfare', 'Conservation' and 'Other – non private sector' respondents were in agreement, a majority of 'Land management' and 'Other – private sector' respondents disagreed.

Question 38 – Please provide any further comments on the questions in this section here.

Around 2,045 respondents made a comment at Question 38.

A ban on snares

The majority of those commenting indicated that they opposed the proposals because they supported a ban on the sale and use of snares. These respondents suggested that any additional regulation of snares would not be appropriate, and that a ban on use of snares by both the public and trained operators is 'long overdue'. Reference was also made to examples of bans on use of snares elsewhere in the UK and overseas, to various organisations and reports recommending a ban on snares (including the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, British Veterinary Association and Wild Animal Welfare Committee), and to evidence of public support for a ban.

It was also suggested that an outright ban would be more consistent with the Scottish Government's wider approach to protecting animal welfare and biodiversity. There were concerns about the significant negative animal welfare impacts, even when best practice is followed; respondents also highlighted that snares are indiscriminate, presenting significant risk to non-target species including protected species. Other comments included that:

• Free running snares still result in significant injury and suffering as animals panic and try to free themselves.
• Snares do not meet standards set out in the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards, and that the burden of proof should be on those who wish to continue using snares to demonstrate that they can be used humanely.

Some of those calling for a ban on snares suggested that existing regulations, such as modified snare design and mandatory training, have failed to effectively protect wild animal welfare. There was a view that there are no humane snare designs, and that regulation cannot prevent significant negative animal welfare impacts. Some respondents also referred to the availability more humane alternatives to snares. It was noted that land managers involved in conservation work are able to deter unwanted wildlife without use of snares; this was seen as undermining the argument that snares are necessary for effective wildlife management. In this context, some specifically suggested that the negative impacts of snares cannot be justified to protect grouse numbers for the purposes of sport.

Those who supported a ban on snares also raised concerns around enforcement of existing and any new regulations. It was noted that snaring occurs primarily on private land in remote locations, such that significant resources would be required for effective monitoring and enforcement. They also stated that there was evidence that the current requirement to check snares every 24 hours is not always met.

Ethical principles for wildlife control

Reflecting concerns around the animal welfare impact of snares, some wished to see ethical principles applied to all methods of wildlife control. This included specific reference to international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control as a potential approach. It was noted that these principles require wildlife control to be justified by evidence of substantial harm to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems and/or other animals. Respondents also highlighted that this approach would require the selection of specific wildlife controls to prioritise those with the lowest overall animal welfare impact. As noted above, some suggested that snares would not pass this test.

Other suggestions

Others suggested that, rather than a ban there should be additional controls on snares, included a ban on less humane snare designs.

Other suggestions for control or regulation of snares included that additional recommendations of the Review of Snaring should be covered under The Wildlife Management (Grouse) Bill. There was specific reference to increasing the stop position and number of swivels on fox snares.

Points on other closed questions

Some respondents used Question 38 to note their views relating to topics at closed Questions 36 and 37.

Do you agree with the recommendations from the statutory review of snaring that operators should be required to update their records at least once every 48 hours, unless they have a reasonable excuse not to and that these records should be made available to the Police on demand if the police arrive at the location where the records are kept, or within 7 days to the police station? (Question 36)

Comments on proposed record keeping requirements included some respondents who supported the proposals, but noted that additional resources will be required for effective enforcement and awareness raising.

Some also proposed amendments or alternatives to the proposals. These were most commonly around less frequent updating of records, for example every three to five days or weekly. However, some wished to see the proposals strengthened to require daily updating of records and/or shorter timescales for provision of records to the Police.

There was also a query about what would be accepted as a 'reasonable excuse'.

Do you agree with the recommendations from the statutory review of snaring that a power of disqualification should be introduced for snaring offences? (Question 37)

Most of those commenting on Question 37 suggested that disqualification would be a disproportionate punishment for the offences. This included concern that disqualification would effectively prohibit game keepers from working again, given the importance of working dogs to their role. It was also suggested that there is no logical connection between snaring offences and an individual's capacity to own, keep, sell, transport or work with animals.

Some of those commenting opposed the proposal on the basis that it is unnecessary in the context of what was seen as strict existing legislation and regulation. These respondents referred to legislation already in place for specific offences, and to improvement in snare design to minimise animal welfare impacts. In this context, it was suggested that further regulation is not required.

Others raised concerns about how the proposals would work in practice. These included a perceived risk of unfair prosecution as a result of deliberate tampering with snares, due to weather conditions or because of human error. It was also suggested that the proposals would only penalise law-abiding land managers, and would not be a deterrent to those who currently use illegally set snares (and who were seen as being responsible for the majority of snaring offences).

Respondents also raised concerns that the proposals represent efforts to further reduce the range of wildlife management tools available to land managers. These respondents described snares as an 'invaluable' tool for land managers where other methods cannot be used, especially in relation to the reduction of fox predation on gamebirds and livestock.

Several lesser penalties were suggested as more appropriate alternatives to disqualification as punishment for snaring offences. These included suspension of snaring accreditation and/or other relevant licences (such as gun licences), fines, loss/damage restitution and compulsory training. Some also suggested a written warning for first time offences. It was also suggested that disqualification should not apply to genuine mistakes such as minor administrative offences with no direct impact on animal welfare. Examples given included accidental failure to replace a missing ID tag or omission of a date check record.

In contrast, others wished to see stronger penalties for snaring offences, including fines and custodial sentences.