Show Hide image

Sponsored post: Cruel and indiscriminate

Some three-quarters of a million animals get caught in snares each year in the UK. It’s time we banned it, finds Becky Slack.

In a large wooded area lies a game bird pen, housing pheasant reared for sport shooting. Surrounding the enclosure are snares designed to capture any predators that may be lurking in the scrub, threatening the bird stocks.

Caught in one of these devices is a badger. Although death is not the intention of the snare, the sharp wire has wrapped itself around the badger’s body and caused significant injuries to its abdomen, chest and neck. Struggling, bleeding and exhausted, the animal could remain in this state for up to 48 hours until a gamekeeper comes to free it. At this point, if its injuries are severe, the badger is likely to be shot or clubbed to death and dumped in a stink pit, a place where other animals unfortunate enough to have died as a result of these traps are kept.

This is not a unique situation. Every year about 750,000 animals get caught in snares; two-thirds of them are badgers, domestic cats and protected species.

“It is commonplace for snares to lodge around the chest, abdomen or legs rather than the neck,” explains Professor Ranald Munro, a leading veterinary pathologist. “In such instances, the stop restraint is ineffective and the wire cuts through skin and muscle and, eventually, bone. Badgers may be eviscerated when the abdominal wall is cut through.

“Amputation of the lower limb and foot by a snare is well documented in deer. These unfortunate animals suffer immensely.”

Snares are used up to 42 million times each year throughout England alone. This number has been on the rise for several years, primarily due to the expansion of shooting estates, which release up to 50 million non-indigenous, cage-reared birds into the wild each year – birds that landowners want to be protected from predators. For these reasons it is argued that snares are essential for pest control.

However, the League Against Cruel Sports, which campaigns for an end to cruelty to animals in the name of sport, argues that the use of snares is cruel, indiscri­minate and wholly unnecessary. It cites a 2012 study by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) – the first to provide quantified data on the use of snares – which found that of the 115,436 landowners in England today just 4.4 per cent used fox snares and 1.4 per cent used rabbit snares, proving that snaring is “clearly not essential for the control of foxes or rabbits”. Equally, statistics show that despite millions of game birds being released on shooting estates, only between 1 and 3 per cent is lost to foxes.
Indeed, killing a fox can simply lead to the takeover of its territory by another fox and so can only be a short-term solution. As such, the League says that snaring is not only inhumane, but also fruitless.

There are various laws in place regarding the use of snares. The UK is a signatory of the Bern Convention, which contains restrictions on the use of indiscriminate means of capture and the killing of animals. Snares are included in this. However, exemptions can be made if certain conditions are satisfied and there are no satisfactory alternatives.

To ensure that the UK is compliant with the Bern Convention, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 prohibits the use of self-locking snares; lays out the requirement to inspect snares once in every 24-hour period; and bans the use of snares to catch various protected mammals, including otters and badgers. In addition, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 prohibits the use of certain non-selective methods of taking or killing certain wild animals.

There are also guidelines that aim to control the use of legal snares, including a voluntary code of practice, introduced in 2005. However, seven years after its introduction, Defra raised concerns about the code’s enforceability, based on the department’s research, which had found that no one was fully compliant with its requirements.

The wide use of snares seems to contravene the Bern Convention and would suggest that regulations are not working. Part of the problem with enforcement is that it can be very difficult to distinguish between snares that are legal, such as neck snares, which use stops to prevent the snare from closing all the way round an animal’s neck, and those that are illegal, such as leg-hold snares, which involve a treadle plate and a spring mechanism that pulls the snare tight around the animal’s foot.

It has been suggested that one way to resolve this situation is to issue licences to landowners. This would require them to use only legal snares and subject them to inspections. Anyone found to be flouting the rules would have his licence revoked.

However, this in itself is fraught with challenges, says the League. As it points out in its Manifesto to End Snaring, who would inspect properties to ensure snares are used correctly? Would this body have automatic rights of access to land for inspections?

“If there is no right of access, there is no means of monitoring the use of snares,” says Joe Duckworth, the League’s chief executive. “So if Defra is minded to adopt a licensing system, this should only be done once a monitoring system is in place, and the monitoring organisations must have the automatic right of unannounced entry to monitor that snares are being used in accordance with the licence.”

Even if such a monitoring system is set up it will still be difficult to police. When snares are found on a private estate it is very difficult to prove who set them – the landowner, the gamekeeper, a poacher?

Systems that require licencees to use tagged snares, as is the practice in Scotland, have had some effect. However, they are still not perfect, Duckworth argues. “All this means is that the licensee will set tagged snares carefully. There is nothing to stop them setting other, untagged snares. Even if someone is found taking an animal out of an illegal snare, it is impossible to prove that they set it.”

Scotland, with its tighter controls, has provided an opportunity to assess how effective enforcement could be. The results have not been encouraging. On numerous occasions, the League and other animal welfare organisations have found repeated breaches and codes being blatantly ignored.

In the League’s view, the most effective option is to make the use of all snares illegal and to require landowners to report any snares found on their land. That would help ensure that people could not claim in self-defence that a snare discovered on their property was set by someone else.

“Such a system is not perfect, but requiring landowners to remove any illegal snares found on their land would avoid many of the current problems,” Duckworth says.

Banning snares does not mean that land will become overrun with vermin. The League’s Manifesto highlights a number of humane alternatives to rabbit and fox control, exclusion fencing being the most effective option if done correctly. This involves the use of electric fences above ground and fences buried below to prevent animals from digging underneath.

Scare devices or chemical repellents are another option. Rural foxes are frightened of new elements in their environment, so this factor can be used to deter them from areas where other animals are being conserved. Changing the placement or nature of the scare devices will help stop foxes becoming habituated to them, and make their effect last longer.

Public support for the League’s proposals is high. An online petition by the League, which calls for a complete ban on the manufacture, sale and use of snares in England and Wales, received more than 58,500 signatures – demonstrating just how this issue has resonated with the public. Meanwhile, constituency polling across Scotland during the passage of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 provided clear evidence of the importance of animal issues to Scottish voters – roughly 77 per cent of respondents demanded that snares be banned.

“Most people in the UK actually think it is already illegal, and since our snaring campaign began many people have been shocked to hear that it still goes on across the whole of the UK and is perfectly legal,” says Duckworth. “We would urge people to join our campaign to end the manufacture, importation, sale and use of snares across the whole of the UK.”

Those parliamentary candidates keen to use this public feeling in their favour will find friends elsewhere in Westminster. An early-day motion calling on the government to end the manufacture, sale and use of snares received cross-party support from 93 MPs, and even Owen Paterson, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has expressed his concern. During a Commons debate on fox-hunting, he said: “I am completely convinced that trapping and snaring are hideously cruel.”

Adrian Sanders, the Liberal Democrat MP for Torbay and vice-president of the League, sums up the situation. “Snaring is cruel and unnecessary and its indiscriminate nature is intolerable,” he says. “I hope the League’s Manifesto and the overwhelming support for the petition can encourage the government that a ban on snaring is necessary.”

Until that ban is achieved, wild and domestic animals will continue to suffer slow, painful and unnecessary deaths.

Supported by League Against Cruel Sports.

 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Every day, Theresa May's mask slips a little further

First the Human Rights Act, now Dfid. What's next, asks Jon Ashworth.

The news that the new International Development Secretary is about to slash development spending and channel Britain's aid budget into defence spending is yet another major slip of the new government's centrist mask.

Theresa May has tried to pitch her policy agenda as prioritising social justice and a “Britain that works for everyone” but the reality is that this announcement is the true right-wing colours of her government shining through.

The appointment of the most right-wing Cabinet for decades was a major warning sign, with figures such as David Davis, who said he was “very worried” about sexual discrimination legislation, and Liam Fox, who said equal marriage was “social engineering”, now at the highest level in government.

Those of us passionate about development were horrified when Priti Patel, who has previously called for the Department for International Development to be scrapped, was appointed as the department's new Secretary of State, but few of us would have imagined such a dramatic break with Britain's strong development legacy so soon.

Not only is what is reported very dubious in terms of the strict regulations placed on development spending- and Priti Patel has already come dangerously close to crossing that line by saying we could use the aid budget to leverage trade deals - it also betrays some of the very poorest in the world at a time when many regions are facing acute humanitarian crises.

It was Gordon Brown who put international development at the heart of 13 years of Labour government, massively increasing aid spending and focusing minds in Britain and abroad on the plight of those suffering from poverty, famine and the ravages of war. David Cameron followed Gordon’s lead, enshrining the 0.7 per cent aid budget in law, making Britain the first G7 country to do so. In light of these new revelations Theresa May must now restate her commitment to the target.

Sadly, it now seems that Theresa May and Priti Patel want to turn the clock back on all that progress, diminishing Britain's role in international development and subverting the original mission of the department by turning it into a subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence, focused on self-interest and security. Not only will this create the opposite of the "outward-looking and globally-minded country" Theresa May said just weeks ago she wanted Britain to be, it’s also a betrayal of some of the poorest people across the planet.

Other examples of the right-wing traits of this Government surfaced earlier this week too. On Friday it emerged that Gerard Lopez, a tax-haven based businessman with links to Russian State banks that have been sanctioned in the wake of the Ukrainian conflict, donated £400,000 to the Tory party just months ago. Theresa May needs to tell us what meetings and interactions she has had with Lopez.

Earlier in the week Liz Truss, the new Justice Secretary, brazenly insisted that the Government would proceed with scrapping the Human Rights Act, despite fierce opposition from politicians of all parties and the public.

With so many right-wing announcements trickling though when the government has hardly had time to change the name plaques above the doors you've got to wonder and worry about what else is set to come.

Jon Ashworth is Labour MP for Leicester South.