OneKind congratulates the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on securing the first conviction of a gamekeeper 'trained' to set snares in compliance with new Scottish wildlife legislation. Investigating officers found a badger and several foxes trapped in snares set around middens (stinkpits) baited with animal carcasses. The experienced gamekeeper had completed industry training but despite this had illegally set snares on drag poles and in a manner that allowed trapped animals to become suspended and hang themselves.

As the OneKind field officer commented on seeing the Scottish SPCA photographs:

"These pictures are depressingly familiar. I have seen and photographed so many snares set in the Scottish countryside in this manner. In 2010, when I took Bill Oddie onto a major Scottish grouse moor, we found dozens of snares set around stinkpits and throughout woodland.

“In this case, as with all wildlife crimes, it will have been very difficult to detect and prosecute the snaring offences - the Scottish SPCA has done a fantastic job in bringing this offender to justice."

OneKind wrote to the Scottish Minister for Environment Paul Wheelhouse MSP last year to raise concerns about the quality of industry training but the Scottish Government rejected our call for a review of snaring legislation before 2016. The conviction of an industry-trained gamekeeper can only strengthen our call for an early review.

OneKind is determined that the suffering of the animals in this case – and that of so many more animals going undetected across the UK - will not be ignored. We understand that options for snaring in England, following publication of a major report by DEFRA last year, are still under consideration.  While the conclusions of the report were disappointing (see our commentary here), the evidence gathered clearly demonstrated the indiscriminate nature of these cruel traps and implicitly supported the case for change.

Proposed wildlife legislation currently under review by the Law Commission could give Ministers powers to regulate or ban certain methods of taking or killing. OneKind hopes the UK government will have an eye to Scotland when it considers its position: tighter regulation can, and clearly does, achieve results in enforcement terms, but it cannot prevent the suffering of the animals in the first place. No amount of regulation, enforcement support or industry training can ever change the fundamentally inhumane nature of the snare.

This latest case will be recorded on our SnareWatch website, which is building a compelling picture of the nature and extent of snaring throughout the UK. It may only be the tip of the iceberg - but even then the evidence is clear for all to see. 

To be fair, it was always known that these animals would be subjected to AI procedures in the Zoo’s quest for cubs to add to the captive panda population.  Pandas are already the greatest crowd-pullers in the zoological world, and the addition of cubs to any collection would send visitor numbers into the stratosphere.

So why the long faces, here at OneKind? 

We believe wild animals belong in the wild, where they can roam free, forage and feed as they like, avoid or associate with companions, follow their instincts in selecting a mate -  and, when they breed, they can do so without surgical intervention.  These are the things that matter to the individual, and the things that the hoped-for captive population will never enjoy. 

Panda breeding in zoos has a low success rate and, as we have just seen, can involve considerable human intervention.  Even then, the cubs do not always survive – for example Dan Dan, in Kobe Zoo in Japan, conceived one cub through natural means and one by artificial insemination, but both died.

Of course we care about the endangered giant panda population (although estimates of their numbers vary, and they may be more numerous than previously thought).  Nonetheless there is a giant panda population in the wild, and the animals do reproduce. 

Chinese commentator Wang Dajun wrote recently on the Chinadialogue website that while captive breeding (in China) may have proved successful, it was no substitute for protecting wild populations and their habitats.  Despite significant efforts to support the reserves in Sichuan, Gansu and Shaanxi provinces in China where the wild pandas actually live, there is still considerable work to do.  But surely, if we are serious about the welfare and conservation of these sentient, sensitive animals, that is where it should be done.

There has still to be a successful reintroduction of a single giant panda to the wild, even from the captive breeding centre in Wolong.  Breeding pandas in a zoo in Edinburgh is never going to bolster that wild population.

Wildlife protection organisations across Europe are applauding a decision by the Norwegian government to retain a 37-year old ban on reptile and amphibian keeping and trading, and reject a proposal from wildlife dealers and exotic animal keepers to open trade in a limited number of species. European NGOs and wildlife professionals have supported the Norwegian Animal Protection Alliance (NAPA) in their campaign, over several years, to keep the ban.

The announcement yesterday (3 April 2013) by Trygve Slagsvold Vedum, Norwegian Minister of Agriculture and Food, was welcomed by campaigners who had argued that lifting the ban would pose a threat to people and wildlife. A recent scientific study showed that at least 75% of reptiles die within one year in the home even though they have potential life spans ranging from 8-120 years, depending on species. As well as causing suffering to captive animals, the pet amphibian trade has been established as a route for the spread of pandemic wildlife disease that is threatening amphibian populations around the globe. Also, there are over 40 human diseases associated with reptiles and amphibians, which are of growing concern to public health experts.

In 2009, several organisations including OneKind (then Advocates for Animals) commissioned an independent scientific assessment of the proposal to re-open trade in Norway, and the 65-page report concluded that under scientific evidence-based criteria, there were no amphibians or reptiles that make ‘suitable’ pets. Those campaigning to lift the ban had argued that the illegal trade and keeping of these animals would be better addressed if the trade were legalised and monitored.  Reptile enthusiasts proposed a “positive list” of permitted species, including snakes, lizards, turtles, salamanders and frogs. That claim has now been rejected.

Anton Krag, biologist and CEO of NAPA, said:

“We are delighted that our government has decided to give priority to animal welfare. The cruel smuggling and illegal keeping of wild animals should never be rewarded by legalising trade in these fascinating species.”

Clifford Warwick, independent scientist and report author, added:

“The Norwegian Government’s decision is fully in concert with the best, and rapidly increasing, scientific evidence which notes that the trade in reptiles and amphibians for pets involves serious detrimental threats and effects for global species and environmental conservation, indigenous wildlife, public health and animal welfare. The Minister’s finding emphasises the value of investment in of prevention over ‘cure’, which ought to be the objectively inescapable conclusion for any government faced with similar decision-making.”
OneKind congratulates NAPA on its dedicated and successful campaign and is delighted to have played a part in it.

From Monday 1 April, the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act requires all snares set in the Scottish countryside for foxes, rabbits and brown hares to carry a numbered identification tag so that the owner can be traced.  Snares without tags will be illegal.

In order to qualify for a police-issued identification number, snare users must undertake short training courses run by designated industry bodies or rural colleges.  On completion of the course the user receives a certificate of competence which must be taken to a police station in order to apply for the personal identification number.

Almost three years since the courses began, less than one-third of the estimated 5,000 snare users in Scotland have undertaken the required training and applied for their snaring operator numbers.  Scottish Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse MSP said at the end of January:

“Representatives of the shooting industry estimate that there are approximately 5,000 snaring operators in Scotland. On the basis that 1,376 snare users have already attended the snaring course, this leaves approximately 3,624 that have still to attend the snaring training course. It is not compulsory for snaring operators to attend the course before the 1st April 2013 unless they are required to set a snare from this date.”

Shooting industry training providers recently warned that police forces in Scotland had received a “surprisingly low” number of applications for snaring operator numbers and that it might be difficult to process all applications before the new law comes into force on 1 April.

March is a time when many snares are set and OneKind believes that even closed snares would contravene the legislation if left untagged.  We therefore hope that snare users who have not undertaken the training and received their identification number will lift any previously set snares this weekend, rather than risk falling foul of the law. 

At the same time, we encourage anyone who is out in the Scottish countryside after Easter to look out for snares – any untagged snares are illegal and should be reported to the police or Scottish SPCA.

Members of the public should also consider whether or not to leave an illegal snare set when they leave the scene, as leaving it in that state could well result in an animal being caught.  In a new book on wildlife law, retired wildlife crime officer Alan Stewart points out that removing or disabling a trap or snare can remove the evidence that it was ever set in the first place, but says that this should not over-ride the welfare of wildlife.

People can also report their concerns about snares to the dedicated website www.snarewatch.org which is building a compelling picture of the harm caused by snares.

Given that snares are fundamentally indiscriminate and inhumane, the shortfall in applicants is an unexpected, but not unwelcome, consequence of the new tagging requirements.  Ultimately, of course, a ban on snares would be a simpler, cheaper and more effective way to protect animals and we continue to campaign for that goal.

Congratulations to Liberal Youth Scotland (LYS) – the youth section of the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party – on securing an overwhelming vote at this weekend’s party conference for a ban on the manufacture, sale and use of snares. 

OneKind has been delighted to support the LYS campaign on snaring so it was a real pleasure on Friday to travel to Dundee where the Scottish Liberal Democrat conference was being held. There was high security to get into the venue but I was assured that was because the Deputy Prime Minister was attending and not because of the OneKind and LYS fringe meeting on snaring.

The well attended meeting was chaired by well-known Lib Dem blogger Caron Lindsay and addressed by David Green, LYS President, Chief Superintendent Mike Flynn of the Scottish SPCA, and Libby Anderson on behalf of OneKind.  Delegates were clearly shocked to learn about the nature and extent of suffering caused to wild animals by these primitive traps.

David Green argued that, in addition to being unacceptably cruel, snares caused damage to biodiversity due to the enormous number of non-target – often protected – animals that they capture.  All speakers agreed that Scotland complex new legislation offered some advantages over the unregulated situation south of the border, but had not succeeded in ending the unnecessary suffering of both target and non-target animals. Concern was expressed about the low proportion of current snare users undertaking the mandatory training.

As a matter of principle, the liberal movement does not readily support banning activities, preferring to promote personal choice. However, David Green argued strongly during the debate on the LYS motion that snaring was simply “beyond the pale” and there was no effective alternative to supporting a ban.

OneKind polling in 2010 indicated that 83% of people in Scotland who supported the Liberal democrats wanted to see a ban on snaring.  In terms of the wider population, support for a ban stood at 77%, including 75% in rural areas. 

OneKind looks forward to seeing Scottish Liberal Democrat representatives following the policy set by their party conference, and voting against the continued legal use of snares in any future debates.  The Scottish legislation is due for review in 2016, and a wholesale review of wildlife law is currently being undertaken for England and Wales, with a Bill expected to be published in 2014.

For more information on snaring visit www.snarewatch.org 

This is something I have been working for since the day I left Advocates for Animals (now OneKind) to take up my role as an elected representative of the people of Edinburgh and the Lothians in Strasbourg. Hurrah!

Monday, 11 March 2013 was a welcome day, marking the date from which there is a complete ban in the European Union for the selling of cosmetic products and ingredients that have been newly tested on animals.

I am delighted that there is now no place for any animal tested cosmetic product in the Europe Union. This is a goal we in the Eurogroup for Animals (of which OneKind is a member), the Humane Society International and many other animal welfare campaigning groups have long been striving for.

We have had a long journey to get to this point. Animal testing of finished cosmetic products in the EU has been prohibited since 2004 and of cosmetic ingredients since March 2009, but loopholes have remained in place after intensive lobbying by the cosmetics industry.

The ban is not retrospective, so old animal-tested products will not be banned – and the most complex tests were exempted from the ban right up to this Monday. This has meant that animal testing could be carried on outside the Union with the results used for the safety assessment in the Union.  Despite being cruel and widely-condemned, animal testing was still being used on products available to EU consumers.

Between 2007 and 2011 the Commission made about 238 million euros available for research into alternative methods. Although full replacement of animal testing by alternative methods is not yet possible the search for alternative methods, incentivised by Monday’s decision, will continue.

Monday 11 March marks a line in the sand.  After this date, the sale of cosmetic products containing ingredients that have been newly animal-tested is banned  in the EU, no matter where in the world that testing may have taken place.

Many of my constituents, along with animal welfare groups have been extremely concerned that the Commission might extend the deadline. I have been questioning the Commission on a regular basis to make sure this was not going to be the case and I am very happy that it was not extended.

I hope this will be an incentive for companies world-wide to stop testing their cosmetic products on animals and to encourage other countries to also change their laws and regulations.

While it is important that cosmetic products are safe for human use, it should not be at the expense of animal welfare.

From today, anyone who wishes to sell new cosmetic products and ingredients in the EU must not test them on animals anywhere in the world. The ban affects all cosmetics including toiletries and beauty products but not household products. However, consumers need to be aware that companies can still carry on testing on animals for cosmetics sold outside the EU.

There are also a number of outstanding issues with the EU’s Cosmetics Regulation text, which are yet to be clarified by the European Commission or, ultimately, the European Court. The term ‘cosmetic ingredient’ is yet to be clearly defined, the scope of the ban is still in question (for example whether it applies to environmental testing), and it is currently unclear whether ingredients that are animal tested to meet other requirements can be used.

In addition, it will be up to each EU country to enforce the ban, and many may not yet have the knowledge and resources to do so effectively.

There are also issues with the nature of the global market that many companies sell their products to. At present, before new products can go on sale in China, for example, they must be submitted for testing to the Chinese authorities, which normally involves a range of animal tests.

OneKind advises that when choosing cosmetics and toiletries, if in doubt, look for the BUAV 'Leaping Bunny’ logo. The Leaping Bunny, representing the Humane Cosmetics Standard, is a global standard and applies to all of the operations and sales of companies, not just those for the EU. BUAV only certify companies that have a policy not to test their products on animals, enabling consumers to reward those companies who do not use animal tests for any market. This makes it highly relevant for consumers who wish to shop with companies who have gone beyond the legal minimum. This in turn encourages the development of alternative methods.

Until a global ban is achieved, the Leaping Bunny remains the only real way for EU consumers to be confident in identifying companies which will not allow animal testing for cosmetic purposes to continue within their supply chain. The Humane Cosmetics Standard is clear, companies are audited for compliance, and consumers can be reassured that companies have gone beyond the legal minimum.

Similarly, outside the EU, the Leaping Bunny continues to be the only guarantee that animals have not been used to test cosmetics ingredients in the entire supply chain (after the company adopted its ‘no animal testing’ policy).

Nearly 500 companies are certified including Paul Mitchell, Neal’s Yard, Liz Earle, Urban Decay, and cosmetics made by high street retailers including Marks & Spencer, Superdrug, Argos, Sainsbury’s and The Co-operative. The full list can be found at www.GoCrueltyFree.org.

While there is still work to do, OneKind hails this long-awaited and hard-won day, and congratulates millions of animal welfare supporters throughout the EU, for helping to bring it about.

Responses to parliamentary questions put by Christine Grahame MSP (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (Scottish National Party), published this week, confirm that returns must be made regularly to the European Commission about the number of protected animals – such as mountain hares – captured in non-selective traps – such as snares.

Ms Grahame lodged the questions following the trial of a gamekeeper on the Lochindorb estate in Inverness-shire.  In his verdict, the Sheriff said that he had not heard evidence that the conditions of use in the particular circumstances, time and location of the alleged offence had led to the capture of non-target species.  Prior to this the Sheriff had found that snares were traps (the defence had attempted to argue that they were not), and then heard evidence about whether they were indiscriminate or non-selective.   Obviously, any court requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt before it can convict, and OneKind accepts that this particular verdict was based on a lack of evidence about the circumstances of the case.  It was not shown that non-target animals had been captured due to the way that the snares were used, the circumstances and the location.  On a large estate where 200 snares had been set, it defies belief that no other species, including protected species, were put at risk by this large number of traps – but there has to be evidence to that effect.  

In our view, however, ‘non-selective’ is about more than non-target species.  Snares also fail to discriminate between the individuals within the target population.  A snare set for a mountain hare may well catch a mountain hare but there is no way of ensuring it is not a pregnant or lactating female, or a juvenile.  The adverse effects on populations, and on animal welfare, are uncontrolled.  Regrettably that aspect was not raised during the trial.

The Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse MSP has now stated that Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) will review the longstanding licensing regime limiting the use of snares to capture mountain hares, in the wake of the Lochindorb case.  Given the UK obligation to protect mountain hares and report on the use of non-selective traps, we cannot see how the regime can be changed – and we hope the review will clarify this.

It has also been confirmed that some users accept the need for licences to snare mountain hares – five applications have been received since 2006 by the Scottish Government and SNH, which took over the licensing function in July 2011.  Three of these were granted and two refused.

Despite the claims by the defence agent that Lochindorb was “a test case”, we believe it would be a misrepresentation of the verdict if anyone assumes that the licensing requirement no longer applies and that snares can now be set for protected species.   The Minister’s reply on reporting tends to support that view. Read the Minister’s responses to Christine Grahame’s questions (S4W-12780 – S4W-12782).  

And as a reminder of the inherent cruelty of snaring, and why it should simply be banned, see the latest report of animal suffering on www.snarewatch.org 

In a statement today, the influential European welfare group, of which OneKind is a member, says it is extremely alarmed by the current situation regarding the discovery of horsemeat in food products purporting to be made with beef, and the implications for animal welfare.

The discovery raises major concerns for both consumer safety and animal welfare as the lack of transparency within the food processing sector from farmers to supermarkets prevents us from knowing where the animals involved were raised, transported and slaughtered. We therefore cannot guarantee their welfare and ensure that they have been respected and treated as sentient beings. 

Food producers and European legislators must take their responsibilities seriously and act to ensure that all animals destined for the food chain are treated with respect, their welfare protected and that clear records are kept ensuring that all relevant legislation has been respected and that all animals can be traced and checked.

“The European Commission has to act now to ensure that all existing animal welfare legislation is enforced in every EU member state and that any meat or live animals imported from third countries meet the same standard. The current situation where horses and millions of other animals are transported extremely long distances often in terrible conditions every year must stop in order to improve animal welfare and traceability,” commented Reineke Hameleers, Director at Eurogroup for Animals.

“Consumers have a right to know where the products they buy originate from and that they meet high animal welfare standards. Retailers must be much more transparent and accountable and show that they respect animal welfare and consumer safety,” she concluded.

The horsemeat scandal clearly demonstrates that some producers are unable efficiently to apply correct procedures to produce and trace food products. Very reasonably, Eurogroup wonders to what extent business operators can adopt and control practices during transport and in abattoirs to protect the welfare of animals.

The Eurogroup statement reflects the concerns of OneKind as the horsemeat scandal grows ever more complex and distressing.  New regulations governing the welfare of slaughter of animals in the UK are pending, and it is essential that consumers of meat can trust the provenance of the food and make their own choices about the welfare standards they are prepared to accept.

The one good thing that could emerge from this debacle would be a greater motivation among the authorities to monitor and trace all meat products – from the point of rearing to the point of sale.  This in turn must be applied to other issues, such as tracing the meat from animals killed without pre-stunning.  The current law requires such meat only to be supplied to members of the faiths requiring slaughter without stunning – but it is scarcely applied, with government and local authorities suggesting that tracing and monitoring the products is impossible.

However, if public health considerations and consumer expectations finally create the pressure required to ensure that meat products are, indeed, exactly what the label describes, it will set an example to follow as far as other production methods are concerned.  After all, the meat consumer’s reluctance to eat horse is largely a cultural taboo: whereas the determination not to eat cattle, sheep or poultry that have suffered unnecessary terror and pain at the end of their lives is a rational animal welfare principle.

Answers to written questions lodged in the Scottish Parliament by Deputy Convener of the Cross Party Group on Animal Welfare, Claudia Beamish MSP, show that to date, 1,376 snare users have attended the snaring training courses, as set out in the Snares (Training) (Scotland) (No.2) Order 2012.

Responding to the questions, the Minister for Environment Paul Wheelhouse MSP said:

“Representatives of the shooting industry estimate that there are approximately 5,000 snaring operators in Scotland. On the basis that 1,376 snare users have already attended the snaring course, this leaves approximately 3,624 that have still to attend the snaring training course. It is not compulsory for snaring operators to attend the course before the 1st April 2013 unless they are required to set a snare from this date

“It is the responsibility of an individual snaring operator to attend a snaring training course and produce a valid training certificate when requested to do so. Only when they have completed a training course can they obtain an identification number from the chief constable of their local police force. It will be an offence from 1st April 2013 to set a snare without displaying a tag on the snare which contains the snaring operator’s identification number.

Industry organisations have been running training courses since 2010.  Given that fewer than 1,400 operators have been trained in more than two years, OneKind sees it as unlikely that more than twice that number can be trained in the next two months.

Claudia Beamish MSP commented:

“The issue of snaring was thoroughly debated during the passage of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, and the Scottish Parliament agreed that reform was necessary. I am concerned so many practitioners do not appear ready for the implementation of the new legislation and that there is not now time for the shortfall to be made up.”

The Minister has pointed out that the training is only required by people who intend to continue setting snares after 1 April, when new legislation comes into force.  OneKind would be delighted if this meant that over two-thirds of current practitioners intended to give up using these cruel and indiscriminate traps from that date.  However, if that is not the case, we hope there will be immediate enforcement action.  After a three-year lead in period, this is emphatically not an issue for a ‘light touch’ approach. 

Snares cause unacceptable suffering to thousands of animals every year and if the legislation is to mitigate that suffering, it must be observed and implemented.

For more information on snaring visit www.snarewatch.org