Chamber and committees

Many animal welfare agencies support the banning of snares for animal welfare reasons, regardless of who sets them. The British Veterinary Association is one such body, and it is very much respected on animal health and welfare issues. I believe that it supplied evidence to the committee, and it certainly supplied evidence for the consultation. Studies have been carried out at United Kingdom level, too. For example, in 2010, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs conducted a large study that has informed much of our historical thinking about non-target species.

Currently, snares are used in Scotland for the target species of foxes—obviously, they are a predator—and rabbits and brown hares, which are often viewed as pests. Under the regulations from 1994, it is illegal

“to deliberately or recklessly capture, injure or kill a wild animal of a ... protected species such as a wild cat”

or, obviously, a badger, unless a licence has been granted by NatureScot.

However, the use of snaring is actually quite low because shooting is the main means used by people who want, for example, to keep down the number of foxes on their land because they are a predator. The vast majority of control measures involve shooting, which is seen as a humane way of dealing with animals that are considered to be pests or predators that can impact on the livelihood of farmers, for example.

Your second question, Dr Allan, was about the sale of snares.

You are asking me for NatureScot’s opinion, but I am not from NatureScot.

I can give you an undertaking: if you let me know when the committee is deliberating on its stage 1 report, I will get that decision to you.

You have my assurance that I will make a decision on whether there will be a complete ban on snares or a licensing scheme. You will have that information ahead of making your deliberations for your stage 1 report.

Will you take evidence from NatureScot? We have been working closely with NatureScot and other agencies, which is one reason why we are lodging this amendment. NatureScot has not given any opinion to suggest that snaring should be kept for biodiversity or conservation reasons.

That is a question for NatureScot.

It is a question of whether we have that data. I do not know how we would know how many foxes have been shot as a result of being caught in a snare—I do not know what record keeping would be involved in that.

I completely take on board the convener’s point about scrutiny, and I have said that we will lodge amendments.

Let me go back to our reasons for not putting a ban on snaring in the original draft. We did not do so because of the work that Rachael Hamilton is asking us to do; we were approached by stakeholders who were advocating for us to look at humane cable restraints. That is what we have been doing over the summer: we have been working with those stakeholders and others, we have been taking advice, and we have put out a consultation on that specific issue.

In good faith, I have not steamed ahead and said, “We are not even going to look at that—there is going to be a full ban.” From June to November, we have been doing everything associated with arriving at a final position. We had the round-table meeting and I offered to look at what stakeholders would like to see in a licensing scheme, but that information came back to me only on Monday.

Yes. I was saying they are allowed to be used only in certain—very limited—circumstances by law.