NASC response to misleading BASC evidence

This is the National Anti-Snaring Campaign response to the misleading statement issued by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) on 11 November 2022 describing the use of snares in Wales (https://basc.org.uk/outright-ban-on-snares-will-have-devastating-consequences-warns-basc/). The BASC statement was based on the evidence given by Glynn Evans to the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee of the Welsh Government on 9 November 2022. A transcript of which appears at the end.

The BASC statement makes a series on inaccurate, misleading and/or unsubstantiated assertions, which are addressed below.

BASC claimed that an “outright ban” on all snares will risk the loss of iconic species such as the curlew, that the Welsh Government needs to recognise the importance of snares as a conservation tool, that a ban on the use of snares could result in local extinctions, and that a ban on the use of snares will have devastating consequences for biodiversity and the Welsh countryside.

There is no evidence to support such assertions.

1. The research study commissioned by Defra highlighted that snares were not widely used in either England or Wales (Anon., 2012), with fox snares used on just 4.3% of landholdings.
2. The Defra-funded study also showed that the main reason snares were used was to protect non-native gamebirds being reared by the shooting industry. The Defra-funded study produced no evidence that snares were being used for conservation purposes, let alone that they are a major conservation tool (Anon., 2012). The review by Harris (2022) also found no evidence that the use of snares to catch foxes is an essential conservation tool.
3. This is clear when you look at the long-term monitoring data collected by the British Trust for Ornithology. In the 23 years to 2018, fox numbers in the UK declined by 44%, and this decline is continuing (British Trust for Ornithology, 2021). Despite this dramatic fall in fox numbers, curlew numbers declined by 48% and lapwing numbers by 43% over the same period (Harris et al., 2020). So there is no evidence that killing foxes, let alone by snaring, has made a significant contribution to the conservation of ground-nesting birds, or that a ban on the use of snares will have will have devastating consequences for biodiversity and the Welsh countryside.
4. While there are game shooting sports, fox control will be seen as necessary.
   However, night-shooting with modern night-vision and thermal-imaging
   telescopic sights is both effective and relatively humane (Harris, 2022).
5. So the idea that snares are widely used for conservation purposes is a modern invention to try to justify their continued use by the gamebird shooting industry.

BASC’s statement included a number of assertions that ‘modern’ snares are ‘humane’, that they are used to catch and hold foxes, and that they meet the requirements of international standards for such devices, in accordance with the Welsh Government’s own code of practice.

All the scientific evidence shows that the opposite is true.

1. There is nothing ‘modern’ about fox snares. Fox snares made from flexible steel cables only came into widespread use in Britain during the 1960s (Harris, 2022), and there has been little fundamental change in their design or the way that they are used over the last sixty years. The only fundamental change has been the introduction of breakaway snares a decade ago, and these cause no fewer deaths, or injuries, or catch fewer non-target species, than more traditional types of fox snares: see the data summarised in (Harris, 2022).
2. The term ‘cable restraints’ is a modern invention to try to give the impression that snares simply hold the animal until it is killed humanely. Since there are no guidelines to determine whether neck snares are restraining devices, it is important to understand the meaning of the word restraint as in common use. According to The concise Oxford dictionary of current English, the term implies a restriction on physical movements, and that adverse/damaging behaviours and stress are also kept within acceptable limits. So, to be described as a restraining trap, neck snares should hold animals alive with the minimum of injury and stress.
3. Although user groups portray neck snares as restraining devices, when the International Standards on trap testing were developed, snares were specifically excluded from consideration, as there was disagreement among delegates as to whether they were restraining or killing devices. Harris (2022) highlighted that many UK operators intend that their snares act as killing traps, and the mortality rates in snares described as ‘restraining’ traps in the UK are comparable to mortality rates in ‘killing’ neck snares used to catch furbearers in North America.
4. A review of the data showed that there is a high mortality rate for any species caught in snares, and mortality rates in snares are comparable to the mortality rates reported for ‘killing traps’ (Harris, 2022). So there is no objective basis to describe snares as ‘restraining’ traps.
5. Animals caught in snares are killed by a variety of techniques that are not considered humane and are not permitted for the same species when they are held in captivity (Harris, 2022).
6. It is surprising that BASC describes snares as ‘humane’ when the GWCT, another shooting organisation that has worked with BASC to produce guidelines on the use of snares, states that Fox-snares are an imperfect tool. They have the potential to catch non-target species, and to cause tremendous suffering (GWCT, 2012).
7. In a recent report, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission concluded that snares cause significant welfare harms to members of both target and non-target species, and recommended that the sale of snares and their use by both public and industry are banned in Scotland, on animal welfare grounds (Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, 14 December 2022). So claims by user groups that snares are humane are not supported by independent experts.
8. Snaring does not pass any of the seven ethical standards for wildlife control laid out in a recent scientific review (Dubois et al., 2017). As the government scientist who undertook some of the early trials on the use of fox snares noted over 40 years ago, snaring is responsible for a considerable amount of suffering … Snaring, even with stopped snares, is also indiscriminate. … it is only a matter of time before public awareness of the suffering that snares cause will promote a clamour for their banishment (Lloyd, 1980).

BASC says that it supports moves to prohibit the use of non-code compliance snares whilst permitting the continued use of humane cable restraints and making compliance with the existing Welsh Government Code a legal requirement.

1. The abuse of snares (and cage and spring traps) continues to be widespread irrespective of improvements to regulations, the introduction of codes of practice, and professional training. Snares are widely abused: as highlighted by the Defra-funded study, snares are used on private land, generally away from public access, where poor practice or even malpractice can pass un-noticed, and there is no guarantee that recommendations made during general training will be put into everyday practice (Anon., 2012).
2. The experience in Scotland has shown that it is not possible to enforce codes of practice or the laws relating to snaring. While training and the need for practitioners to register with the police in Scotland seems to have led to a decline in the reported incidents and prosecutions for the illegal use of snares (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2017), the fundamental welfare issue remains with the use of snares, not their abuse or misuse. As the National Federation of Badger Groups reported twenty years ago, it is a somewhat simplistic approach to assume that all problems with snares are simply a result of the ‘misuse’ of snares and ‘bad practice’, resulting from a lack of guidance and training. It is abundantly clear that ‘proper’ and legal use of snares is also causing unintended suffering and death on a large scale (National Federation of Badger Groups, 2003).
3. A key problem is that training, tagging and technical changes cannot alter the fact that snares are primitive and fundamentally inhumane. Even legally-set snares become twisted and kinked due to the prolonged and desperate struggling of the trapped animal, so that they no longer run freely (OneKind & League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, 2016).
4. All the evidence shows that it is impossible to enforce any regulations on the use of snares, and the only solution is a total ban on their sale and use.

References

Anon. (2012) Determining the extent of use and humaneness of snares in England and Wales.
http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk › … › Science Search.
British Trust for Ornithology (2021) Breeding bird survey – mammal monitoring. https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/bbs/latest-results/mammal-monitoring.
Dubois S, Fenwick N, Ryan EA, et al. (2017) International concensus principles for ethical wildlife control. Conservation Biology 31: 753-760.
GWCT (2012) Fox snares: guidance for the user. https://www.gwct.org.uk/advisory/guides/fox-snaring-guidelines/.
Harris S (2022) A review of the use of snares in the UK. National Anti Snaring Campaign. https://www.antisnaring.org.uk/assets/images/review-use-of-snares-uk.pdf.
Harris SJ, Massimino D, Balmer DE, et al. (2020) The breeding bird survey 2019. BTO research report 726. Thetford: British Trust for Ornithology.
Lloyd HG (1980) The red fox. London: Batsford.
National Federation of Badger Groups (2003) Snares – the way forward. London: National Federation of Badger Groups.
OneKind & League Against Cruel Sports Scotland (2016) Cruel and indiscriminate: why Scotland must become snare-free. Scotland: Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (14 December 2022) Trapping of terrestrial wild mammals using snares: position paper. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-animal-welfare-commission-trapping-of-terrestrial-wild-mammals-using-snares-position-paper/.
Scottish Natural Heritage (2017) Review of snaring for the Scottish government. Edinburgh: the Scottish Government.
————————————————————————————–
Glynn Evans (British Association for Shooting and Conservation) Evidence to the Scrutiny Committee of the Welsh Senedd 9/11/2022 relating to the inclusion of a ban on snares in the Agriculture (Wales) Bill.

Glyn Evans: Good morning, my name’s Glynn Evans. I’m from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

Glynn Evans: No, I would agree absolutely with Rachel on this. There are a number of iconic species that are at serious threat, and being able to catch and hold them in humane cable restraints is essential.

Paul Davies: Okay, thank you. And how effective do you think are alternatives to snares, legal alternatives, in your view?

Glynn Evans: So, could I pick that up, please, Chair?

Glynn Evans: There are a number of methods to control foxes, and at certain times, certain methods—shooting foxes with a high-powered rifle with thermal, with a lamp—will be the best method, absolutely. There are other times when those methods simply won’t work. So, the prime example: Rachel has mentioned curlews. So when curlews are nesting, they’re at their most vulnerable; they’re on the ground, that is when foxes will take them. That also coincides with the time of year when cover is at its highest, so when the cover is at the height of your knee, you physically cannot use a rifle, even with thermal, because you cannot see through that cover. So, the only method that you have that will work at that time of year for catching foxes are humane cable restraints. You catch the fox in the area where the risk is, where the damage is likely to be done, and then you can humanely dispatch it afterwards.

Glynn Evans: Yes. So, to pick up on evidence that the code is working, we have offered, with Welsh Government, to try and help gather this evidence, and it’s difficult; it’s difficult to prove a double negative, as it were. On one hand, I could say the evidence of limited reports of issues with humane cable restraints. I’ve seen other evidence that people have submitted, and they’re talking about incidents with old-fashioned fox snares, but when the evidence is put forward referring to humane cable restraints, those animals have actually been able to be released unharmed. So, in a way, the evidence that there is no issue is evidence in itself. But I would fully agree that we haven’t been able to produce the evidence of compliance. I think the level of compliance is really, really high, but it’s one of the reasons, as a sector, why we think there should be support for moving to the next level, which was recommended by the climate change and rural affairs committee, to making compliance with the Welsh Government’s own code a legal requirement.

Glynn Evans: Yes. If I could come in, from a practical point of view, there are two elements to the Welsh Government’s code. One is, let me call it, the hardware, the humane cable restraint, and one of the reasons why we’re referring to it as a humane cable restraint is so that people clearly understand there is a huge difference between this device and an old-fashioned fox snare. So, for instance, it has design Glynn Evans: features that are built in so it has stops and swivels. It’s made out of wire. It’s made out of wire for two reasons: one is so that the fox doesn’t see it, because, to work, the fox mustn’t know that it’s present, so it’s made out of thin wire, and the other thing is so that the wire is strong enough to hold the fox. One of the things that’s happened in the development of this device is the wire is of a certain strength, and then there is a breakaway link built in that will break at a certain pressure, and that means it will open up. So, basically, it will never break other than an its weakest point. It’s got swivels that allow it to rotate. So, the hardware aspect, lots and lots of research has gone into it. I believe the equivalent of 200 years’ research have gone into this device. So, a massive amount of research. But, the device is only one part; it’s how you actually then use the device that is essential, which is referenced in the code. So, when we talk about species such as badgers, you wouldn’t set the snare if you knew they were there. So it’s about using the snare in the right way in accordance with the Welsh Government’s code.

Glynn Evans: Could I just come in and mention one last thing on that? The DEFRA research from 2012 is widely referenced by various people. I’ll paraphrase it: field trials of snare type D, which has become the humane cable restraint, showed that it met the requirements of the agreement on international humane trapping standards, which is this international humane trapping agreement, through restraining devices for target species, indicators of poor welfare were not found in any of the non-target species captured, and there was no indication that those animals that escaped would have experienced poor welfare. So, this was research done as part of the humane cable restraint development.

Glynn Evans: So, as far as I’m aware, they would be using humane cable restraints. But, if we made the code a legal requirement, we’d know they were using humane cable restraints.

Glynn Evans: I don’t think it’s too far to say that you will lose some iconic species in Wales; it’s not over-egging it to say that. And when you look at percentages of foxes caught, killed, and you see evidence of people saying, ’10 per cent to 80 per cent caught in humane cable restraints’, that’s only part of the story. It’s the seasonality. So, as I said earlier, those foxes caught and then dispatched when those vulnerable birds are nesting has an immense benefit beyond the number taken. And it’s not to say that people should reach for snares as the first option, and it’s clearly referenced in the code—you consider other options, and the option that’s most appropriate at the time is the one you should use.