OneKind Campaigner Sarah Moyes gives the lowdown on the tail-docking vote, the reaction and what’s next.
OneKind presents Cairngorms with a giant postcard calling for an end to mountain hare culls
OneKind welcomes first successful conviction of a mounted hunt in Scotland
Reactions to the weakening of the tail-docking ban
Sad day for animal welfare as the tail-docking ban is weakened.
Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee Inquiry into tail shortening.
OneKind urges MSPs not to back reintroduction of tail-docking
The decision to introduce tail docking
Five misleading arguments being used to justify weakening Scotland’s tail-docking ban
OneKind welcomes the Scottish Government’s confirmation that stink pits are under review
OneKind calls for a ban on stink pits in Scotland
Charity warns MSPs decision to support tail-docking fails Scotland’s dogs.
Stink Pits Stink
Dirleton Dog Show 2017
How is animal welfare treated in in the #GE2017 manifestos?
Should you be allowed to mutilate your dog for your hobby?
Campaigns Intern (voluntary)
Facebook rules let animal abuse slip through the net
Animal welfare charities stage rally to protect hunting laws
OneKind welcomes First Minister’s opposition to fox hunting
Snaring Members Debate May 2017
A real hunting ban
Animal welfare announcements: glass three-quarters full
New animal welfare measures welcomed, but reintroduction of tail-docking is a “bitter pill”
Campaigners welcome Scottish Bill to ban wild animal circuses
OneKind response to Prime Minister’s comments on fox hunting
The Scottish legal system is failing our wildlife
Volunteer Film Maker
A fox, a cat, a badger – 3 recent snaring cases that alone justify a ban
OneKind urges Scottish Government not to reintroduce tail-docking
Let’s see some real commitments to animals this election
New investigation exposes horrifying cruelty suffered by Scotland’s farm animals
Cairngorms hare
Scotland Bill to ban wild animal circuses comes closer
A step back in time - The Scottish Government proposal to reintroduce tail-docking
OneKind talks fox hunting and snares at the SNP conference
Charity welcomes an end to snaring of mountain hares in Scotland
Snaring mountain hares ends because of ‘unnecessary suffering’
Charities call for an end to snaring after SNH review fails to consider a ban
OneKind calls for urgent action as new evidence emerges of mass culling of of mountain hares
Protect Mountain Hares in Cairngorms National Park
Scotland has a hare coursing problem. Here’s how to stop it.
It’s time for a Snare-Free Scotland
Scotland’s Exotic Pets
OneKind welcomes step towards a real hunting ban in Scotland
Snare Free Scotland
Watch out for mountain hare culls
Scotland’s first industrial puppy farm rejected
OneKind welcomes East Ayrshire Council decision to reject puppy farm
Take action for a Snare-Free Scotland
OneKind calls on Scottish Government to make this year’s Boxing Day hunts the last
Three reasons why fox hunting will be banned in Scotland for good
OneKind calls for a ban on third-party sales of dogs in Scotland
OneKind calls for ban on third-party sales of dogs in Scotland
Kiltwalk 2017
These are Scotland’s Badger Culls, but they’re 10 times bigger.
Gift membership
Xmas appeal OK Hessilhead
OneKind education website
The Bonomy Review – What is it and where next?
Hare culls rally & mass lobby – One Week to Go!
New data reveals urgent need to protect mountain hare
This post-mortem demonstrates why Scotland must ban fox hunting for real
Lord Bonomy review shows scottish fox hunting law is unfit for purpose
Edinburgh Marathon Festival 2017
London to Paris Tour de France Cycle 2017
Mountain hare day of action
Cruel & Indiscriminate - Why Scotland must become snare-free
New animal welfare measures fail Scotland’s dogs
Review Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act aug 2016
Scottish Government announcements fail to protect dogs
Operation of the Protection of Wild Mammals submission by OneKind
More for Scotland’s Animals at Holyrood
Events calendar
Freeing a fox suffering in a snare was compassion – not a crime
Charities celebrate Scottish Government’s commitment to ban wild animals in circuses from Scotland
OneKind celebrates Scotland’s commitment to ban wild animals in circuses
USA says no to Scottish salmon linked to seal killing
Hare cull
End the export of live animals for slaughter
Challenge yourself
Concern for seal welfare in Scotland as new figures reveal suffering
The landscape-scale cruelty behind the ‘glorious’ 12th
OneKind calls for end to driven grouse shooting on eve of Glorious Twelfth
This mountain hare needs a hug
Mountain hare briefing
We Care for the Mountain Hare!
Charity calls for greater protection of Scotland’s iconic mountain hare on first day of open season
Stop the Mountain Hare slaughter
OneKind annual reports
What next for OneKind? Your ideas
SnareWatch report
What does the Brexit vote mean for animals?
Snaring survey for Veterinary professionals
Scotland confirms ban on wild animal circuses is on its way
OneKind badges
Three reasons to be optimistic for animals in Scotland
Ban Shock Collars
Ban electric shock collars
OneKind renews call for shock collar ban following Fort Augustus child abuse case
Shock collars facilitate cruelty. It’s time to ban them.
22 June 2017
20 June 2017
Last week, MSPs on the Environment Climate Change and Land Reform (ECCLR) Committee concluded their debate over the Scottish Government’s proposal to introduce an exemption to the tail-docking ban for ‘working dogs’. There was a majority vote in support of the proposal, with SNP and Conservative MSPs voting in favour and Scottish Green and Labour MSPs voting against.
OneKind summarises the evidence in favour of retaining the ban in this report. Since we published this, the key arguments in support of the proposal have become clear. Here’s the top five we’ve heard so far and why we think they’re misleading.
1. This isn’t tail-docking, it’s tail shortening
Aware of the public’s distaste for tail-docking, the Scottish Government tried to sidestep controversy by reducing tail-docking to one-third of the tail and branding this operation ‘tail shortening’ rather than docking.
Legally, tail-docking is a “mutilation” – defined as a procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structures of an animal. Inevitably, that’s going to hurt. And in that respect, tail shortening is exactly the same. In fact, the accepted definition of tail-docking is the removal of whole or any part of a dog’s tail. This is the language used, for example, in the Animal Health and Welfare Act (2006) in England and Wales, and is presumably why the British Veterinary Association pointedly refuse to use the Scottish Government’s creative language.
2. It’s only for working dogs
It is absolutely true that (thankfully), the Scottish Government’s proposal will only see tail-docking introduced for specific breeds of dogs of Spaniels and Hunt Point Retrievers, and only for puppies that are intended for use as ‘working’ dogs. But how can a dog’s future be guaranteed at only five days old?
In reality, any vet who agrees to carry out tail-docking of a litter will be entirely reliant on the pups’ breeder to give this undertaking.
Vets who dock the tails of puppies in England and Wales need to sign a certificate to say that certain evidence – a firearms or shotgun certificate, plus a written declaration by the owner – has been produced to show that the puppies are likely to be used for work, and to say that the dog is of a certain type. The Scottish proposals, however, only require that the veterinary surgeon must be satisfied that evidence of some sort has been presented by the dog’s owner that the dog is likely to be used in connection with the lawful shooting of animals. This evidence is not defined and indeed, one of the witnesses to the Committee stated: “a lot of these determinations may be based on the fact that the vets have known the breeders for 20 or 30 years – that they have known them as friends down the pub and so on.”
That doesn’t sound particularly independent or reliable to us.
Puppies have their tails docked during the first few days of life. No matter how genuine the intention, at this stage it’s unlikely that a breeder or owner could guarantee that the dog will be ‘worked’. It might show no aptitude, for example, or a family looking for a pet might end up buying it instead.
So, it’s inevitable that this law will result in the docking of dogs’ tails that don’t end up being worked. A procedure that has no animal welfare justification whatsoever.
But even if they do go on to work, what does a ‘working dog’ even mean?
Working dogs that get tail injuries are in reality mostly dogs used in shooting, either for carcass retrieval or for flushing wild animals out of cover so they can be shot. They’re not working dogs in the sense of sheepdogs or police dogs. In fact, a more accurate description would be hobby dogs given that shooting of this type is largely recreational.
3. It will prevent horrific tail injuries in adult dogs
Yes it will. Cut the tail off, and it’s clear that any future tail injury is off the cards. OneKind accepts that tail injuries to adult dogs are a concern, and we promote other methods to try and prevent these. But there are two problems with this argument: is the cost worth the benefit? And where does this logic stop?
Every single puppy that is tail-docked suffers an injury. That’s a 100% injury rate. And that to prevent even one tail amputation in an adult working Spaniel, 320 Spaniel puppies would have to be docked shortly after birth. It just doesn’t add up.
In addition, research shows that dogs commonly injure their ears, paws, faces and abdomens when working in rough terrain. Yet working dogs don’t have their ears cropped, far less have other more vital parts removed to prevent injury. Why is the dog’s tail – an essential part of its anatomy, used for movement, balance and communication – somehow seen as dispensable?
4. This would bring Scotland in line with the law in England and Wales
In fact, the Scottish Government proposal would give Scotland’s puppies worse protection than those in England and Wales. Scottish vets will receive less guidance and support regarding the evidence they should see before they carry out tail-docking.
And unlike Wales, the draft Regulations do not specify exactly which Spaniels and Hunt Point Retriever breeds or combinations of these breeds may be docked, which would have been useful in controlling and limiting the numbers to be docked.
5. This will improve animal welfare
The Scottish Government has failed to support its proposals by providing conclusive scientific evidence regarding the short- and long-term pain of tail-docking, long-term health and behavioural effects, or any full analysis of these welfare costs versus the pain suffered by dogs that experience tail injuries in later life.
We cannot see how this proposal, creating one law for the shooting industry and one law for everyone else, in any sense offers an overall animal benefit for animal welfare. If there was any such benefit, dog owners in Scotland who see their dogs hurt their tails at home, in kennels and while out of doors, would be clamouring for the right to cut them off and spare these consequences. Unsurprisingly, they are not.
But if you’re in any doubt, here’s a final fact:
The Scottish Government’s proposal is not supported by any animal welfare or veterinary organisation in Scotland. In fact, the British Veterinary Association describe it as a ‘retrograde step for animal welfare'.
13 June 2017
This week, the Scottish Parliament will debate the use of stink pits in a motion put forward by Christine Grahame MSP. The Stink Pits Stink debate will be a chance for MSPs to discuss these pits which are used across the country as a fundamental part of predator control on shooting estates.
If you’ve never been out on a shooting estate before then you may be unfamiliar with what one actually looks like. Stink pits are dug by gamekeepers and filled with bait such as wildlife carcasses, fish heads and other animal remains. The smell of decomposing animals is then used to lure foxes towards the bait and snares are set to catch them as they approach.
The majority of people who have seen stink pits would describe them as disgusting and unhygienic, but they are completely legal in Scotland. They are also very much in favour of the shooting industry. While farmers in Scotland are not permitted to bury livestock on their land (other than designated remote areas in the Highlands and Islands), gamekeepers are free to kill and dump piles of dead animals as bait to kill even more animals.
OneKind is calling for the use of stink pits to be reviewed as a matter of urgency. Together we want to see stink pits banned altogether on ethical, animal welfare and public health grounds.
Here’s five of the most disgusting stink pits we’ve come across to give you an idea of what they’re really like.
1. Leadhills Estate, South Lanarkshire - November 2016
These two foxes were found by OneKind staff following a report by a member of the public who had discovered a fox caught in a snare. They found the fox already dead and placed in the stink pit next to a young fox who had a snare around its muzzle. There were 3 snares set around the stink pit to catch other animals that followed the scent of the dead foxes.
2. Glen Ogil Estate, Angus - May 2011
Twenty active snares were found in woodland in Angus by a field officer. Just beside the line of snares was a dead decomposing fox that had been thrown over a tree stump. Another dead fox was found nearby with a snare still around its neck.
3. Marchmont Estate, Berwickshire – October 2015
A dozen pink-footed geese were found in a stink pit in Berwickshire. These birds are protected between February and September suggesting they were shot and dumped in the stink pit as soon as the season opened.
4. Glen Almond Estate, Perthshire – June 2016
This container full of whole salmon was discovered in the Glen Almond Estate in Perthshire. A snare had been set in a wall of branches to catch animals attracted by the smell from the stink pit.
5. Glen Turret Estate, Perthshire – June 2016
This stink pit was found after a member of the public reported seeing snares near a reservoir. The pit contained deer, pheasant, crows, fresh salmon and a fox. This cat looked as if it had only just been killed due to lack of decomposition. Two snares were set in gaps around the pit to catch any animals.
07 June 2017
OneKind recently went along to the Dirleton Dog show where we got to meet lots and lots of lovely dogs and their humans.
Here are pictures of all the fun dog show winners, including OneKind's office dog, Millie, who came 4th in the prettiest girl round! Well done to everyone who everyone who took part.
If you would like a high resolution copy of your photo we would be happy to send you one, in exchange for a small donation to OneKind to help us end cruelty to Scotland's animals. Please email Maree.brown@onekind.org for more information.
02 June 2017
Theresa May’s declaration of support for fox hunting and her commitment to a vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act in England and Wales has been one of the most talked about issues in the election campaign so far. Buzzfeed report that the bizarre move by the Prime Minster was even in the top five election stories shared online.
Now polling by Survation commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports suggests that this interest in animal protection amongst voters is more than skin deep. It found that not only do a clear majority (67%) continue to oppose the legalisation of fox hunting, half of all voters are less likely to vote for a candidate in the general election who wants to make fox hunting legal again. Here in Scotland, the number is even higher at 55%.
So, the public care deeply about animal protection and they expect politicians to do so too. It’s not news to us, but for some reason it seems to be for politicians. Too often, animal welfare is reduced to a passing reference in manifestos and it rarely, if ever, is raised by journalists who have the opportunity to quiz candidates and leaders during the campaign. But this time round, animal welfare has featured quite strongly in some of the manifestos. Here’s a summary, starting with the manifestos that gave animal welfare the most column inches and going down from there!
[***Health warning*** animal welfare is devolved to Scotland and the main general election manifestos deal with Westminster issues, so clearly every Party has not set out their ambitions for animal welfare in full, however Scottish manifestos have been published too and these refer to devolved issues. As the SNP only stand in Scotland they have only published one manifesto, but it does cover some devolved issues too.]
Scottish Labour
Animal welfare word count – 136 words (Scotland)/ 130 words (UK)
Animal welfare features strongly in the Labour manifestos, receiving a whole page in the Scottish Labour manifesto. It includes some welcome high-level language about the importance of animal welfare and the need for better enforcement. The key commitments made are: a ban on puppy dealing (‘third party sales’), a total ban on ivory trading, a ban on wild animals in circuses, an end to the badger cull and to snaring, and support for a continued ban on fox hunting. The same commitments are made for Scotland.
Scottish Liberal Democrats
Animal welfare word count - 94 words (UK)/ 62 words (Scotland)
The Liberal Democrats include animal welfare commitments in the nature and farming sections of their manifestos. In England and Wales, they commit to introduce stronger penalties for animal cruelty offences, bring in a ban on caged hens, tackle illegal pet sales and to minimise the use of animals in science. They also promise to improve farm animal welfare by updating the welfare codes, which only a few years ago the Government threatened to abolish. They are also the only party to note the threat posed to farm animal welfare by Brexit, committing to high welfare standards in any new trade deals.
Disappointingly, the Scottish Liberal Democrats miss out some of the commitments to stronger penalties, a ban on caged hens, and improving the animal welfare codes.
The Scottish Conservatives
Animal welfare word count - 44 words (Scotland)/50 words (UK)
The Conservative manifesto features commitments to make CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses, reform pet vending rules and to address live exports alongside their pledge to hold a vote on the repeal of the Hunting Act. Oddly, this is all in the section entitled “our countryside communities”. These commitments all deal with devolved powers, so it is disappointing that the Scottish Conservative does not reiterate them for Scotland in the countryside communities section of their manifesto.
The one reference made by the Scottish Conservatives to animal protection in their manifesto is important, however. They welcome the Bonomy review of the Act that was meant to have banned fox hunting in Scotland. The review puts forward a series of recommendations to tighten the law, which the Scottish Conservatives appear to be backing. This is welcome; OneKind would like to see fox hunting banned rather than regulated in Scotland but it is encouraging to see the Scottish Conservatives take a more progressive position than their counterparts in Westminster.
SNP
Animal welfare word count – 12 words
Animal welfare is absent from the SNP manifesto but for the words themselves and the following commitment: “We will oppose any relaxation of the laws on fox-hunting”. Welcome, of course, but surely the SNP has more to say about animal welfare after ten years in Government in Scotland? Particularly notable by its absence was any reference to the fox hunting ban in Scotland, which is currently under review. A shame that Nicola Sturgeon’s own words from just a few weeks ago weren’t simply copied and pasted:
“I have always been an opponent of fox hunting and remain an opponent of fox hunting… Be under no doubt at all this government opposes fox hunting and that’s the position we have long taken and the position we continue to take.”
The Scottish Greens
Animal welfare word count - none (Scotland)/a entire manifesto (England and Wales)
The Scottish Greens have a good record defending animals and advocating better protection in the Scottish Parliament, but animal welfare is omitted in their manifesto this time round. Their manifesto is, however, a short document given they are not fielding many candidates. This is what they said when we asked them about the issue:
“We’ve got a proud track record of supporting animal welfare issues in the Scottish Parliament. Specific things done very recently include Patrick Harvie calling for a real ban on foxhunting First Minister’s Questions, Alison Johnstone speaking in support of a ban on snaring and Mark Ruskell opposing the Scottish Government’s retrograde plan to allow healthy puppies' tails to be amputated… At Westminster, Green MP Caroline Lucas has campaigned to extend bans on fox-hunting to other blood-sports, as well as a wide range of welfare issues, and Scottish Green MPs elected to Westminster would vote against any repeal of hunting bans.”
The Green Party for England and Wales published an entire seperate manifesto for England and Wales! https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/green-party-animal-protection-manifesto-easy-read.pdf
26 May 2017
We don’t think so, but that’s exactly what the Scottish Government is proposing. In 2007 Scotland took a big step forward and banned all tail docking in dogs, but now they want to reintroduce it for some dogs. They are calling it “tail shortening for working dogs”, but let’s be clear what they mean:
Puppies tails will be cut off so that they can be used by people who shoot birds for fun to retrieve the carcasses.They complain that if they’re not allowed to do this they might injure their tail if they’re sent into gorse or other thick cover. The fact that they should not be putting their dog in such a dangerous situation in the first place seems lost on them.
You need to cut off, or, as it is being rebranded by the Scottish Government, to ‘shorten’, the tails of 320 spaniels to prevent an injury that would require tail amputation. Tail docking causes pain and can lead to long-term problems. It also limits a dog’s ability to communicate by, for example, wagging its tail.
No mainstream veterinary group or animal welfare organisation is supporting the Scottish Government’s proposal. The Vet Record journal this week is reporting that the proposal has been met with “strong resistance from across the profession”, including the BVA and the BSAVA. They also carried a frank and powerful quote from David Morton, European veterinary specialist in animal welfare science, ethics:
‘They are not taking into account all the puppies that will undergo the pain and suffering of docking against the lower number that are used for hunting and that may require later treatment, which will nearly always be under an anaesthetic to prevent them feeling pain… Animal welfare would appear therefore to be a low priority for Scotland over the human pleasure gained through hunting.’
This is the crux of the proposal. The Scottish Government are proposing to put the interests of a hobby ahead of animal protection and against the advice of veterinary and animal welfare groups. As one Glasgow University researcher involved in research into tail injuries in working dogs commissioned by the Scottish Government puts it:
“Engaging in a hobby or lifestyle that frequently results in tail and non-tail injuries and would benefit from removal of parts of the tail is ethically debatable in itself”
If you want more information you can read about the Scottish Government’s proposal and why we believe it would be a step backwards in full in our report.
22 May 2017
Scrolling through your newsfeed on Facebook is something that we all do multiple times a day, but did you know that Facebook’s lack of a robust policy on animal abuse means that horrifying images and videos can make their way onto your timeline?
The Guardian revealed today that Facebook’s policies on issues such as graphic violence and animal abuse are simply not clear enough. One on hand, the company wants to remain open, but on the other, it does not want to tolerate abuse on its site. This blurry line between what’s acceptable and what’s not is leaving moderators of the social media giant struggling to decide what’s right.
According to a Facebook moderation manual, “[Facebook] allows photos or videos documenting animal abuse for awareness” and will only mark images as disturbing if they include extremely disturbing material. One category that comes under disturbing material is animal mutilations, but hunting and fishing are listed as notable exceptions of this rule. However, I’m sure the millions of people who are against any kind of animal hunting would argue that hunting is animal abuse and do not want to see it anywhere on their Facebook timeline.
This isn’t the first time the animal abuse on Facebook has been highlighted. A few years ago, we saw a huge rise in cases of abuse through the online drinking game Neknominate. The craze, which was facilitated by Facebook, saw people posting videos of themselves completely a variety of tasks. Many of the tasks included animal abuse with one of the more popular ones seeing people swallow goldfish.
So, what can we do about it?
Firstly, Facebook should do what it can to prevent any kind of animal abuse, but we need to keep the pressure up by reporting anything we see. Animal cruelty is cruelty wherever it is taking place. Just because these images appear on Facebook does not mean that they are acceptable in any way. Here’s what you can do if you come across any posts you are concerned about:
1. Report it to the police – If you see any photos or videos where you think a crime against an animal has been committed then we urge you to contact the police.
2. Report it to Facebook – Use the report button on Facebook to alert the site to any content that shows animals being abused. You can also choose to hide the post and any future posts from that user from your own timeline
3. Contact OneKind – If you have complained about animal abuse shown on Facebook or other social media sites then we'd love to hear from you. Please email us on info@onekind.org or call us on 0131 661 9734.
11 May 2017
It has been a long time coming, but today is the day that the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Bill starts its progress through the Scottish Parliament. In around a year, we hope, our law will state:
“A person who is a circus operator commits an offence if the person causes or permits a wild animal to be used in a travelling circus.”
OneKind has teamed up with animal protection organisations Animal Defenders International, Born Free Foundation and the Captive Animals’ Protection Society to give the Bill a warm welcome.
The Bill covers all non-domesticated animals travelling and performing in circuses, and any form of display or exhibition in static premises such as winter quarters. It is, of course, more limited in its scope than we would have wanted, but it is a pragmatic and enforceable approach and will finally complete some important unfinished business.
A Scottish Government consultation in 2014 produced an overwhelming response in favour of banning wild animal circuses in Scotland. Out of 2,043 responses, 98% thought the use of wild animals for performance in travelling circuses should be banned; and 96.4% thought the use of wild animals for exhibition (without performing) in travelling circuses should be banned. Both aspects are covered in the Bill.
The most recent Scottish poll, carried out for the More for Scotland’s Animals coalition in March 2016, found that 75% of those polled supported an end to the use of wild animals in circuses, rising to 78% in the 18-24 age group.
I particularly liked a comment in the Scottish Government questions and answers document about licensing – the route taken south of the border:
“A licensing scheme (as currently exists in England) might assist in protecting the welfare of wild circus animals but would completely fail to address the ethical concerns clearly expressed in response to the Scottish Government’s 2014 consultation; only a complete ban on use could fully resolve these concerns.”
In our discussions with the Scottish Government, we have consistently raised the issue of other forms of entertainment using animals, such as reindeer displays, bird of prey exhibitions in shopping centres, and mobile zoos and animal handling parties and asked for these to be addressed at the earliest opportunity. It is good news, therefore, that the Scottish Government has committed today to address these activities and OneKind is calling for this review to progress in parallel with the circus bill.
Other commitments announced today include pledges to
- Introduce measures to require the registration or licensing of animal shelters and rehoming activities
- Update regulations governing the licensing of dog, cat and rabbit breeding and dealing, including the irresponsible breeding and sale of these animals
- Modernise the legislation on performing animals other than in circuses
- Introduce tight controls restricting the use of electronic training collars
- Review the penalties available for animal welfare offences
Again, OneKind welcomes these commitments, although we continue to seek a straightforward ban on electronic training collars as the most effective way to end the suffering caused by these devices.
A more bitter pill to swallow is the pending legislation permitting vets to shorten the tails of spaniels and hunt point retrievers intended for use as working dogs to reduce the number of tail injuries suffered. Scotland led the UK by introducing a full tail-docking ban for puppies in 2007. The introduction of exemptions for working dogs was uniformly opposed by veterinary and animal welfare organisations, but has been pursued regardless. We at OneKind have consistently said that our opposition to docking is based solely on animal welfare concerns, and we would change our position if it could offer a net benefit to for working dogs – but there is still absolutely no evidence of this. We are confident that this point will come out strongly when the Order comes before the Scottish Parliament.
Finally, there is something missing from this list of proposals. A review of the exotic pet trade, committed to by the Scottish Government in 2015, appears to have been dropped. Here’s what the then Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Richard Lochhead MSP, said at the time:
“I feel that perhaps more can be done to protect not only the exotic animals that are being brought into the country, but our own native animals and environment. That is why I am publicly committing to a review of the trade and importation of exotic animals as pets in Scotland and I will be asking for the thoughts and advice of animal welfare groups, veterinary organisations and biologists across the country in due course.
“Calls have been made for new approaches to be taken at EU level and I would like to see Scotland taking the lead in supporting this.”
Well, call me naïve, but dropping the problems caused by the explosion of non-domesticated pet-keeping from the agenda does not look very like taking the lead. Other countries including Belgium, Netherlands, Lithuania and Luxembourg have overtaken Scotland in introducing positive lists – a simple and enforceable mechanism to ensure that only animals suitable for the domestic environment are kept as pets. We will be writing to the current Cabinet Secretary, Roseanna Cunningham MSP, to urge her to keep this critical animal welfare issue on the agenda.
So this is an important day for animal welfare in Scotland and OneKind hopes that it represents the start of real movement towards a comprehensive, modern suite of legislation that will be an example to other countries. Mulling over the positives and negatives, I was wondering whether the animal welfare glass was half-full or half empty. On balance, I would say it is a good three-quarters full – but we must keep an eye out for spillage.
08 May 2017
Last week, RSPB Scotland released a shocking video. It shows a hen harrier flushed from her nest and shot in mid-air.
The perpetrator then seeks to hide any evidence of the crime. This is as strong as evidence ever can be in the case of wildlife crimes, which usually take place in remote areas and far from watching eyes. In this case, the grisly scene was, unusually, caught by a camera that the RSPB had set up to monitor the nesting attempt.
Yet this crime did not even go to Court. It was dropped because the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) considered that the video evidence was inadmissible because it had been collected by RSPB investigators who “entered the land in question and embarked upon evidence gathering for the purpose of prosecution”. The RSPB claim otherwise, but even if this was the case the COPFS should be thanking the diligent RSPB for collecting vital evidence that could lead to a successful prosecution.
And this is by no means the first time this has happened, to RSPB, to OneKind and to other NGOs working to protect wild animals by upholding the law. If anything, a clear pattern is emerging in wildlife cases, and it goes beyond raptor persecution.
In 2012, OneKind reported a case involving the beating to death of crows in a cage trap. Video evidence had been collected by our field officer who came on the incident while he was out looking at the use of legal snares in the countryside. COPFS made many erroneous assumptions as to the purpose of our visit to the estate in question, applied case law that we believed to be out of date and refused to let the case get into court so that a Sheriff could decide on the issues of admissibility. Sound familiar?
More recently, a similar judgment was made last year on evidence collected by a OneKind investigator of alleged illegal snaring on the Glenogil estate. The video evidence clearly shows animals suffering and dying in snares, suggesting that the snares were not being checked in accordance with the law. Yet again the case was dropped, apparently because the Crown Office considered some of the evidence inadmissible.
Following this decision we wrote to the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit at COPFS asking for an explanation of the decision. At least, I thought, we should seek to learn as much as possible about what is and isn’t admissible to guide future investigative work. A reply came three months later repeating their original press release about the case and concluding with these words:
“Finally, may I refer you to the COPFS contact arrangements which are available of the COPFS website. Any request for information should be sent to the departmental email address and not to individual employees.”
The message was clear: do not contact me again.
Well, my message is equally clear. The Scottish legal system is failing to protect wildlife and is failing to serve the public interest.
NGOs and the public are losing faith in the system and that can only be bad for our wildlife and our community. We hope that this latest incident will lead to a substantive change so that everyone who is opposed to wildlife crime can work together and put an end to these illegal practices that are blighting our countryside, threatening species, and causing inexcusable suffering to wild animals.
Image credit - Kositoes/ Wikimedia Commons
05 May 2017
It’s peak snaring season in the British countryside. Snares are used throughout the country, mostly to target foxes to protect gamebirds.
This includes pheasants that are bred in large pens and then released to be shot, and grouse, which are wild but are protected diligently by gamekeepers so that they can be shot for ‘sport’.
OneKind runs www.SnareWatch.org with the aim of compiling evidence of how snares are used and the impact they have. Here’s three cases reported this year that alone demonstrate that snares are cruel and indiscriminate, and should be banned outright.
Those who defend the use of snares argue they are humane traps that simply restrain the fox until the trap operator checks the trap and humanly ‘dispatches’ the animal. They also argue that snare operators are diligent and operate within the law. Reports to SnareWatch.org suggest otherwise.
In March, we received this report of an illegally set snare that could have led to a prolonged and painful death for the fox involved. Luckily, however, a member of the public found the fox struggling in the trap, and the Scottish SPCA were able to save the poor animal.
Whilst snares are set for foxes they are indiscriminate and can capture (and kill) all sorts of animals. In fact, most reports we get to SnareWatch.org relate to people’s pets. The snaring of this cat in Cumbria was reported in February.
This cat was one of the lucky ones. It was able to return to its family unharmed after its traumatic experience. Sadly, we receive many reports of cats and dogs that whose snaring ordeals end tragically.
Snared badgers are also a common occurrence. Snares are set with the circumference of a fox’s neck in mind, with a stop set to prevent strangulation. Badgers mostly appear to get snared round their necks or waists, both of which are much bigger than a fox’s neck. The snare will therefore often tear into their flesh as they struggle causing horrific wounds, suffering, and in many cases, such as this one which was reported in April, death.
Snares are cruel, indiscriminate and unnecessary. We think they should be banned. Please share this blog to get the message out, and if you’re in Scotland please take part in our Snare-Free Scotland email campaign now.
© OneKind 2010. Registered charity no. SC041299. 50 Montrose Terrace Edinburgh EH7 5DL 0131 661 9734