Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Snaring disgrace

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 February 2008
Mike Russell's decision not to ban snaring (your report, 21 February) supports animal cruelty and exploitation for economic gain. This is a disgraceful position for any civilised country to adopt against the wishes of the majority of its population.
A British Association for Shooting and Conservation report leaked last year revealed up to 40 per cent of game birds were injured rather than killed every year. More than 30 million are shot each year in the UK.

Raptors are poisoned and wildlife snared, all to support a shooting and so-called conservation industry, which is animal cruelty on a massive scale. Shooting at live targets should be banned.

ANGUS MACMILLAN
Meikle Boturich
near Balloch, Dunbartonshire

Your report on the Scottish Government's decision not to ban snares was accompanied by a photo of a deer caught in a snare. This was clearly an illegal snare set by poachers at a height to catch a deer.

Snares used for trapping rabbits or foxes are set low enough to catch them, and therefore too low for a deer to get its head through.

GEORGE MORRISON
Garrier Court
Irvine, Ayrshire



The full article contains 188 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 February 2008 9:32 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

James F,

East Ren 26/02/2008 00:50:18
I agree with Angus on this one. Snares are unnecessary and cause enormous suffering to wild animals. We need to adopy a civilised attitude towards animals and this does not allow for killing them for "sport" or for the table.
2

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 26/02/2008 05:07:17
Snares are the only practical way to protect hens etc from foxes.
The animal rights lot will soon want to ban mouse traps and have us all turn into veggies.
3

Linda,

Edinburgh 26/02/2008 10:07:33
Angus & # 1,

The majority of population have never been asked their view. I listened to the debate in parliament, and am neutral on the issue, but it struck me that the main opponents in Parliament were Labour MSPs in City Centre seats and Mike Russell's plans were supported by the lib Dem and Tory members present.
4

Angus,

Alexandria 26/02/2008 10:08:21
2 nabodican

More than 12,300 animals are killed in the UK by gamekeepers every day for the benefit of the shooting interests.

Only a small percentage of wildlife crimes is ever detected.

The UK is one of only five European members that still allow animal snares to be used. Ireland, France, Spain and Belgium have far stricter snare rules compared to the UK.

Almost 70 per cent of animals caught in snares are not the intended targets. No DEFRA official has ever checked to see if a snare fulfils their own code of practice and are lawful.

Source. http://www.antisnaring.org.uk/
5

Upbeat,

26/02/2008 12:03:56
Angus

Your 12,300 statistic shyould be quoted with a source reference. . Plucking figures form the air or extrapolating them from a small unrepresentative sample by using a calculator is 'dodgy science'.

Just the other day on TV viewers may have witnessed the story about a ten point stag that was released from a death sentence. It was spotted by game keeprs who were out on the hillside. They werre there in a remote place because it is their place of work and employment.

The stag had its antlers entangled in a section of fishing net , and had managed to get one front foot entangled as well. Without assistance from the keepers it would not have survived.

The same thing happened again to another stag in the same area a couple of weeks ago.

Are we also to ban all fishing nets, lengths of wire netting, barbed wire etc.?

6

Angus,

Alexandria 26/02/2008 13:28:52
Upbeat,26/02/2008 12:03:56

So why save two stags and kill hundreds? You should respect all of their lives.

And who says, "Plucking figures form the air or extrapolating them from a small unrepresentative sample by using a calculator is 'dodgy science'" other than you?

I have quoted my source. What's yours?
7

Upbeat,

26/02/2008 15:25:09
Angus.

You skirted around the main point ..well done. !
Statistics presented by one side of any argument or by a single issue pressure group are never to be regarded as accurate or objective. This is true anywhere , or in any scenario. This is why " independent review" processes and second opinions - to arrive at the truth - are now required to deflate spin and obfuscation put about by lobbyists and other single agenda organisations.

If you can point to the way your 12,300 daily figure was arrived at, what sampling method was employed, how the sample was analysed , where the surveyed sample was located, what season of the year was monitored, who did the monitoring etc. then it might increase the relevance.

Pointing me to an antisnaring pressure group website... a source by definition implying prejudice about an aspect of countryside life... is hardly to be taken seriously as being objective and scientific. ? Now.... is it ?
8

Angus,

Alexandria 26/02/2008 15:55:14
Where is your "independent review? I haven't seen it.
You seem to disregard figures without any reason other than you don't like them.

The anti-snaring website it the source of my information. Are you saying they're lying? If so, what evidence do you have?

I think you're smokescreening the issue to suit your own ends.
9

Daibhidh,

Edinburgh 26/02/2008 17:06:43
Is it hug-a-tree day today or something?! It's been done for years, it's far from wide-spread...there's nothing wrong with it...
10

Upbeat,

26/02/2008 17:07:12
8 Angus
Round the point again.

You have taken a figure from an antisnaring pressure group website. You have posted it in full view of the public in national press, claiming that this figure is valid.

I have asked you to reveal where this survey originates, and the remit of the people that compiled it. You have responded by saying again that it comes from an antisnaring pressure group website.

I then pointed out the dangers associated with any reliance on statistics presented by single issue groups . I requested that you expanded on this statistic to explain how it had been arrived at.

It appears you are unable to reveal this information..

For this reason the statistic is worthless, and should be recognised for what it actually is...

You have presented an attempt to mislead the public about an aspect of country life with which very few people in modern Scotland have first hand experience.

You have done this in the full knowledge that a large number of people are vunerable and open to emotional inuendo and suggestion about aspects of wildlife management. You hope to add weight to your viewepoint , as you have done in the past, by suggesting that things in Scotland's countryside are almost lawless , far worse, and further out of control than they actually are.

The figure of 12,300 cannot be verified. You should know and admit this. Unless the survey is established to be true by proper unemotional assessment carried through by those who are disinterested in the agenda, (of either side to the argument) presenting this figure in the press is nothing more than mischiefmalking.
11

Angus,

Alexandria 26/02/2008 18:26:09
10 Upbeat

The statistic is not worthless. You can't even challenge it. You saying it's worthless doesn't make it so.

Good to see you accept that "things in Scotland's countryside are almost lawless" even when you think they're not as bad as I think they are.

Are you saying the people at www.antisnaring.org.uk are lying? You've dodged this question once and come up with no alternative.

And those figures don't count the cruelty revealed in the BASC's leaked report.

So who are you trying to kid?

No-one by the looks of it.







12

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 26/02/2008 18:42:28
"...to support a shooting and so-called conservation industry, which is animal cruelty on a massive scale"

If Angus really believes that then he should go and spend a few months in the country and talk to as many farmers and gamekeepers as he can possibly find.

Rabbits are vermin. Yes, they might look really cute and cuddly, but they are vermin. They spread disease, their urine ruins soil, they eat massive amounts of cereal crops and they ruin land by digging warrens in it. This is not to mention making grazing land potentially dangerous to horses.

The culling of rabbits, squirrels, mice, rats, foxes, etc is NECCESSARY for FARMING and for HEALTH REASONS. It is not, as Angus likes to think, done purely to satifsy the huntin' fishin' shootin' set. To even suggest such a thing is to show one's total ignorance of these matters.

As for not shooting at live animals, that is TOTALLY rediculous. One of the ways they control vermin is by shooting at it---and to shoot some vermin you need to be a qualified marksman, using the correct weapon and with knowledge of the area AND be an employee of the landowner BY LAW.

People like Angus spouting their misguided opinions only serve to inflame the situation and mislead people. By listening to the likes of him, the average person would imagine that it is a free-for-all blood bath in the country. It is not. Everything is regulated by sensible, well-thought-out laws (with the exception of the hunting ban).

When his like interfere, you get mind-numbingly stupid laws like the hunting ban, because not understanding what they are talking about, they put about mis-information about "cruelty" to foxes, when the previous night, that very same fox could have ripped a chicken farm to bits or savaged several new-born lambs.

The countryside is well enough regulated. People who don't know what they are talking about should keep their noses out.
13

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 26/02/2008 18:51:55
I an for the moment assuming that the poster "Angus, Alexandria" is the same person as the writer "Angus MacMillan"?

....or is that a bit TOO crass?
14

Upbeat,

26/02/2008 21:21:27
Angus
I don't have to justify anything.I was not the one who attempted to use questionable figures in a national newspaper.
The 12,300 figure you have put forward is suspect, for it attempts to reveal in numerical terms something that is almost impossible to verify. You have quite failed to justify it. Unless you can point to the methodology, and this statistical analysis can be shown to stand up to independent scrutiny it is a worthless bit of scaremongering.

I have challenged it Yes I challenged you to justify it twice. ) You fail to justify it or apologise for attempting to mislead people...I have twice asked for detailed information concerning the methodology employed . You provide none.

Your attempt to twist the phrase I actually wrote: ..." You hope to add weight to your viewepoint , as you have done in the past, by suggesting that things in Scotland's countryside are almost lawless , far worse, and further out of control than they actually are."
..... by rephrasing thus :
"Good to see you accept that (")things in Scotland's countryside are almost lawless(") even when you think they're not as bad as I think they are."

.....is laughable.

Today Angus you have used a prejudiced set of statistics which you cannot justify to present an aspect of country life with which you disagree in a bad light.

You are unable to back up the methodology of the figures you decided to use so they can be discounted.

15

Angus,

Alexandria 26/02/2008 22:17:06
13 Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head

Absolutely. I never hide behind pseudonyms.

If you've got something to say you should have the courage to put your name to it. Why do you use one?

16

Angus,

Alexandria 26/02/2008 22:27:38
14 Upbeat,

I'm using figures from a national campaign that I have no reason to doubt and which you have given no alternative number.

I have asked you if the people are lying and you won't answer the question. You should ask those who compiled the figures what their methodology was, not me, before you accuse them and me of misleading the public which is tantamount to saying they are lying.

But you have accepted that things are "almost lawless", albeit to a lesser degree than I would claim.. Do you notunderstand what you write?

There are plenty of people in the countryside who don't agree with snaring. Don't kid yourself.


17

Upbeat,

26/02/2008 23:10:58
Angus,

You are hiding from your responsibility for what has gone on here by attempting to infer something which I never said.

I have "accepted" nothing of the sort. (But you have accepted that things are "almost lawless", refers)

Read the phrase again. "Further out of control than they actually are".

This means exactly what it says.

The Rephrasing of it would be as follows: " Things are perfectly well in control , but you ( Angus) prefer to imply that they are not.

Angus I have disputed your use of the statistic because you cannot and refuse to justify it. You have swallowed a statistic and regurgitated it without question . Others will not be so easily misled. The statistic may have been arrived at using correct methodology or it may not stand up to scrutiny.It is important to reveal honestly just how it was produced and you cannot do this.

It is the widespread use and reprinting of poorly assembled data for statistical use that is a bane of modern life. This does not mean that anybody is - as you wish to infer - "lying" , it just means that what they consider to be correct and publish is impossible for others to replicate in future research because the methodology held secret,.... away from ridicule perhaps ...is never revealed .

Such data is ....in fact.... "a castle built of sand "
18

Angus,

Alexandria 27/02/2008 08:29:08
17 Upbeat,

No!

What you said was,"You hope to add weight to your viewepoint , as you have done in the past, by suggesting that things in Scotland's countryside are almost lawless , far worse, and further out of control than they actually are." So what you're saying here is that is almost lawless and out of control but not as badly as I imply.

You are also jumping to the conclusion that the information provided by the campaign against snaring is "impossible to replicate" when you don't know what methodology was used and can't identify any study that contradicts its findings.

All you're doing is being as prejudiced as you claim other are.

Kettle calling pot black!

There is plenty of evidence to show that snaring and the shooting industry it supports is cruel, not least from BASC's leaked repor where up to 40% of game birds are injured.



19

Angus,

Alexandria 27/02/2008 09:36:57
12. Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Sorry I missed your posting #12 but feel it is worth a response.

The problems you refer to are self-inflicted by interference. Vermin are only wildlife perceived to be a nuisance

If you kill raptors and foxes you’ll have more rabbits.

If you don’t look after your assets (lambs and poultry) properly, you’ll have problems just the same as any other business. If a bank left money in the street do you not think it would be taken?

If you don’t “feed” rats they’ll go away.

It is nonsense to claim that to shoot wildlife you need to be a “qualified marksman” – whatever that means - and there is no law that says the shooter must be an “employee” of a landowner.

Since you mention it, game bird killing is a “bloodbath” as can be seen in Animal Aid’s video “ The Killing Fields” which can be obtained direct from them.

The cruelty of the shooting industry should be everybody’s concern and it should be vigorously opposed by all right-thinking people.




20

Upbeat,

27/02/2008 12:03:54
Angus.

As you are well aware, and we can all see, the whole of your attitude towards countryside activities in Scotland is based on your own slight understanding of what goes on there. Your evaluation of the whole topic is being fed by single issue propaganda, eminating from pressure group websites and activist publications. This source of information is intended to make you feel in the way you do. Propaganda serves no campaigning purpose if it does not stir emotion.

Pressure groups are not often noted for providing any balance to the campaign they are engaged with. It does their stance little good to admit that those with whom they are in disagreement might have a point, or that wider arguments do actually contain the balanced approach necessary for society to continue to function.

We have seen this with tree huggers blocking motorway building. We have seen it with CND marches, and anti Trident demonstrations outside naval bases. We see it in NIMBY protesters the length and breadth of the western world. We see it time and time again.

We all know that there is somewhere an ideal state of civilisation in which 'Angus' might be content. The point is that your understanding of wider countryside issues is blinkered, because you ignore or bluster when any information is presented to you that might confuse your attitudes..

The fact that you regurgitate a statistic from a pressure group as if it was fact, without understanding and checking the methodology, and then return here time after time to claim that somehow this inability check the figure you provided is not your fault, shows that on this matter you have quite lost the plot. You determination to appear blameless and objective is thoroughly irresponsible but - as always -truly wonderful.
21

Angus,

Alexandria 27/02/2008 15:48:11

20. Upbeat.

What nonsense!

You don’t have an argument against the cruelty of both snaring and the shooting industry so you once again attack the messenger. And now you’re trying to imply you speak for everyone ie “we all can see”. What tosh.

The BASC report gives ample evidence of cruelty.

The vets’ submission to the burns inquiry gives ample evidence of cruelty.

And, as I said, if you want further evidence, buy yourself a copy of “The Killing Fields” video from Animal Aid and see it for yourself. The camera doesn’t lie.

I have already addressed the issue of the Campaign against Snaring’s figures more than once. If you don’t understand what I’ve written, and you’re not in a position to challenge the figures, you’re really on a hiding to nothing. You’re even condemning the methodology and you haven’t a clue what it was.
I have ever reason to believe the following quotes by the campaign against snaring are true:

More than 12,300 animals are killed in the UK by gamekeepers every day for the benefit of the shooting interests.

Only a small percentage of wildlife crimes is ever detected.

The UK is one of only five European members that still allow animal snares to be used. Ireland, France, Spain and Belgium have far stricter snare rules compared to the UK.

Almost 70 per cent of animals caught in snares are not the intended targets. No DEFRA official has ever checked to see if a snare fulfils their own code of practice and are lawful.

Source. http://www.antisnaring.org.uk/

22

Upbeat,

27/02/2008 18:16:25
Angus More of your sad obfuscation.

My purpose here has only been to point up your misuse and propagation of unverifiable figures. Like you I dodnot know that they bear any relationship to the truth. Until I know how they were arrived at they remain suspect.

I asked you to enlighten this comment board how they were arrived at. You don't know, and can't and won't say whether they were arrived at by proper methodology , although clearly you prefer to believe that they were.

Your intransigence - while instead casting ridiculous accusations about whatever opinions you think I might hold about the use of snares, (personal opinions which I have neither suggested or detailed on this thread,) is truly wonderful, as I said earlier.

You are annoyed because you have had your letter put into sad perspective, and there is little you can do about this.

Finally your latest response with yet more links to websites and single issue publications of which you approve, simply confirms that all your information is " fed by pressure group propaganda, pressure group websites and activist publications." which is what I pointed out earlier.

Did you even realise that for your 12,300 figure to be accurate this would mean that gamekeepers in the UK, between them, catch almost 4.5 million individual animals by this method each year?

Your stance therefore implies that every gamekeeper in the UK on average, traps something using a snare every day. Using this supposition reveals the most probable method by which the figure was arrived at...in the first place. But it appears that neither you or I have the interest to uncover this truth. Me because I am quite sure the figure is ludicrous and it is a waste of time anyway, and you wasted your effort by attempting to mislead the public here..... You because you fear the methodology will not stand up to scrutiny , and so there is a real danger to that you will find that you were very wrong to use it. !
23

Angus,

Alexandria 27/02/2008 22:34:44
22.Upbeat

Yet another attack on the messenger which shows the paucity of your argument.

On the one hand you go on about “proper methodology” but on the other you make assumptions based on prejudice with no methodology on your part in sight. If you don’t mind me saying so it does make you look rather inconsistent at least and perhaps rather silly at worst.

If you look at the figures objectively 4.5m animals slaughtered in the furtherance of slaughtering another 32m game birds is a ratio of 1:7 throughout the whole year. In relation to the much shorter shooting seasons of 4 months the ratio of those killed to support the shooting industry then becomes 1:64 - if my calculations are correct. That is probably quite a feasible number and not as wild as you would have us believe.

The Animal Aid video “The Killing Fields”, which I have shown publicly on a number of occasions, graphically shows the cruelty of the shooting industry in a way that cannot be disputed.

All this nonsense about whether figures are correct or otherwise doesn’t alter the fact that animals are being cruelly slaughtered on a massive industrial scale.

I think you are letting your prejudices run away with you, which is not an uncommon trait in those who wish to exploit animal cruelty for financial reward.
24

Upbeat,

27/02/2008 23:17:11
Angus Dog , bone worry ! worry.. !

"Yet another attack on your critic - and what you suppose his views to be - which shows the paucity of your argument" (I personally have nothing to do with hunting shooting or any other field sport. Furthermore I have pointed this out to you several times previously.)

And yet you attempt one further post using the same unsubstantiated statistics in some dogmatic hope to restore your lost point by making it appear valid. Set this against a broader picture of Countryside piursuits in Scotland which you prove yourself quite unable to comprehend and your case is rubble.

Enough. It has ( once again)been demonstrated several times now ,that you set out attempting to mislead those who bother to read your opinions in the national press, through the quoting of figures that do not stand for scrutiny. Numbers which you remain quite unwilling and visibly incapable of validating. . There's an end to it.

25

James F,

East Ren 27/02/2008 23:52:01
Upbeat #24.

You're becoming a pain in the bihooky.

Angus has suggested that 4.5 million animals are snared in UK every year. This is an abomination, even if the accurate figure may be slightly less than 4.5 million. If you dispute Angus's figures, the intellectual onus is on you to produce contrary figures which you can verify. I don't think you are capable of this, which is why you hide behind facile, puerile arguments.

I challenge you to produce an intellectually coherent argument to justify the killing of animals for financial gain and I rest easy in the knowledge that you will never achieve this goal.

I was slightly inaccurate above; you ARE a pain in the bihooky. Give us your best shot.
26

Angus,

Alexandria 27/02/2008 23:58:57
24 Upbeat

You have pointed out to me on several occasions that you support the activities of shooting estates for economic reasons. If you’ve changed you mind and don’t support them now, them please say so.

I used the statistics of gamekeeper numbers / killing animals that you provided to show your argument didn’t stack up.

I am no fan of the BASC but I haven’t banged on about their methodology for exposing that up to 40% on game birds are injured. But following your route do you think I should? Perhaps it should have been 60%.

I think you only believe what you want to believe.
27

Upbeat,

28/02/2008 11:23:58
James F.

Thank you for your opinion. It makes a change to hear from someone else on this emotive issue.

Whatever the true figure might be for the number of animals that are snared each year in the UK the assessment of this must be acheived by better means. Multiplying an estimate of the number of professional gamekeepers at work in the UK by the number of days in the year and factoring in the estimated number of animals that each gamekeeper is supposed to catch by using a snare, cannot be justified as scientific analysis.

What this vital argument about use of snares needs is validity. Any figures presented by those who are opposed to any countryside activity must be capable of being analysed and if necessary replicated by those who disagree with the original. Any method employed to detail trends must have authenticity. Campaigning groups must never resort to emotional blackmail, by creating an impression which does not stand up to scrutiny. Sadly for the anti snaring pressure group they have failed to act respectably by these figures. This debases their argument.

Had Angus wished to enhance this debate he would have revealed to us the methodology to justify his use of the figures.Instead he obfuscates and attempts to nit pick, inserting ideas into the argument which he considers are held by those he converses with.viz ;"I used the statistics of gamekeeper numbers / killing animals that you provided to show your argument didn’t stack up." ( I presented no statistics for him to work with not ever ! )
This thread could have been terminated many hours ago. But Angus does not know how the figures he used were arrived at , and can only bluster that the figures, in his opinion, must be " ball park" because he prefer to believe their source than anyone else on this issue. (we already know of his warped understanding of countryside management issues. .)

James you ask " I challenge you to produce an intellectually coherent argument to justify the kill
28

Upbeat,

28/02/2008 11:27:05
"I challenge you to produce an intellectually coherent argument to justify the killing of animals for financial gain and I rest easy in the knowledge that you will never achieve this goal."

James did you think through before asking this all so clever catch all question ?

You do realise that Vets make financial gain by killing diseased or injured animals ? (or does this not count ? )
29

Angus,

Alexandria 28/02/2008 16:31:49
I think before anyone takes any heed of “upbeat” they should measure his opinions against the website www.bansnares.com and ask themselves who is most likely to be honest, Sir Patrick Moore and others who have put their names to the website, or some anonymous pro-snaring mouthpiece who habitually doesn’t answer questions when asked.

In the past he has supported hunting estates for economic reasons but when asked now if he still does or has changed his mind he goes strangely silent.

He talks about scientific analysis but makes all types of accusations with absolutely no basis whatsoever.

He can’t dispute the BASC’s leaked document which shows the cruelty of shooting, so he goes strangely silent once again.

He said, “Did you even realise that for your 12,300 figure to be accurate this would mean that gamekeepers in the UK, between them, catch almost 4.5 million individual animals by this method each year?” and then denies he produced statistics. I certainly didn’t come up with the figure of 4.5million. He’s the one who extrapolated it.

So ask yourself this question. If shooters injure and kill and 32 million game birds in four months annually, does it not sound feasible that gamekeepers could kill 4.5 million animals in a full year. And don’t forget that if 40% of game birds are injured that’s nearly 13 million acts of cruelty – not counting snaring – in a four month period or nearly 105,000 acts of cruelty every single day during the shooting season.

The overall cruelty of the shooting industry is massive and, bad though it is, snaring is only one part of the cruelty involved .

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.