Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): I welcome Ken Bradley, EMFG natural heritage; and Declan Looney, senior scientific officer, biodiversity and conservation science. I ask you to keep your presentation to about 10 minutes so that we can allow members to ask questions. Again, I ask that members keep their questions brief, please, and that responses are brief.

Mr Ken Bradley (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, members. The Snares Order will put additional restrictions on the use of snares. It has come about to alleviate the concerns of those who feel that snares are sometimes indiscriminate and lead to animal welfare issues. The SL1 sets out a number of restrictions that build on existing restrictions. At the minute, there are two main restrictions on the use of snares. The first is that the use of self-locking snares is banned. Those are snares that tighten and do not release at all. The second is that there is a compulsion on people who use snares to inspect them once every 24 hours to release an animal that has been snared, if the wrong animal has been snared, or to take away the animal they are targeting.

We intend to take forward those additional restrictions. The first is very important, and it is the fitting of all snares with a permanent stop. This is a new type of snare, which will tighten to a certain point but not further. This is so that the animal is trapped but not choked to death. Snares are to be fitted with a swivel, which allows the animal to turn without getting entangled. The setting of snares is very important, and the order sets out the regime for that. Snare users are obliged to inspect the snare once every 24 hours and to make sure that they are free running. The use of drag snares is prohibited, and that is also very important.

We went out to consultation in late 2013 and received 18 or 19 responses. Those in favour of the extra restrictions in the order included Belfast City Council, which is the only council to have responded, and two field sport organisations, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASCNI) and the Countryside Alliance. The Ulster Farmers' Union was in favour, and Ulster Wildlife, although it obviously had some reservations, in general supported the order. The British Veterinary Association also supported it.

Only two main organisations were against the use of snares: the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the League Against Cruel Sports. The rest of the respondees had some reservations and wanted to put in place training and things like that. Because of the time lapse, we went to all the respondees again and asked whether their view had changed or whether there was anything additional they wanted to put in place. There was nothing of any note to add to the initial consultations. Ulster Wildlife provided a fuller response, but its emphasis was on training, which is something we will touch on in a minute.

We want to take forward the Snares Order to alleviate the concerns for animal welfare because of the use of snares.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): Thank you for your presentation. I will allow members to ask some questions.

Ms Archibald: I would like to touch a bit more on the Scottish model, the greater need for regulation in it and the requirements to have training, ID numbers and things like that. It says in your presentation that it would be "overly burdensome" and "disproportionate". Can you expand on that a little?

It also mentions that it would require some changes to legislation and that there might be other priorities in legislation. I was just wondering what those might be. The proposals that are there for increasing the regulation around them sounds as though they would be useful, but there might not be enough regulation on policing it, enforcement and those type of things.

Mr Declan Looney (Northern Ireland Environment Agency): There are various aspects of the Scottish model that will not be directly applicable to the situation here in Northern Ireland. One aspect of that is that the Scottish model insists that individuals have to have tags with individual reference numbers. Essentially, that is about traceability. Here in Northern Ireland, we amended the legislation in 2011. Therefore, it is an offence for an individual to go on to landowners' land without the express permission of the landowner. Traceability is through the landowner. There would be no requirement from that perspective for the tagging of snares.

Where the training is concerned, the Department is putting together a guidance and best practice document that will cover how to use snares and, more importantly, set that within a legislative framework. If anyone feels they need to have further hands-on training over and above the guidance that will be provided by the Department, BASCNI can provide additional training on that.

Ms Archibald: Does that mean the training is not mandatory, so people could be using snares and are maybe not entirely familiar with them?

Mr Looney: Yes. Ken touched on the idea that it is the Department's view that, through the Snares Order, there will a significant increase in the welfare of any captured animals if the order goes through. Essentially, it is about the welfare of the captured animal. That, taken in combination with the current legislative restrictions on the use of snares, should produce a situation where there is a much more welfare-orientated practice in the capture of foxes.

Mr K Bradley: You touched on the Scottish example. It is important to note that I spoke to a colleague in one of the organisations in Scotland who has undertaken the training — it has been running for almost three years in Scotland — and they feel it has become very burdensome and actually puts snare users off going through the process. Once they have gone through the training, they do not follow it up with the accreditation process of getting the number, putting records in place, putting tags in their snares and noting the targeted species. So, it has been slightly counterproductive in Scotland because their view is now that it is slightly overly cumbersome. I understand they are going to take a review early in 2017. That is not definite, but there may be a review after three years because they think it might need some tweak or change.

Ms Archibald: We could learn from their model, the processes they have put in place and the feedback they have got from those.

Mr Looney: We also looked at it in a UK context. It is not a requirement, obviously, to do that in England or Wales. In fact, what has been proposed here for the Snares Order is significantly above what is required in England and Wales. You are right; certainly, the Department will be liaising with our Scottish counterparts over the next few years to see how that develops.

Mr K Bradley: The restrictions will bring us in line with the Republic of Ireland as well.

Ms Archibald: The proposals are looking at new measures on the actual snares. The landowners or land users will have to make sure those are the snares they use. Is there support for people to replace the snares they have, or is there any financial incentive to do that?

Mr Looney: We do not really believe it would be a financial loss to individuals as such. This is one of the other aspects of the availability of the use of snares as a viable control method.

The only other practical control method for foxes is shooting. The difficulty with shooting is that a minimum calibre firearm must be used for it to be considered humane. In Northern Ireland, fewer rifles of that calibre are available to landowners. What is more of a concern as to it being a viable methodology is the time required. Foxes are normally shot at night by lamping. If a farmer wants to use that methodology during the busy lambing period, it can easily take three or four hours in an evening, so I do not think that it is viable.

There is one other problem: some foxes become lamp shy. If a shot is taken at them and they are missed, it becomes much more difficult to be able to get them into range for a humane shot. Snares offer a viable alternative and are also much cheaper.

Ms Archibald: The target species is, I presume, mainly foxes.

Mr Looney: Yes.

Ms Archibald: Does the snare suggested go around the chest?

Mr Looney: Yes. One of the measures that we are introducing under the terms of the Snares Order is that the stop must be set at an appropriate distance from the noose, which is 23 centimetres. The principle is that the snare cannot close any further on the animal and, in some cases, strangle it. Essentially, it will act as a restraining device. There is a legal requirement that snares must be inspected every 24 hours, so the fox will be restrained at that point. On occasion, foxes can be shot but it is not a clean kill. The animal can die, whereas an animal restrained in a snare is there at the point of inspection the following morning by the farmer, gamekeeper or owner of the smallholding, and it can be dispatched at that point.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): In the policing of this, even under the current legislation, have there been any prosecutions?

Mr Looney: The Department does not hold any data on the misuse of snares. We recently answered an Assembly question from an elected representative. To retrieve that data you would have to go to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service, the Public Prosecution Service or, potentially, the PSNI. The Department does not have any data on the level of the misuse of snares in Northern Ireland to date.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): Could we write to the Justice Minister to get that information on prosecutions to date and how it is policed? Is the Committee happy that we do that?

Mr Swann: Could the Committee write to the PSNI as well? I know that the Minister has taken the line, "That's not part of my job. Please refer to the PPS or the PSNI".

Mr Ford: You say that you have no data on the misuse of snares. What data does the Department have on the use of snares?

Mr Looney: Again, we do not have any data on the use of snares.

Mr Ford: Yet the paper we got — this is in comparison with Scotland — states:

Mr Looney: When we say data, we mean any verified data from landowners using them. This would be anecdotally.

Mr K Bradley: We contacted BASC and the Countryside Alliance, whose members use them. We contacted the Ulster Farmers’ Union, and it did a trawl of its members, which is perhaps where the word "sporadic" comes from. At certain times of the year, some farmers use them and some do not. There is no published evidence or data.

Mr Ford: You also drew comparisons between shooting and snaring. If somebody shoots a fox, there may or may not be a welfare issue regarding the fox, but it does not have the potential for other animals being caught, which is the case according to some of those who are in correspondence with us.

Mr Looney: Indeed, and that is one of the things that we are trying to address in the Snares Order, with the use of a stop as a restraint so that non-target species can be released.

Mr Ford: Even if somebody adheres to the legislation, an animal could still be held by the snare for close on 24 hours.

Mr Looney: It is a possibility, but snares are generally set in fox runs, and, whilst there is a possibility that non-target species will be caught, the chances of that happening will be substantially reduced if people follow our best practice and guidance document.

Mr Ford: I saw what happened to a badger that was caught in a snare presumably set for a fox, and it is not just a possibility; it is an actuality.

Mr Looney: Yes, I acknowledge that it can happen.

Mr Ford: Presumably, you do not have any data for the effects on other wildlife.

Mr Looney: There is no verified data on the misuse of snares in Northern Ireland. The Department does not hold that data.

Mr K Bradley: That is the exact case that the order is trying to alleviate. If the snare is fitted with a stop, a badger should not —

Mr Ford: However, a badger, dog or cat will still be caught by the snare and suffer from being caught.

Mr Looney: Data on the misuse of snares is potentially a contentious issue. As I am sure you are aware, there are very strongly held feelings on the use of snares, both for and against, and some of the organisations on both sides of the argument have a tendency to put out various figures on the misuse of snares. However, the Department is not in receipt of verified data either way.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): Is that not possibly why it would be a good idea to be licensed for snares? You would then have that data or at least access to it.

Mr Looney: The issuing of a wildlife licence is essentially to permit an individual to undertake an activity that would otherwise be illegal. It is the Department's view that, if people adhere to the legal requirements currently set out under the Wildlife Order and the further restrictions in the use of snares under the Snares Order, which will be a legal requirement, they will not be committing an offence and, therefore, would not require a licence.

Mr McKee: You referred to the Scottish model and said that all the tagging and training and what have you becomes cumbersome. I imagine that part of the reason behind all that is that it should not be easy for everybody to lay a snare; if you had to go through training, that would make it more difficult. It was interesting to note that the Department recognised the different requirements for land management in Scotland and Northern Ireland. What is the difference in land management in Scotland?

Mr K Bradley: In Scotland, a number of large estates are geared towards game shooting, grouse and things like that. We do not have that to the same scale in Northern Ireland. There are a lot of farms, particularly hill farms, on a much bigger scale. Again, we do not have that in Northern Ireland.

Mr McKee: Are grouse not affected by foxes?

Mr K Bradley: That is correct, but it is one of identification in Scotland.

Mr Looney: If your reference is to the potential impacts of foxes, the justification for the Department's view on the continued use of snares is that — it is fair to say that most people do not want to see foxes killed — there are certain situations in which foxes can cause significant problems. That can be for hill farmers at lambing time. It can be for smallholders with free-range poultry. It can, on occasion, be a problem for ground-nesting birds, including some of our schedule 1 species; in fact, some Northern Ireland priority species such as curlew can be significantly impacted by fox predation. Of course the primary reason, which you touched on, is the rearing of game birds. As you know, grouse are ground-nesting birds and can be impacted in relation to the other schedule 1 species. There are a range of reasons why we think that snares are a potentially viable method that should be available. Habitat management on the moors in Scotland, for example, is specifically for commercial gain and focused on a return from grouse shooting. Grouse shooting in Northern Ireland is undertaken but not on the same scale, although there are a number of estates and smaller clubs that raise pheasants, for example. In certain circumstances, the situation can be the same, and foxes can occasionally present significant problems.

Mr McKee: Do you have any statistics on the number of lambs that are killed by foxes? In Scotland, it is 1%. Is there anything like that here?

Mr Looney: I undertook a lot of scientific research for my doctoral thesis specifically on that issue, and the lamb carcasses that were collected were also examined by veterinary pathologists. It is an uncommon occurrence in Northern Ireland, but, when it happens, it can cause significant problems for individual farmers. It is not a common occurrence — it is fair to say that that is the same throughout UK — but there are individual circumstances in which certain foxes, for whatever reason, decide to start killing lambs. In those situations, individual farmers can suffer significant financial losses.

Mr Swann: Declan, I will go back to the tagging issue that Caoimhe raised. Your rationale is that you have to obtain permission from the landowner to go on —

Mr Looney: To legally use a snare, yes.

Mr Swann: What if Harold and I both go onto your land and place snares? How do you know whether it is my snare or Harold's snare?

Mr Looney: The corollary of that is that, if an individual has to have a tag on a snare legally, that snare can be lifted and set somewhere else, and then that person can be put in the frame for setting the snare against, for example, a non-target species. There are pros and cons with both species. I hear what you saying, but, at the same time, if an individual sets a snare, the snares can be stolen with a tag on them and set somewhere else, either in an attempt to catch a non-target, protected species —

Mr Swann: Surely if they are being inspected every 24 hours and one of my snares has been stolen, I can report that, log it and detail it.

Mr Looney: You can, but, within that 24 hours, it can still result in the capture of a non-target species.

Mr Poots: I think that we made good progress in 2011 on reducing the amount of cruelty involved. It is an emotive subject, and there is no single answer to it all, to be perfectly honest, members. The problem that you used to have were those snares that tightened around an animal's leg and continued to tighten. Many animals lost limbs and so forth in their attempts to escape. Those do not exist any more, and this is taking it a step further with both a swivel and a stop. I welcome that aspect. I want to tease out a bit further the issue of our protected species. What is the greatest predator of curlew, hen harrier and species like that?

Mr Looney: Studies have been done in Northern Ireland to look at the relative impacts of predation on ground-nesting birds by foxes and corvids. Some of you may be aware that there is currently a grouse moor in Glenwherry. In that area, probably 15 or 20 years ago, there was a study on the impact of foxes on ground-nesting birds, and I think that the figures suggested that it can be quite significant. The general perception among people in the conservation lobby and certainly among people involved with gamekeeping is that, when fox numbers are reduced in an area, there tends to be an increase in ground-nesting birds. Circumstantially, it suggests that foxes have quite significant impacts on ground-nesting birds.

Mr Poots: Was the RSPB involved in a scheme with the farmers in Glenwherry to try to increase the numbers of those ground-nesting birds, which are in crisis, to be perfectly honest?

Mr Looney: That is right. That project was specifically for curlew.

Mr McMullan: It is nice meeting you. Ninety per cent or more of farmers do not really use snares.

Mr Looney: We do not have the figures to suggest that that is the case.

Mr McMullan: There is a good saying in the countryside: if you have a good rabbit population, that keeps the fox happy.

Mr Looney: Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

Mr McMullan: It is not always the case, but there is a lot of truth in it. If we are regulating the snares, I agree with it. I see the real way of regulating that as — this is only an example — being through gun dealers or somebody who deals in fishing tackle. It is that sports element whereby, if you get a snare out, you have to sign for it and are in a book. It is the same as for anything else that you have to sign for. In that way, you can keep a check on it. I do not think there is any other way of doing it. Even if those snares that are sold are the proper ones, with stops on them etc, you will get people who will carry on and do what they are not supposed to do. Quite a lot of people do not realise that Forest Service has a good handle on what is going on as well. You see pig wire around forests, which is why you have bigger squares to allow free movement of the animals. I see that as one way of helping to regulate it. It is about giving the sale of snares only to certain outlets so that they are not widely available. The problem with that is this thing here — the Internet.

Mr K Bradley: I was going to say that: the online market is the problem.

Mr McMullan: You can get anything online now, and that is part of the problem.

Mr Looney: Even though snares are available from hardware stores, agricultural outlets or the Internet, regardless of the source, they still have to be used within the legal framework. It is the Department's view that these additional provisions in the Snares Order will increase the humaneness for any captured animal.

Mr McMullan: I totally agree with you.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): We still have the problem of not knowing whether anybody is policing it. We can put in place whatever legislation we want, but if it is not being enforced or policed, it is of very little value.

Mr Looney: The use of snares comes under the terms of the Wildlife Order. If someone commits an offence, for example, by taking a schedule 6 species, which covers a range of species including badgers, and if there had been a report that somebody was misusing a snare for that purpose, the only people who have the right of entry onto land are the PSNI. In that context, the use of snares is enforced by the PSNI. It will be the same with these additional measures under the Snares Order.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): I accept that that is the theory, but we deal in reality. Is it the reality that it is being enforced properly or policed properly? That is my concern.

Mr K Bradley: You are right, Chair. These additional restrictions are seen as a preventative measure. The responsible snare users, whether they are bona fide farmers or grouse shooters, will abide by the new rules. The cowboys will never abide by any rules, so, irrespective of that — I do not know whether it makes much difference or not — it is a matter of education, and it is about not making the old snares available any longer. Declan mentioned better training and a code of practice through different outlets and things like that. It is a matter of training and raising awareness, and prevention of crime rather than trying to prosecute crime.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): Fair enough.

Mr Irwin: As a farmer, I have never used a snare in my life, and I know that many farmers do not, but I can understand why some farmers do, especially at lambing times. It is important that snares are still available for those who really need them. I do not know anyone in the country around me who uses snares, but it is important that they are available for those who need them. Nevertheless, I welcome the restraints on them and that they are made as humane as possible. That is very important.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): Nobody else has indicated that they wish to ask any questions. Thank you for coming along.

Are members content that we forward to the Minister the two items of correspondence that were received from members of the public?

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): Are members content to respond to the members of the public to outline the Committee's decision today and enclose a link to the Hansard report?

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): We now have to make the decision that we are going to enclose. Are members content for the Department to proceed with making the rule?

Mr Ford: There is some evidence that making this rule would improve welfare, but, frankly, nothing but a total ban will ensure that non-target species and pets do not continue to be caught in snares by the small number of people who use them. Since they are so little used, it seems to me that a total ban is where we should be going.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): I fully support what you are saying. There will always be issues around welfare unless we look at that, but, in making them more humane at least, we need to make the rule.

Mr Ford: At present, there is a proposal with the Speaker for a Bill that would ban snares. I would be much happier to see that introduced. Robin has helpfully pointed that out to me.

Mr Swann: To clarify, that is not what this order is about. It is not about a total ban.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): No, it is not. There is no option or opportunity for a ban with the Snares Order. It is only to make it more humane.

Mr Ford: My concern is that, by endorsing this, we give the suggestion that we think that this is all that is needed. It might be a modest step in the right direction, but it is not where I believe that things should be ending. That is why I am concerned that simply agreeing this order gives the wrong impression.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): I have the same concerns, but I am also concerned about the animals that would suffer in the meantime.

Mr Irwin: At the end of the day, we must accept that, as Edwin, who has been the Environment Minister, has pointed out, snares have been used in the past to protect wildlife in some situations. That is why I think that it is important that the use is available. While I do not support the widespread use of snares, I think that there are circumstances in which they are needed, and that is our difficulty. To ban them would be crazy.

Mr Poots: I am not into hunting. I have a farm at home, and I have never used a snare. I hardly ever use a shotgun. I think that it is such a blinkered approach to say that the best approach to wildlife is to ban snares because there are occasions when a particular element of wildlife gets out of control. The consequence of that is that it damages other areas of wildlife. Mr Ford may not want to see the curlew and the hen harrier operating in Glenwherry and many places; I do. I want to see those species, which have existed in Northern Ireland for many years, and which, because we have a population of another species that has got out of control, are being wiped out. That is ludicrous and foolish talk, and, consequently, whilst we do not particularly like snares, we want to make them as least harmful as possible to the animals that are getting caught in them. This proposal for the swivel, the stop and so forth does all that. Whilst it is not perfect and will never be perfect, it gives us the opportunity to have a broad view on what is best for the environment in Northern Ireland. What is best for the environment in Northern Ireland is to ensure that we maintain as many species as possible and keep the biodiversity that we have been privileged to inherit.

Mr K Bradley: I have one small point. Balanced snares would restrict those who are involved in raising game species for sport, so there would be an economic angle to the banning of snares if that option were not available to gamekeepers.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): Those who are in favour of the banning of snares will not be too interested in game sport, so that is probably not an argument that will win with them. I understand where you are coming from.

Mr K Bradley: A ban could put the use of snares underground, with people using them unlawfully. You would then be back to the enforcement issue.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): That issue has been raised with me.

Ms Archibald: I welcome the fact that the order would reduce the harmfulness of snares and increase humane treatment. That is the aim of it. I wonder whether there is scope for more regulation in it and whether there is any scope to look at that before we approve it.

Mr McMullan: One of the main drivers of all this is permission on the land. If landowners refuse permission for anybody to go onto their land for the practice of snaring or whatever, you have that already. I am a landowner, and I do hunt. I understand that, but, if you ban something completely and drive it underground, you could end up in a worse situation. I can think of practices that some of these people would go into to achieve what they are trying to achieve through the use of snares. Snares regulate wildlife. Wildlife needs to be regulated. I know that it is a bit emotive, but you have to look at it. What we are talking about now goes some way towards regulating the practice. I think that there is scope in it for something else to be added later on. If you ban something totally, you put it underground, and you cannot then regulate it. As I say, the regulation comes through the landowner; that is the main source.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): We have a few options: we can go ahead and allow the Department to proceed with making the rule; or we can ask that some work be done in speaking to the PSNI and the Justice Department about whether there is any scope for further regulation. We can then ask for that to come back to the Committee, or we can say that that can go alongside allowing it to proceed.

Mr McMullan: I propose that it go alongside allowing it to proceed, because you will have to ask the PSNI for its advice anyway. That should go alongside allowing it to proceed.

Mr Looney: May I ask for clarification on which aspect of the regulation the Committee is asking about? Is it that regular spot checks are done in areas where snares are to be set by the PSNI? May we see some clarification on what exactly it is that you are asking?

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): Some discussion with them about whether there have been any prosecutions would be a first step.

Mr Looney: That is fair enough.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): I think that we need to have a conversation with them just to see what is possible. You may say that we need spot checks done, and they may say, "We do not have the resources to do that", so we have to be realistic about it. I think that the two things can go alongside each other. I do not think that we need to prevent it from going forward today, if members are happy enough that that is how we proceed.

Mr Poots: I am happy to second Mr McMullan's sensible proposal. I have issues with how the PSNI handles wildlife issues. I do not think that, even when it comes to badger baiting and so forth, enough is being done. I know that, in my area, we have lots of problems with that. There are certainly issues there that we can perhaps look into further. On this one, I think that that is sensible.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): OK. So we are happy enough that we will proceed, but alongside that —

Mr Ford: I record my dissent from that decision. I shall not bother to respond to Edwin's insults.

Mr Poots: Right. You are easily insulted. You could start a fight some day.

The Chairperson (Ms Dillon): Thank you very much.

Mr Looney: Thank you, Chair and members.