New Scientist has just published a thought-provoking opinion piece (republished below), written by Alick Simmons (the former UK Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer) on the inadequacy of UK legislation that’s supposed to protect wildlife.
It’s hard to think of a more authentic, credible voice on this subject than Alick. He’s recently authored a highly-acclaimed book, Treated Like Animals – Improving the lives of the creatures we own, eat and use (2023 Pelagic Publishing), which can be found here.
Alick’s article in New Scientist is a short summary piece but a must-read for anyone wanting to counter the unsubstantiated claims of the game shooting industry that is so desperate to cling on to its medieval practices that it thinks a quick rebrand from ‘snares’ to ‘humane cable restraints’ is going to convince policymakers that everything’s just fine as it is.
Here’s the article:
If Alick’s article resonates and you feel you want to do something practical, you might want to fill in the Scottish Government’s consultation on the use of snares (as well as increased powers for the SSPCA), which closes tomorrow (Tues 3rd October 2023).
The Scottish Government is proposing to (a) prohibit the use of a snare or other type of cable restraint for the purpose of killing or trapping a wild animal; (b) prohibit the use of a snare or other type of cable restraint in any way that is likely to injure a wild animal and (c) provide Scottish SPCA inspectors who are acting under their existing powers under the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, with additional powers to search, examine and seize evidence in connection with specific offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This is all part of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill which is currently making its way through Parliament.
REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform, has provided a handy guide for consultation responses which you’ll find here.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Certainly a timely intervention in relation to the Scottish Bill currently under consideration.
I hope his article filters through into the right places. Our treatment of wildlife is nothing short of barbaric, especially when it comes to protecting game birds.
I wonder whether Alick Simmons was prevented from speaking out when he was Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer (when it might have made the news), or whether he decided not to speak out?
I was a civil servant for over 30 years. I followed the Civil Service Code: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-code
Fancystoats is Alick Simmons’ nom de plume.
I see nothing there to directly prevent you saying this (or something similar) earlier. Which section would be the main problem?
I, too, could be considered a civil servant as a climate/space/engineering maths scientist working for and on behalf of the British Government measuring sea surface temperatures and atmospheric chemical species for the IPCC, but that did not stop me from appearing on television news proposing additional nuclear power decades ago (I was not told what to say by anyone, but I did have to say I wasn’t speaking on behalf of the Government nor any of its institutions, because I was not). It was a personal view, and I was allowed to say so, publicly.
Of course, I could never talk about the work I did where I signed the Official Secrets Act, but I doubt that covers animal welfare.
I appreciate that my response was not the one you are looking for but this is the one I have given. If you are looking for a protracted on-line spat then I suggest you look elsewhere.
“Spat”? I posed a question – and gave a reasonable response (I thought) to your answer, from my own experience – that was all. Are questions not invited, then?
I don’t disagree one bit with your article… but I think it is rather late in the day.
First: The implied criticism of my professional integrity has not endeared me to your position. Hence my dusty response.
Second: ‘late in the day’? I have been writing and speaking in public about this subject for the last seven years: For example:
https://markavery.info/2019/03/05/guest-blog-uk-guardians-of-animal-welfare-by-alick-simmons
https://pelagicpublishing.com/products/treated-like-animals.
When do you think I should have started?
“First: The implied criticism of my professional integrity has not endeared me to your position. Hence my dusty response.”
I was responding to the New Scientist article alone. And I did write “I wonder whether…” because I didn’t know. For all I knew, that was your first article on the subject. I’d expected such an argument made from a high ranking official to have had a big impact sometime in the past… and I had not come across it.
“Second: ‘late in the day’? I have been writing and speaking in public about this subject for the last seven years…”
Good. I mean that. Your blog entry (above) is excellent (I have not received any email reminders for Mark Avery’s blog entries for many years) but I had not come across any previous articles.. or the name… hence my partly ignorant comment/question.
“When do you think I should have started?”
I think people should speak up once they realise that things are not right. Especially if they have more power than the ordinary citizen.
From your experience within the corridors of power, why have wild animals been so egregiously overlooked when it comes to welfare legislation? Has there been too little public outrage, are our political representatives too complacent on the issue, or has some particular Whitehall Department consciously sought to protect the status quo?
“Vested interests hamper change” – is that exercised through the Civil Service / Departments, or directly through elected MPs / political parties? Or, both? How much do the Royal Family influence this issue?
Why does this issue not crop up regularly on TV current affairs programmes? Or, more regularly in the press? Should the BVA and RCVS be more pro-active on this subject, and seek to raise the profile of wild animal welfare? I could even ask, why are they not more pro-active? Are they not aware?
Something needs to change.
A lot of people are already aware of all this and this guy is only taking legal cruelty into consideration but that’s the tip of the iceberg and unfortunately this report will make little difference partly because the majority of people are living in some sort of bubble and a lot of the people who are aware simply do not care.
Thank you for the link to the bill etc. I am reading through the responses, and isn’t it interesting how the vested interests (landowners, businesses connected to Grouse moors etc.), always attack others (the SSPCA for example), for having their own agenda (the irony meter explodes), yet they clearly have been fed lines, because they’re all parroting the same things, verbatim.
As hinted at above, this takes no heed of the non-target by-catch resulting from so-called legal trapping and snaring. The last figure I heard put this as high as 70% of all victims. This no doubt included many protected species which it would have been illegal to capture intentionally. There will have been some which would have been released but many would not have been so lucky. In what other walk of life would such a fundamentally flawed practice be permitted.