Tag: clam trap

SNH launches ‘independent’ (ahem) study into trap use

The long-awaited study into the use of corvid traps in Scotland has finally begun.

This research was first proposed in late 2012, following SNH’s controversial decision to permit the use of clam-type traps on the 2013 General Licences (see here for associated blog posts). There was much opposition to this inclusion, based on concerns that these traps are likely to cause unacceptable risks to non-target species (including raptors). SNH ignored the majority of respondents to a public consultation, who had called for research to be conducted BEFORE the traps were authorised; SNH decided to go ahead and allow the use of these traps and do the research AFTERWARDS.

Following a series of Parliamentary Questions in December 2012 about this decision, Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse said: “We will commission objective research on these traps“. SNH then announced they would conduct ‘rigorous and independent’ tests.

SNH has now commissioned two organisations to conduct that ‘objective, rigorous and independent’ research. Those two organisations are Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT).

We have no problem with SASA – they have no vested interests in the removal of predators to enhance the number of gamebirds available for shooting and therefore can be seen as being thoroughly independent on this topic. But GWCT? This is the organisation that has consistently petitioned for buzzards and sparrowhawks to be included on the General Licences (thus allowing them to be culled in the interests of game-shooting) and many of their Trustees are directly involved with game-shooting. Not what we’d call ‘independent’.

According to the SNH press release about this new study, the research will cover all the different types of traps that are currently licensed for use in Scotland (e.g. clam-type traps, Larsen traps, crow cage traps). That’s good – concerns about these traps and their use have been unresolved for many years. These include (but are not limited to) compliance (or not) with European environmental legislation; welfare concerns; poor trap design that allows indiscriminate species trapping; year-round use (as opposed to seasonal use); ineffective regulation of crow trap users; ineffective monitoring of crow trap use (i.e. number and species caught/killed); inability to identify an individual trap user (traps are registered to estates, not to individual users); and a lovely get-out clause for any General Licence user with an unspent criminal conviction. Will this new research address all of those concerns? We’ll have to wait and see.

The press release states that the first phase of the research involves a survey of trap users from the following organisations: British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA), Scottish Land and Estates (SLE), GWCT, and National Farmers Union of Scotland (NFUS). Hmm. Does anybody believe that these users are going to admit to having caught a non-target species? Or admit to ‘accidentally’ injuring or killing a trapped non-target species? Given that it is widely accepted (even by the Environment Minister) that these traps are often used for the illegal persecution of raptors, how reliable will these survey results be?

Curiously, there’s no mention of other interest-groups being involved (e.g. RSPB, SSPCA, SRSG, OneKind) – all of whom have previously expressed concerns about how these traps are used – but hopefully that’s just an oversight in the wording of the press release and not an accurate reflection of their actual participation in the study.

Later stages of the study will apparently include ‘field studies of how different traps are used in practice’. We hope the final report will also include information about every single incident of illegal trap-use recorded in Scotland over the last five years, including incidents that resulted in the conviction of a gamekeeper and those cases that remain unresolved.

Download the SNH press release: General Licences – Trapping Project – May 2014 press release

UPDATE 13.40hrs: A previous study looking at the use, abuse and misuse of crow cage traps in Scotland was undertaken by the Scottish Raptor Study Groups and RSPB Scotland in 1998. It was published in 1999 in the journal Scottish Birds (Vol. 20, pages 6-13). Download it here: Dick & Stronach 1999 Use, Abuse & Misuse of Crow Traps

Latest measure to tackle raptor persecution now in place

Last July, following a series of raptor persecution incidents, Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse announced his intention to introduce ‘further measures’ to tackle the ongoing problem (see here).

One of those measures has recently come in to force (as of 1st Jan 2014).

That measure is an enabling paragraph in some of the 2014 General Licences that says this:

SNH reserves the right to exclude the use of this General Licence by certain persons and/or on certain areas of land where we have reason to believe that wild birds have been taken or killed by such persons and/or on such land other than in accordance with this General Licence.

First of all, we applaud Paul Wheelhouse’s intentions, at least, and his determination to make sure this measure has been enacted. Good for him. However, as we blogged at the time, we really don’t see how this latest measure can be enforced (see here for our reasons).

For once, it seems that many of the game-shooting organisations are in agreement with us. Before SNH issued the 2014 General Licences, they had their usual consultation period and asked for comments about this new enabling paragraph, amongst other things (see here). They have just published those consultation responses and all the respondents from within the game-shooting lobby raised many of the same concerns as us.

So, even though this new measure is now in place, it is highly unlikely that it will ever be effectively deployed….a bit like the legislation relating to vicarious liability. We might be wrong, of course, but only time will tell.

In general terms, the 2014 General Licences are not much better than the 2013 General Licences in that many of the previous concerns raised (going back several years!) have still not been addressed. We’ve blogged about this a lot (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) and don’t intend to go over all the points again….not just yet, anyway. We understand that SNH is intending to organise further research in 2014 to address many of the concerns, although they said that when they issued the 2013 General Licences and yet here we are, another year gone by and we’re still waiting for that research.

While we wait, it’s worth you having a look at the responses to the 2014 General Licence consultation – especially the response from the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, who once again are asking for ‘quota systems’ for buzzards, ravens, pine martens and badgers.

Download the PDF here: Consultation responses to General Licences 2014

Naturally, we’ll be watching with interest to see whether SNH has cause to withdraw the use of the General Licences, on the basis that they have ‘reason to believe’ that wild birds have been illegally taken or killed. The enabling paragraph probably cannot be used retrospectively so we’ll just have to wait until we see the next incident of criminal activity, which probably won’t be too far off, and then we’ll see what happens.

 

supersize me

Check this out. It’s a giant supersized clam trap (also known as a Larsen Mate trap, a snapper trap and a butterfly trap) that was on sale at this summer’s Galloway Country Fair.

These traps are supposedly for catching crows.

Do you think the trap size has been increased from the standard size to allow the trapped victim more space to be comfortable before it’s bludgeoned to death by the trap operator? Or do you think the size has been increased to allow the capture of larger species…?

We’ve blogged a lot about these controversial traps over the last 12 months (see here and scroll down through the posts) and we’re likely to be blogging about them again before the end of the year as we await SNH’s proposed ‘Code of Conduct’ on trap use, likely to be published in November/December when the 2014 General Licences are announced…

Clam traps: SNH in the last chance saloon

snh_logoOn Tuesday we blogged about SNH’s response to our concerns over the on-going clam trap fiasco (see here). We said we would outline what we thought the next step should be. Here are our thoughts:

There are two main issues. The first one is that the consultation process was flawed. It did not meet the standard required by the Scottish Government’s ‘Consultation Good Practice Guide’, which is applicable to an agency like SNH (see here).

For example, consultations should allow “at least 12 weeks to respond”. This particular consultation opened on October 1st 2012 and closed on November 9th 2012, thus only allowing 5.5 weeks in which to respond. In addition, in order to be transparent, SNH should have provided feedback on how each and every point raised during the consultation was treated. As far as we can tell, this has not taken place. Instead, it appears that the majority of points raised have been ignored (in terms of the final outcome of the consultation). In which case it could be argued that the whole consultation was pointless; SNH had already decided what they were going to do, regardless of the majority view of respondents, and they were just going through the motions of holding a public consultation to appease those of us who might object to their proposals.

The second main issue is the basis of evidence that SNH used to approve the use of clam-type traps. According to SNH, the consultation did not provide any evidence that clam-type traps were unsafe for target and/or non-target species, or a threat to protected species. Instead, they argued that as clam-type traps had previously been in use (albeit probably illegally!) it would be “disproportionate to ban their use outright”. There are several problems with this argument.

First of all, it is clear that no independent testing has taken place to provide evidence that these traps are safe. If SNH are using the ‘lack of available evidence’ to show that the traps are unsafe, then surely that mandate should also apply to demonstrate that the traps are safe before they are authorised for use? Is there any evidence to show that the traps have no welfare or lethal impacts to either target or non target species, which may include protected species, to justify their use? If there is evidence, it has not been made available to the public, in which case, SNH should have applied the precautionary principle and not authorised these traps until such time as independent testing shows they pose no threat to animal welfare as well as no impact on non-target species, some of which may be protected species.

Secondly, SNH have argued that by restricting the type of bait for these traps (bread and eggs only), they have “minimised the risk to non-target species”. Whilst this may be applicable to raptors, it certainly does not minimise the risk to other protected, non-target species, including the pine marten, a species that loves to eat eggs! According to SNH’s own website, it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly capture a pine marten unless you have a special licence to do so (see here). So why authorise a trap that, depending on its location, is highly likely to capture a pine marten?!

Thirdly, SNH said that it would be “disproportionate to ban their [the traps] use outright”. But, if you read the responses to the consultation, the majority of respondents were not asking for an ‘outright ban’ – they were asking for independent testing prior to the traps being authorised. Furthermore, there are alternative traps (Larsen trap) that could be used if clam-type traps were not approved this year or until such time as a trial showed that they are safe. So for SNH to say that not approving their use is ‘disproportionate’ is overstating the reason for approving the use of these traps.

So, where to go from here? In the first instance, we propose that people contact SNH and ask them to provide evidence to show that clam-type traps have no welfare or lethal impacts on either target or non-target species, and if they can’t provide such evidence then they should pull the clam-type trap from the General Licences until such time as that evidence is available.

This is SNH’s last chance to act. If the evidence is not forthcoming and SNH still refuse to withdraw the clam-type trap from the General Licences, then the next step would be to go to the Ombudsman and ask whether SNH has carried out this consultation appropriately.

If that fails, then we think there is a very strong case for making a formal complaint against SNH to the EU, for failing to protect the very species that they have a statutory duty to protect. This complaint wouldn’t just be limited to the clam-type trap issue – it would cover other traps that SNH have authorised, including crow-cage traps, without addressing the legitimate concerns about their use. These concerns have been raised over and over again during the last few years (see the current and previous consultation responses of groups such as RSPB, SRSGs and OneKind for examples) and SNH has consistently ignored them. They may argue that they’re going to address these concerns in their proposed ‘Code of Practice’ that they say they will develop ‘early this year’. The problem with that is it has not been made clear whether they will actually address all the concerns, and even if they do, whether this ‘Code of Practice’ will be a voluntary code (in which case it’ll be worthless) or whether breaking this code will be considered a formal breach of the conditions of the General Licence (and therefore should result in a prosecution).

It’s time to get serious. Please consider emailing SNH. It only takes a minute. The complaint should go right to the top again: Ian Jardine, (Chief Executive SNH) – ian.jardine@snh.gov.uk

If you’re not sure what to write, either copy the blog URL into the body an email, or you could use the following text as a guide – simply cut and paste or adapt it to your own words:

Dear Dr Jardine,

Re: the recent SNH consultation which led to the authorisation of clam-type traps in the 2013 Open General Licences.

Please can you provide the evidence you have used to demonstrate that clam-type traps have no welfare or lethal impacts to target or non-target species. If the evidence is unavailable, please consider withdrawing the use of clam-type traps from the Open General Licences until such time as independent and rigorously tested evidence is available.

Thanks.

Latest on SNH clam trap fiasco

snh_logoThe SNH clam trap fiasco continues. First, here’s a quick re-cap on their controversial decision to authorise the use of clam-type traps in the 2013 Open General Licences:

In October 2012, SNH announced that they would undertake a public consultation about the use of clam-type traps in Scotland (see here).

In early December 2012, following the public consultation, SNH announced that they would allow the use of clam-type traps on the Open General Licences beginning 1st January 2013 (see here). We questioned whether SNH had favoured the views of game-shooting lobby and ignored the views of the conservationists, and we asked to see the full set of consultation responses.

In mid-December 2012, SNH’s decision to authorise the use of clam traps led to several parliamentary questions. The questions can be read here, and the Environment Minister’s responses can be read here. The responses suggested that the Scottish Government didn’t see anything wrong with the decision to authorise clam-type trap use.

Meanwhile, also in mid-December 2012, at least two organisations (SSPCA and RSPB) asked SNH to reconsider their decision to approve the use of clam-type traps (see here).

In late December 2012, we blogged about how to recognise a clam trap being used lawfully and one being used unlawfully (see here).

In late December, SNH released the full set of consultation responses for scrutiny. In early January, we blogged about our analysis of these responses and concluded that SNH had not been truthful when they’d said that the “majority of consultees supported the proposed amendments” and that their decision to authorise the use of clam traps was based on “the feedback received“. In fact, our analysis showed that more than twice as many respondents were against the use of clam traps prior to independent testing than those who were supportive of their use! (see here). We encouraged people to contact SNH Chief Executive Ian Jardine to ask for an explanation.

So, the latest update is that SNH have now responded. The following generic letter was sent out in mid-January by one of Ian Jardine’s underlings, Nick Halfhide, Head of Operations:

“I am sorry that you disagree with the decision that we have taken to include clam-type traps in the 2013 General Licences. We are aware of the potential risks to non-target species from these, as with other licensed traps, but at the same time we recognise the legitimate needs of the land management community to control certain bird species.

In balancing the needs of land managers and the risk to non-target species, we sought to gather evidence through the recent public consultation to inform our decision making. This produced much valid opinion but little solid evidence. We therefore formed the view that as these traps are already in use, and have been for some time, it would be disproportionate to ban their use outright.

Instead, we decided to take steps to minimise the risk to non-target species by placing a special condition that eggs or bread are the only permitted baits for use with Larsen mate and Larsen pod traps. In addition we intend to further test these traps this year which will be both rigorous and independent. If evidence does come to light that they pose unacceptable risks then any General Licence permitting their use could be revoked at any time.

I also understand your concerns over the potential misuse of all traps permitted under General Licences and this is something that we take very seriously. These issues are of course not new and we are aware of the recent misuse of traps to target birds of prey and this is something we are very keen to address.

We believe that one important step will be to develop a Code of Practice with the industry and key stakeholders – this document would provide clarity on design and use of traps to ensure that there is a clear understanding and agreement as to when and how they can be used. This should help to maximise their effectiveness in addressing the legitimate needs of users whilst minimising risk in relation to animal welfare, conservation and potential for misuse. We aim to take this forward early this year.

Finally, in relation to views received during the formal consultation last year, I agree that the majority of respondents did not favour the use of clam traps but were in favour of clarifying which traps could be used under General Licence. The commentary on this point in paragraph 2 of section 5 of Annex 1 in the letter to consultees dated 4 December 2012 is ambiguous and thus confusing, for which I apologise.

Yours sincerely

Nick Halfhide

Head of Operations”

Having considered this response for a few weeks, we have now decided on the next course of action. We think the SNH response is unsatisfactory in that it still does not address the fundamental problem behind their decision to authorise the use of clam-type traps; that is, SNH’s decision not to carry out independent testing prior to authorising clam trap use. A further blog entry will explain what we can do about it….

Update on SNH clam trap consultation fiasco

snh_logoOn January 3rd we blogged about an apparent discrepancy in SNH’s 2013 General Licence consultation. In early December 2012, SNH claimed that “the majority of consultees” supported the idea of using clam-type traps without the need for prior independent testing on their suitability. In mid-December we asked SNH to publish the full list of responses for public scrutiny. They did this on 21st Dec. Our analyses of those responses suggested that the majority of consultees DID NOT support the use of clam-type traps prior to independent testing (see here).

A number of you have now contacted SNH Chief Exec Dr Ian Jardine to ask for an explanation. We understand that SNH are now “looking into it“. Well done to those of you who took the time to contact him.

SNH have 20 working days in which to respond (by 31st January). We’ll keep you posted.

For background reading on the SNH clam-trap / General Licence fiasco, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

Approval of clam traps: incompetence or corruption at SNH?

snh_logoOn Dec 5th we blogged about the changes being brought in by SNH to the 2013 General Licences following a period of public consultation (see here).

We suggested that it looked like SNH had listened to the recommendations made by the game-shooting lobby and had ignored those made by the pro-raptor groups. This was pure speculation because at that time SNH hadn’t actually published the responses they’d received during the consultation. We (and many of you) asked for them to be published. They did so on 21st December. Click here to read them.

Having now had the chance to review all these responses in detail, we believe that SNH has indeed favoured the recommendations made to them by the game-shooting lobby and ignored the recommendations made by the pro-raptor groups. But on a much more serious level, we now also believe that SNH’s decision to approve the use of clam traps in the 2013 General Licences before conducting an independent assessment of their suitability is based on a flawed interpretation of the responses.

In the letter sent by SNH to the consultees, dated 4th December (see here), SNH wrote this:

“On the basis of the feedback received we have made a number of decisions for changes for 2013”.

 One of these changes was this:

“Traps permitted under General Licences 1-4 will be clarified, including authorisation to use ‘clam’-type traps”.

Later in the same letter they further explained this change:

“In the consultation we asked whether there was a need to clarify the traps that are permitted for use under the General Licences. Our proposal was to provide further clarification and to specifically permit the use of ‘clam’-type traps. These traps have been available and used for a number of years but whether or not their use is covered by the General Licences has been debated due to unclear trap definitions in the General Licences to date.

Whilst the majority of consultees supported the proposed amendments, concerns were expressed by a number of respondents over potential welfare implications of these traps and how they could be used to trap non-target species”.

So, in this letter, SNH told us that the “majority of consultees supported the proposed amendments” [to explicitly authorise the use of clam-type traps before conducting an independent assessment of their suitability] and that SNH’s decision to authorise their use was based on “the feedback received”.  According to our analyses of the responses, this is blatantly untrue on both counts.

We divided the respondents into four groups:

(1)   Those who explicitly supported the use of clam-type traps prior to an independent assessment of their suitability;

(2)   Those who didn’t expressly mention clam-type traps in their response;

(3)   Those who did specifically mention clam-type traps but were unclear about whether they supported use prior to independent assessment; and

(4)   Those who explicitly did not support the use of clam-type traps prior to an independent assessment of their suitability.

In group (1) –

Scottish Countryside Alliance, Scottish Association for Country Sports, Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, Scottish Land & Estates Moorland Group, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

TOTAL: 6

In group (2) –

National Farmers Union Scotland, Scotland for Animals, Animal Concern Advice Line, Scottish Tree Trust, Individual B, Grampian Wildlife Crime Unit, Grampian Police, Glasgow City Council, Individual C, University of Stirling.

TOTAL: 10

In group (3) –

National Wildlife Crime Unit

TOTAL: 1

In group (4) –

OneKind, RSPB, Scottish Raptor Study Groups, SSPCA, Against Corvid Traps, Kindrogan Field Centre (Field Studies Council), Individual A, Individual D, Individual E, Individual F, Individual G, Individual H, Individual I.

TOTAL: 13

For the purposes of this analysis, groups (2) and (3) can be discounted. That leaves us with groups (1) and (4).

It is clear that the number of respondents in group (4), i.e. those opposing the use of clam-type traps prior to independent testing, is more than double those in group (1). Thirteen respondents were against the use of clam-type traps; only six were supportive.

So how on earth can SNH justify their decision, “based on feedback received”, to authorise the use of these traps prior to independent testing? At best this appears to be incompetence; at worst, corruption.

This is a serious issue. Has SNH intentionally misled the public to believe that the majority of respondents supported the use of clam traps prior to independent testing? Why hasn’t SNH heeded the majority of the responses, which clearly stated their opposition to the use of clam-type traps prior to independent assessment?

We demand an immediate review of this consultation process and we urge you to seek the same. In the first instance, we suggest you contact SNH Chief Executive Dr Ian Jardine: ian.jardine@snh.gov.uk

If you don’t know how to phrase your complaint, you could simply cut and paste from this blog or provide a URL to this posting.

SNH have a duty to respond to emails within 20 working days. If Dr Jardine’s response is unsatisfactory, then we have the right to ask the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to investigate the complaint.

Environment Minister answers parliamentary questions on clam traps

Environment Minister Paul WheelhouseFurther to our blog on 12 December (here) where we reported that MSP Claire Baker had lodged several parliamentary questions about SNH’s controversial decision to authorise the use of clam-type traps in 2013…..Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse has responded.

Presumably, his answers are based on the advice of the Scottish Government’s nature advisors….er, SNH.

Here they are in full:

Question S4W-11729 To ask the Scottish Government what independent testing has been carried out to evaluate the risk of injury to birds and other animals from (a) Larsen Mate and (b) Elgeeco cage traps.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (21/12/2012):

The Scottish Government are not aware that any independent testing of the welfare impacts of these traps has yet been carried out since 2009 when these traps were first used in Scotland. The Scottish Government are also not aware of any evidence of adverse welfare impacts of these traps. Some conservation and animal welfare organisations do have concerns about the potential welfare impacts and so Scottish Natural Heritage intend to commission independent research in 2013 to gather objective evidence in this respect.

Question S4W-11730 To ask the Scottish Government what independent testing has been carried out to evaluate the impact of (a) Larsen Mate and (b) Elgeeco cage traps on (i) protected species and (ii) species not targeted by the devices.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (21/12/2012):

I refer the member to the answer to question S4W-11729 on 21 December 2012. The Scottish Government are similarly not aware of any independent testing of the impact of these traps on protected species or any non-target species. Scottish Natural Heritage also intend to commission independent research in 2013 to gather objective evidence in this respect.

It is the responsibility of any operator of any trap to ensure that they are not used in such a way so as to likely catch any protected species other than those specified under a specific or general licence. Intentionally or recklessly catching any protected species that is not covered by a specific or general licence is an offence.

Question S4W-11731 To ask the Scottish Government what provision must be made for (a) food, (b) water and (c) shelter for (i) birds and (ii) other animals caught by a (A) Larsen Mate and (B) Elgeeco cage trap before a general licence for its use can be granted.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (21/12/2012):

No such provision is currently (or has previously been) made for any animals caught by any trap under the general licence.

Scottish Natural Heritage is proposing to work with practitioners to develop a code of practice for use of traps under general licence during 2013. The Code of Practice will provide detail on trap design and use and will aim to ensure greater clarity about what general licences do and how they are used. It is likely that issues such as this will be covered in the development of the code.

Question S4W-11732 To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on issuing general licences for untested cage traps.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (21/12/2012):

Species licensing functions, including the issue of General Licences was delegated to SNH in July 2011.

The general licences list the types of traps that can be used for the purposes set out in the licence. SNH policy is that decisions made about the inclusion or exclusion of certain traps should be evidence-based. Where the available evidence is not available, Scottish Natural Heritage will commission research to provide evidence.

Larsen Mate and Elgeeco cage traps, have been used in Scotland since 2009, and in the absence of any evidence indicating adverse welfare effects, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) believe that it would be disproportionate to prohibit the use of these traps. SNH propose to rigorously and independently test these traps in 2013. If evidence does come to light indicating that they pose unacceptable risks, then any General Licence permitting their use could be revoked at any time.

Question S4W-11733 To ask the Scottish Government whether independent evidence establishing a need to supplement a trap with a (a) Larsen Mate and (b) Elgeeco cage trap is required before a general licence for its use can be granted.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (21/12/2012):

No such evidence is required. It is the responsibility of anyone using a general licence to be satisfied that their actions are compliant with the terms of that licence. Scottish Natural Heritage proposes to work with practitioners in 2013 to develop a Code of Practice for use of traps under general licence. The Code of Practice will provide detail on trap design and use and will aim to ensure greater clarity about what general licences do and how they are used. It is likely that issues such as this will be covered in the development of the code.

So, it’s pretty evident that unless there is a legal challenge against the use of clam-type traps (and that may well take place…more on that in the New Year), it is down to us, as concerned members of the public, to find any evidence that these traps pose unacceptable risks to raptors and other species.

SNH say they will be conducting ‘rigorous and independent tests’ on their use in 2013, but they’ve already said they intend to include trap-users in that research. We would argue that this would not equate to independent (nor reliable) research. It’s already known that many trap-users are operating their traps illegally (see the various prosecutions of so-called ‘legal trap users’ over recent years). Nobody in their right mind would accept the views of these users as being trustworthy, let alone independent. It’s appalling that SNH, and the Scottish Government, would consider such an approach as suitable.

We would urge anyone with an interest in seeing clam-type traps banned to pay close attention to any that they find out in the countryside and REPORT THEM. Please see here for details about what to look for and how to report them.

More on this issue in the New Year.

Clam trap use in 2013: what you should know

So, it appears that SNH have ignored the pleas from several organisations to reconsider their policy on allowing the use of clam-type traps in 2013 – they’ve just published their 2013 General Licences (e.g. see here for GL #1). This general licence, “to kill or take certain birds for the conservation of wild birds” is effective January 1st 2013 until December 31st 2013.

Whether or not the content of this new general licence, and the others (see here for the list of the rest of them), is legal, remains under dispute. We’ll come back to that, probably in the New Year, after we’ve had the chance to review all the material.

In the meantime, it’s worth noting the conditions laid out in this general licence for the use of clam traps. Please note: this general licence is only applicable in Scotland; England has its own set of regulations.

Things to look out for if you come across a clam-type trap in Scotland 2013 and you want to know whether it’s being used lawfully:

1. Eggs or bread are the only permitted baits for use with Larsen Mate or Larsen Pod traps (i.e. clam-type traps). If you see one of these traps in use with any other bait (e.g. rabbit & squirrel have often been used), it is being used unlawfully.

2. Any Larsen Mate or Larsen Pod trap must be firmly pegged or staked to the ground before use. If it isn’t, it is being used unlawfully.

3. The trap must carry a tag or sign that gives the number of the local police station or wildlife crime officer for the area. The tag or sign must also carry a unique code that allows the owner to be identified by the police. If it doesn’t, it is being used unlawfully.

4. When open (i.e. set), the minimum distance between any two corners of the Larsen Mate trap must be 39 cm. If it’s less than this, the trap is being used unlawfully.

5. The Larsen Mate trap must not shut tightly along the majority of the length of the meeting edges. (Yes, the defence lawyers will rip this to shreds as they argue about the definition of ‘tightly’).

All the other usual conditions apply (i.e. any non-target species not listed in the general licence must be released unharmed immediately on being found in any trap; any trap while it remains in use must be checked once every day at intervals of no more than 24 hours; when not in use, the trap must be immobilised and rendered incapable of use by either removing from site or securing shut with a padlock) etc.

Illegal use of a clam trap
Illegal use of a clam trap

If you happen to come across one of these clam-type traps, whether you think it’s being used lawfully or not, please report it to the SSPCA and RSPB. Why? Because who wants to rely upon the word of the trap user that it’s being used lawfully? You should try and provide details of the trap’s location (grid ref is best) and preferably a photograph of the trap in-situ. Try and get a photo with some landscape in the background to help the evidential link between the trap and location.

The Environment Minister has confirmed that “if evidence does come to light indicating that they [clam traps] pose unacceptable risks, then any general licence permitting their use could be revoked at any time” (see here). Ok, let’s call his bluff and provide that evidence.

Contact: SSPCA (24 hr line) 03000-999-999

Contact RSPB Scotland 0131-317-4100

For further information about reporting suspect traps, please read this.

SNH fail to deliver

1340845155095That headline could relate to oh so many things.

In this instance though, we’re talking about SNH’s failure, so far, to publish all the correspondence they received in relation to the 2013 general licence consultation.

They said it would be published on their website on either Wednesday or Thursday (see here). Today is Friday and we can’t see it. We did see a notice saying ‘essential maintenance’ was being carried out on the website. Hmm.

If I was a cynical gambler I’d have odds on for publication today at 16.59hrs…