RSPCA response on Larsen traps

Remember the case of the RSPCA inspector who 'confiscated' an apparently legal Larsen trap? Read the original post here.

Well, I've had a reply from the RSPCA press office and, after a couple of emails to and fro, it appears that the problem in this case centres on the trap being used on council owned land. Text of the emails below.

I've not been able to check the precise details of ownership of the land, although you'd think someone living in a house was the 'occupier'. Maybe the trap was set in a communal area. In which case there's a lesson in all of this - before carrying out any sort of pest control, make quite sure that the person giving you permission has the right to give that permission.

What struck me, though, was the unequivocal statement "The RSPCA is opposed to the manufacture, sale and use of all snares and any trap which causes suffering." Presumably they're unaware that wildlife biologists studying foxes, coyotes, mountain lions, etc prefer to use snares as the most targeted, effective and humane method of capturing these animals to radio-tag and release unharmed. Such as this. And this.

If the RSPCA really want to minimise suffering, they should work with organisations such as BASC and GWCT to help devise better methods and equipment, and support the people who have to navigate the minefield of legislation while trying to do their job of wildlife management. The current knee-jerk anti response is doing no-one any favours, least of all the wildlife.

From: Rob Harris
Date: 22 July 2009 13:15:10 BDT
To: james.marchington@archant.co.uk
Subject: Magpie trap story

Dear James,

Apologies for the delay in replying but I wanted to get all facts
correct. Below I have tried to answer as many questions as I can.

The RSPCA is opposed to the manufacture, sale and use of all snares and
any trap which causes suffering. Even though some snares are legal and
some are not, in reality they can all inflict suffering at random on a
wide variety of animals.

Snares can cause a huge amount of pain and distress and can be fatal
and people need to be aware that they leave themselves open to
prosecution if they are using illegal traps or not setting them
correctly. Sadly our wildlife centres all too often deal with the
terrible injuries inflicted on animals that fall victim to traps and
snares.

Using a self-locking snare, failing to inspect snares that are set or
setting snares purposefully to cause injury to any animal, is a criminal
offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, and carries a maximum
penalty of a £5,000 fine or a maximum of six months imprisonment.

You asked whether we provide guidance on this issue to our inspectors.
The RSPCA trains every inspector in the legality of snares and traps.

Regarding powers of entry: an RSPCA inspector does not have the legal
right to enter private property without the owners permission unless
accompanied by a local authority or police officer. I can tell you that
in this specific incident the trap was on council- owned property, not
private.

You will appreciate that I am unable to go into the specific details of
this case, I can however speak generally and say that the RSPCA can
issue a 'caution' as an informal way of dealing with the situation
without involving the courts, and where the individual admits
wrongdoing, and where we are satisfied that there is no likelihood of re
offending.

I would also like to inform you that we have no member of staff named
Andy Harrison.

I hope this addresses most of your concerns,
Kind Regards,
Rob

Rob Harris
RSPCA Press Officer

--------------------------

Dear Rob,

Thanks for the info.

You are obviously aware of the specific case I mentioned, but it
seems I've been misinformed about the name of the inspector dealing
with the case; I take it you're not able to tell who is in fact
dealing with it.

The issue here, from my readers' point of view, is that many of them
use Larsen traps for legitimate control of corvids. If RSPCA
inspectors are going to go around confiscating such traps it will
become a problem.

I'm wondering whether there was some other factor in this particular
case that made it a welfare issue rather than a question of the
legality or not of trapping magpies. Or perhaps you are implying
that, since this was council land, no-one had the right to set a trap
there anyway? Is that something you are able to clarify for me?

Many thanks,

James

--------------------

Hi James,

Yes, because it was council land, no one other than the council is
allowed to set any such traps on it.

The use of Larson traps for taking wild birds such as magpies is
covered by general licences issued by Natural England (WML07 and WML08).
These stipulate the terms and conditions of use, including the
provision of a perch, shelter, food and water for the decoy bird.
Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, only authorised persons are
allowed to take/kill magpies. Authorised persons are either the
owner/occupier of the land, or someone holding written permission from
them.

I hope that clears up the issue for you.

Regards,
Rob

Be afraid!

You'd expect alarmist, misleading nonsense from the League Against Cruel Sprouts. And their risible anti-snaring campaign doesn't disappoint.

"Norfolk pet owners warned of snare danger" screams their latest press release - which highlights a handful of cases where pets were killed or injured in illegal snares, and then calls for a ban on legal snares. Because the people who're already breaking the law will immediately stop when something else is banned, won't they?

You might hope for a more responsible approach from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, though, what with them being a registered charity, patron The Queen, etc. Nah. They've jumped squarely on the anti-airgun bandwagon with a misleading and alarmist release: "Surge of air gun attacks feared" which makes no mention of legitimate, responsible airgun use and calls for "anyone who witnesses an air gun attack on an animal" to call the RSPCA "24-hour cruelty and advice line" - virtually guaranteeing conflict between well meaning members of the public and legitimate pest controllers. By remarkable coincidence, this is released at a time when Scottish ministers are seeking the power to ban airguns.

If I was thinking of donating money to the RSPCA, I'd want to know just how much of my donation would be spent on expensive spin-doctors and lobbyists, and how much on actually helping the unfortunate animals that are entrusted to their care.

According to their latest Trustees Report, there were 143,501 animals "collected: rescued/signed over/seized" in 2008, of which so far as I can see 60,203 were killed - including an unspecified number killed "with great reluctance when there is no reasonably possibility of rehoming" - ie they were perfectly healthy but an expensive inconvenience.

In fact, glancing through the spending breakdown on p13 of the report, it's clear that they're spending proportionately less on animal establishments, and hugely more on turning themselves into a bossy 'Animal Police'.

Iranian rabbit problem?

You'd think that Iranians had plenty on their mind at the moment, with the upheaval in their country brought home by this poignant video of the last seconds of Neda, a protester shot in Tehran.

Oddly, the counter on this site shows an ever increasing number of visitors from Iran, looking at this post about Danny Sumpter's preferred method of snaring rabbits. The diagram of how to set the snare is particularly popular.

Is there a specially bad rabbit problem in Iran, or is there something else going on here? If you have any information, do let me know.

Precisely how 'not uncommon' is this?

Those nutters at Animal Aid are at it again. With Balmoral gamekeeper Robbie Elliott facing prosecution over 2 badgers killed in snares, the lies and hyperbole against snaring are positively gushing forth: "It is not uncommon for snared animals to chew off their limbs in an effort to escape" claims their ridiculous statement. Really? Care to back that up with evidence? Thought not - Animal Aid, like LACS, were never ones to let mere facts get in the way of a sentimental rant (LACS do a beter job of dressing up this sort of hatred as a 'report' of an 'investigation', but their latest 'War on Wildlife' is full of snide digs at guns 'paying large sums of money to shoot birds for pleasure').

Their argument is that people sometimes do illegal things with illegal snares. So let's ban legal snares. Because that will help. Hey, people sometimes break the law in their cars. Let's ban cars...

These ludicrous organisations are strangely quiet about the baby rabbits dug up and killed by badgers on Springwatch last night. If that had been done by a gamekeeper they'd have been shouting their heads off. But the idea that ickle animals kill and eat each other's babies just doesn't fit their childish view of wildlife.

More emotive twaddle on snaring from LACS

An 'overwhelming' 10,000 people have signed a petition against snaring, according to the latest rubbish from the LACS. We've exposed their misleading, emotive twaddle before – here and here, for instance.

Just how 'overwhelming' are 10,000 people? More than 150,000 attended last year's CLA Game Fair alone. And how hard can it be to get gullible, well meaning members of the public to sign a petition to save the ickle animals? I could rustle up a hundred signatures in an afternoon standing outside my office door, spinning some yarn about animal suffering, from people who wouldn't know a snare from a Larsen trap, or a stoat from a weasel.

Sorry LACS, your feeble 'petition' is worthless. If you want to protect wildlife from cruelty, how about a campaign to ban the keeping of domestic cats?

Danny the champion of the rabbit catchers

Meet Danny Sumpter, the man who has just taught me a whole new way of catching rabbits. He learnt it from Glenn Waters, who sent Danny this note 12 years ago:

Shortly afterwards Danny sold his ferrets and his rabbit cage traps - they were redundant, because Glenn's method was so effective he didn't need them any more.

The system is based on a special snare rig, made from high-tensile fence wire. This holds up a 23 1/2 inch brass wire snare, which is set in a rabbit run directly over the 'beat' where the rabbit's feet land as it runs.


There's no fiddly tealer stick - it only takes a moment to set. The loop is set much larger than I used to do it - but it certainly works!

Danny took me to a field where he had set a couple of dozen snares last night. As we drove in through the gate, it looked like it had been raining dead rabbits. We picked up 16 rabbits in all, which is a phenomenal catch rate.

Below is a video of Danny showing how to set one of his snares. I'll explain the snare and his methods in more detail in the Christmas issue - don't miss it!

More info about Glenn Waters' snare designs here »
Buy the snares ready made here »

Lies & statistics

Nearly four-fifths (79%) of people in Scotland now support a ban on snares claims the anti organisation Advocates for Animals.

What rubbish! Just look at the way they asked the question:

"Snares have the potential to cause extreme suffering to animals and in some cases a painful, lingering death. Any animal is at risk from a snare, including protected species such as otters and badgers as well as deer, hare, livestock and even domestic cats and dogs. The Scottish Government recently announced that it does not intend to bring in an outright ban on snaring. Do you think the use of snares should be banned in Scotland or not?"

Who wouldn't answer yes to a question like that? That's not an opinion poll, it's a joke.

I have no problem with people who don't like shooting, fishing, hunting, etc. That's their choice, and I'll happily debate the issues with them all day long. But I have no time at all for devious liars. By pushing out misleading drivel like this, Advocates for Animals have lost any right to be taken seriously by politicians or the media.

The antis are past masters at using fake 'polls' to support their arguments. Just recently MORI was rapped by the British Polling Council for the way they ran a poll for the League Against Cruel Sports. Details here »

Just for fun, try substituting the words "sea eagles" for "snares" in the A4A poll question and ask yourself what the vote would be.