 Ie d добien erbyn ei gweld handles arddangos, a mae ardufod hyn adeiladwy opnawwn i iGSiaf ti'n ddod Ac wrth gwrs ni'n ei fodio i ddosto agorau'r cy softlyŽ, os i iddy i ddefnyddio i pewd— eu cyhochau meseedl hyfyddu gyf melodyd i gyrthes rydyn ni i Fe FER. I am disappointed that not one Conservative felt they could support a motion which, after describing the horrors and indiscriminate cruelty of stink pits, merely asked the Scottish Government to, and I quote, consider the merits of banning the use of stink pits in Scotland, altogether on ethical animal welfare and public health grounds. Someone asked me after putting this motion down what a stink pit was, and I'll be until a few months ago, and a discussion regarding snaring, I'd never heard of them. But, as they say, you can do, and I wanted to have this debate to educate and hopefully contend to the past, this in my mind barbaric practice. Briefly, the use of stink pits, also known as middens, is a fundamental part of intensive predator control in Scottish shooting estates. Gamekeepers are taught to dig a quotes grave and fill it with quotes bait, such as wildlife carcasses, fish heads and other animal remains, and to build low walls of branches to direct foxes towards gaps where snares are placed. Snares are cruel and indiscriminate traps, which one kind, the league against cruel sport Scotland, along with 76 per cent of the Scottish public and myself and others, believes should be banned, and I had the privilege of speaking in Cullin Smith's debate on the banning of snares. Stink pits are designed to lure in and catch all foxes and other mammals in anania. Animals dumped in stink pits in Scotland since the introduction of the snaring legislation under the Wildlife and Natural Environment Scotland Act 2011 include foxes, deer, whole salmon, pink-footed geese, pheasants, rabbits, hares and cats. The killing and throwing away of domestic cats is known to cause particular offence, as is the use of stink pits to dispose of mountain hares that have been culled in large numbers, but all of that seems far from, I quote, good hunting practice, close quotes. If you want to learn how to construct a stink pit, then I direct you to Middensfakshi, your guide to working a midden stink pit for humane fox control, ironically humane, on the game and wildlife conservation trust website. I could also direct you to the many websites displaying graphic images of these disgusting exposed animal graves and images of non-predatory animals that also fall victim to the encircling snares. That is bad enough, but fundamentally, to pile animal-exposed carcasses upon carcasses is of itself offensive. I recall the public being sickened by the sight of animal carcasses in vast funeral pyres during the foot and mouth outbreak. How would they respond to images of deer, foxes, pheasants, hares and cats piled one on top of each other? Where would be the regard for animal life? Let me give you some examples. Marchment estate Berwickshire, a snare set by a stink pit contains a dozen pink-footed geese in October 2015. It was only protected between February and September, so it was shot at seams as soon as it became legal. Glen Turret estate Persher, June 2016, a cat in a legal stink pit led to the state south Lanarkshire. A young fox found in a stink pit with a snare around its muzzle. Three other snares were found around the pit, one was not tagged. There are images of badgers caught in snares and so on. Farmers, under the animal byproducts enforcement Scotland regulations 2013, are not permitted to bury livestock on the land, other than in designated remote areas in the highlands and islands. Gamekeepers and land managers, however, are allowed to dispose of entire bodies or parts of wild game, as long as this is quotes in accordance with good hunting practice, close quotes. I do not think that that is a level playing field. Now, while I make no bones about it, I wish a ban on the use of stink pits, on the grounds of animal welfare, because they are callous and indiscriminate, public health and, in fact, because they are just plain and humane. I have no doubt the public, once fully aware of their existence, will, as they do over snareing itself, the raison d'etre for stink pits be disgusted and wish them banned, and I hope that that would help persuade the Government. My motion has that mild request that the Government consider the merits of an outright ban, but I refer the cabinet secretary to my recent parliamentary question, question S5W-09661. To ask the Scottish Government with reference to section 11E of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended, what information it holds on A, the location of snares, and B, which animals were caught, and whether such information is in the public domain? As a former lawyer, I cannot help going into this section to take some of the sub-sections that are pertinent to the use of stink pits. 11E sub-section 1A, the location of every snare set in position by the person who remains in position. That is where records must be kept. B, the location of every other snare set in position by the person within the past two years. Further down sub-section E1, the type of animal, 2, the date that was found, and F, such information as the Scottish ministers may by order specify. Sub-section 2 in there, that is you find the locations A by reference to a map, or B by other means, for example, somebody capable of identifying the location. I do not know how many stink pits there are in Scotland. I do not know how many snares are around them. I do not know if those snares are all legal. I do know that they exist. I think that the very least that we require when tackling this subject, and I do agree with Pest Control, I just do not think that this is the way to go about it if we had reliable statistics. I look forward to other contributions. We now move to the open debate and speeches of around four minutes, please. May I have Peter Chapman to be followed by Ruth Maguire? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I refer members to my register of interest. Presiding Officer, I would like to thank Christine Grahame for the opportunity to discuss the use of middens as part of a policy of controlling foxes on estates used for sport and agriculture. I must say that despite spending my whole life living and working in the countryside, I have never come across a midden as described in this motion, nor was I aware of what it was without doing some research. That is presumably because I am a farmer and not involved in shooting. Now, I have no problem with shooting in the countryside and I realise that it is an important part of the culture and the finances of many Scottish estates, but it is something that I do not participate in. Middens are effectively an area used for attracting foxes and are baited using carcasses that are not fit for human consumption. They are similar, you could say, to deposits of grain used to attract rodents, where they then can be trapped and controlled. The difference is that middens use snares, not kill traps, which means that snares allow non-target species to be released. It must be said that I feel the motion is phrased in slightly emotive language and in doing so somewhat masks the truth. Middens are located in remote areas well away from habitation and indeed well away from where non-target species are located. There is no point in locating middens where the very species they target will be disturbed or where domestic animals can be accidentally encouraged to visit. The very fact that most visitors to the countryside and indeed myself have never seen a midden proved that what is described above is basically correct. To look at the issue of baiting, a proper midden is located in an area where target species can be naturally channeled and, as such, descriptions of piles of carcasses, I am told, are frankly incorrect and not necessary. In the same way that you do not need a ton of wheat to attract a rat, a small pile will do for a midden that would be the same. Christine Grahame, I thank the member for taking intervention. Has the member looked at the images online, ratified of the use of the carcasses in middens, piled upon each other? Secondly, does he stand by the statement that he likens carcasses of animals to grains of wheat? Peter Chapman? I mean, obviously there is a difference there, but I use that similarly in that it is somehow to attract the animal that you want to control to the site. I have not seen many instances online, but I have looked online and I accept that there may be occasions where carcasses are piled on top of each other. I can accept that. I just feel that it is not always the case and it is not necessarily to be the case. Where are we? They will also use animals that have been called and are not suitable for human consumption to go into those pits. For example, if deer carcasses are damaged in culling or in poor condition due to ill health, there should be no examples of farm livestock being used because, as we rightly heard, it is illegal. The fallen stock legislation requires all agricultural fallen stock to be disposed of via an approved knackery and to fail to do so would result in cross-compliance regulations being flouted with the real penalties that this could generate. This is an area where I do have problems with these middens because in the past farmers were allowed to bury fallen stock on their farms. However, as I say, this has been illegal for some time now. I do wonder why open pits with rotting wild animals are still allowed. The whole idea of middens is that they are used to attract predators and then using legal means to control them. I fully understand that some members may not like the use of snares and I respect that. However, they are effective in an effective way and are used by a trained practitioner a legal form of control. Snares are not designed to kill animals but to hold them. That allows non-target species to be released and target species to be humanely controlled. It is, of course, vitally important that, and in the rules around the use of snares, that they are examined at least once every 24 hours. Thus, the suffering of caught animals is kept to a minimum. Some might argue that it would be better not to use middens and rely on the use of shooting. However, we do know that a canny old fox will never be seen during the day and will never stand in a light. Thus, middens are an important tool in the toolbox. They are not used purely on intensively managed grouse movers. I am told that they are used across many sporting and agricultural holdings, although, as I have said, I have never come across them in Aberdeenshire. I do not know whether they are there. I just do not know. Could you wind up, please, Mr Chairman? To sum up, I do not believe that there is any need for the Government to consider the merit of banning middens. If folk feel that there is an issue, then it would be right to promote their proper use as part of the snaring course that is a legal requirement in Scotland. First of all, I thank Christine Grahame for bringing the topic to the chamber and for her long-standing commitment to animal welfare. I only found out about the existence of stink pits very recently and accidentally as I was doing some research and advance of the recent debate on snares. I am grateful that the debate has brought the issue more fully to my attention and to that of other members and, of course, the general public. However, if our constituents were appalled by the indiscriminate and cruel nature of snares, then wait till they get a load of stink pits, which are even more indiscriminate and even more cruel and, quite frankly, disgusting. As we have heard, stink pits are quite simply holes in the ground where piles of putrefine carcasses are dumped and surrounded by snares. The putrid and pungent smell of the stink pit attracts other animals, which are killed by the snares, and then added to rot on the pile with the rest—an unpleasant and chronic cycle of inhumane death and decomposition. Not only are stink pits simply repulsive and barbaric, but they are absolutely indiscriminate. Although I personally do not believe that there can be any justification for the use of snares, the cases often made that precautions can be taken, such as setting snares on animal runs, which reduces if not eliminates the chances of trapping non-target species. Stink pits, by contrast, attract a wide range of mammal species, which hugely increases the already huge risk of non-target species being trapped in snares. Animal welfare charities report that they found all sorts of animals in stink pits—foxes, deer, pink-footed geese, mountain hares, otters, pheasants and even domestic cats. For that reason, whether you are for or against snares, there can be no justification for stink pits. If you are against snaring, then stink pits are a gruesome extension of a generally cruel and indiscriminate practice. For the pro-snaring lobby, the existence of stink pits hugely undermine the arguments that have been put forward about taking precautions to respect animal welfare and protected species. In addition to the direct harm caused to the animals that they trap, stink pits also indirectly harm other animals, in particular sheep. During the summer, stink pits generate maggots and blow flies, which are a significant and expensive health issue to sheep. As well as the clear animal welfare case against stink pits, there is also a strong public health argument, with stink pits close to areas that are accessible to the public or close to water courses posing a serious health risk to humans. It is shocking that there is currently no legislation or regulations covering stink pit usage in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK, but even if there was, I am not sure that legislation or regulation could possibly sanitise or condone the use of stink pits. It is my personal opinion that they should be banned. Trusted animal welfare organisations are unanimous in their calls for such a ban, from the Scottish SSPCA to the League Against Cruel Sports and One Kind. I appreciate that there is big money in countryside sports and its advocates have loud and powerful voices, but when it comes to animal welfare, I will stand with those who protect animals, not those who profit from their suffering. If recent weeks have shown us anything, it is that we cannot rest on our laurels when it comes to animal welfare. If Theresa May had had her way last week, we would now be seeing moves towards the reintroduction of fox hunting in England and Wales. Thankfully, she did not, but that near miss should serve to remind us that we cannot take animal welfare achievements for granted and that we must continue to push for progress in the areas where little has yet been made and also protect against regressive steps. Some animal welfare debates can be nuanced with cases made on either side, but, with the topic of today's debate, there is simply no case for stink pits. There is every argument against them, and all of the major animal welfare charities that support a ban stink. It is time for them to go. I refer members to my register of interests, which shows that I am a member of the League Against Cruel Sports. I also thank Christine Grahame for tabling the motion and bringing that important issue to the chamber. As Christine Grahame's deputy on the cross-party group on animal welfare, I know how passionate and knowledgeable she is when it comes to championing animal welfare, and that passion and knowledge were very evident again today in her opening speech. It is worth repeating just exactly what we mean by a stink pit or midden, because I suspect that many of our constituents will not know about their existence, and they would certainly be utterly appalled if they did know. As we have heard, stink pits are literally piles of dead animals, carcasses and fish heads dumped on the ground or in plastic containers that are then surrounded by snares. Their purpose is very clear. They are raw bait designed to lure foxes and other mammals towards snares laid nearby. League Scotland's research has shown that, in some cases, dozens of snares have been found around a single stink pit. Unlike snares, there are no regulations or legislation covering the use of stink pits in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK, but just like snares, stink pits are indiscriminate, often luring non-target species such as badgers to the traps. Most people would think that the presence of stink pits would be at odds with the disposal of livestock carcasses regulations as controlled by the EU animal by-product regulations. As members will know, under such regulations, farmers in most of Scotland are not permitted to bury livestock on the land, but there is a delegation whereby gamekeepers and land managers are allowed to dispose of entire bodies or parts of wild game, as long as that is done in accordance with good practice. It is clear from the evidence produced by One Kind in League Scotland on the actual use of stink pits across Scotland that we fall far short when it comes to this good practice. Good practice would dictate that stink pits comprise of wild fish, rabbits, deer, garlic and dead foxes. However, the charity of One Kind have found numerous examples of protected species on stink pits, in their words, killed and thrown onto the pile to rot, as well as domestic animals such as cats. The dump carcasses are more often than not uncovered and snares around the stink pits are often set in walls or branches, heightening the risk of an animal attracted to the pit becoming strangled or entangled. They are also sometimes found close to accessible public areas, heightening the health risk to pets, people and livestock, given the prevalence of blow flies, which so often become a feature of stink pits in the summer months. Let me give you just more details of one of the examples touched on by Christine Grahame of the reality of a stink pit in my own South Scotland region. Late last year, in the lead houses estate, One Kind responded to a complaint from a member of the public about a fox being caught in a snare. Unfortunately, the responding unit was unable to find the fox and, in returning to the site the next day, found it with horrific injuries piled on top of a stink pit. The member of staff who found the fox said, It looks like the snare killed the fox by causing that massive wound. There were gobbets of flesh on the grass and blood and fur. The fox's eye was bulging out so much, which must have been due to being strangled by the snare. Stink pits are indiscriminate, they are crowed, they are stomach churned, they are unhygienic and they are antiquated. They have no place in a modern Scotland. However, stink pits are merely the symptom of a wider disease and that disease is snareing. Pervesly, the tightening up of the rules around snareing by the Scottish Government actually could act as an encouragement to the use of stink pits. The logistics of having to check snares daily could limit the number of snares and stink pits could increasingly be used to draw animals to a few more easily checked sites, in particular on large estates. Certainly, when you read the guidance on middens from the game and wildlife conservation trust, they point out that difficulties of snareing means and I quote, the midden technique is now widely used by grousekeepers. So, whilst I would welcome a ban on stink pits, what we really need is a ban on snareing itself. There's no point treating the symptoms when you could get rid of the disease itself. It was a view that I set out in my recent members' debate in this chamber, a view shared by three quarters of the Scottish public. Presiding Officer, I say this with a great deal of regret. The failure of the Government to consult on a ban on snareing, failing to ban electronic shock devices this week's decision to favour the reintroduction of tail docking and concerns that the Government simply won't go far enough when it comes to banning, hunting or seriously undermining the credibility of the Government when it comes to animal welfare. So, I say genuinely, I hope that today we'll signal a commitment that this isn't the case, that the Government will work across this Parliament with those of us who want to see a truly progressive approach to animal welfare, that today we'll hear that the Government will consider a ban on stink pits and will at least consider a more thorough look at the animal welfare implications of snareing, which the recent Scottish Natural Heritage Review utterly failed to do. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, am grateful to Christine Grahame for securing this debate on stink pits and for her work as convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare. Recently, we've seen disparating performances from the Scottish Government on issues of animal welfare, but I remain optimistic that today we'll see a more enlightened approach and that stink pits will very soon be outlawed in Scotland. I, too, am particularly grateful to the League Against Cruel Sports, to the SSPCA and to one kind for providing MSPs with their detailed briefings for this debate, especially at a time when the Scottish Government is keeping them busier than ever. As Colin Smyth has just highlighted, they are proposing the reintroduction of tail docking on working dogs against advice from vets. Every single professional veterinary body is opposed to this. Standing by, while foxes continue to be offered less protection in Scotland from hunts than those south of the border and refusing to ban the use of snares despite the inability of these barbaric devices to discriminate between species, with family pets as vulnerable to a slow agonising death as targeted species. As has been highlighted during the debate, stink pits are filled with bait, such as rotting wildlife carcasses, fish heads and other animal remains, in order that the smell of decomposing animals can lure foxes towards the bait and snares set to catch them as they approach. As we've heard, both wild and domestic animals are regularly found among the piles left to rot, as well as protected animals, including mountain hares, badgers and pink-fruited geese. Animals found in pits also include sheep, deer and cats, with a high probability that family pets have been killed. While farmers in Scotland, as we've heard, are not allowed to bury livestock on their land other than designated remote areas in the highlands and islands, gamekeepers are free to kill and dump piles of entire animal bodies or parts of wild game as bait, to kill even more animals as long as that is, and I quote, in accordance with good hunting practice. I agree with one kind that this seems a far cry from good practice of any sort. Among the evidence provided by one kind, an example that further demonstrates how feeble current legislation is to protect animals from those operating shooting estates was that of a dozen pink-fruited geese found in a stink pit in Berwickshire in October 2015. As the birds are protected between February and September, one kind conclude that they were shot and dumped in the stink pit as soon as the season opened. I think that that is gravely concerning. I, along with one kind, the League Against Cruel Sports, the SSPCA and supportive colleagues in this chamber, am determined that we continue to fight for improvements in legislation to protect Scotland's animals. I see no reason for delay in banning stink pits, and I agree wholeheartedly with Colin Smyth and others that we need to revisit the Government's refusal to ban snares altogether. Those who would defend stink pits do so on the basis that a profit is to be made from allowing people to kill animals. In my view, that is simply indefensible. I do not think that I am alone in saying that I prefer to see priority given to those who visit Scotland's countryside for many reasons, to enjoy our fabulous scenery, our natural wildlife. Visitors do not want to be confronted with piles of decaying carcasses surrounded by snares, and people are coming across those. People who do not go into the countryside to indulge a bloodlust that, in my view, has no place in modern society. As Ruth Maguire pointed out, many people were incredulous and horrified when Theresa May called for her repeal of the hunting ban. A civilised nation does not indulge in such pastimes. I fully support one kind's call for the use of stink pits to be reviewed as a matter of urgency. On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I urge the cabinet secretary to take the necessary steps to bring an outright ban on the truly barbaric use of stink pits in Scotland on ethical, animal welfare and public health grounds. I have to respond to the debate around seven minutes. I congratulate Christine Grahame for obtaining the member's debate. She has long taken similar stances on issues relating to animal welfare and her persistence and consistency required to be acknowledged and admired. As I said during the previous debate on snaring four weeks ago, the use of stink pits, or middens, is, of course, an emotive issue. I understand the use of emotive language in that connection. I appreciate that the idea of rotting carcasses in a stink pit will be repugnant to many, if not most, people. However, it is the job of legislators to give careful consideration to how and why they are being used before immediately coming to the conclusion that they should be banned. People are asking why they are needed, but they do, I suppose, even in their comments, accept and understand that stink pits are being used as a way of maximising the effectiveness of snaring as a means of fox control. They are used to draw foxes into fewer more easily checked sites. Thus, they have the benefit of concentrating snaring effort and reducing the number of snares set in the wider countryside. They are legal, as long as they do not use livestock, which are prohibited under the animal byproducts enforcement Scotland regulations 2013. As mentioned by Christine Grahame, the game and wildlife conservation trust has a best practice fact sheet specifically on the use of stink pits in Scotland. That fact sheet is provided as a handout during the compulsory snaring training courses that people must pass before they are allowed to set snares, and it clearly sets out what carcasses can be used for baiting the stink pit. I understand that some land managers are trialling the use of alternative methods for stink pits. We will be interested to hear how those trials develop and whether their use can be incorporated in best practice. There is no evidence or intelligence that suggests that the use of stink pits encourages increased unlawful activity, such as the killing of protected species and domestic animals. If people believe that they have such evidence or intelligence, it should be reported. All snaring operators must now use their personal identification number on each set snare that makes snaring operators more accountable to the law. It is true that stink pits will attract the interest of non-target species, such as badger, wildcat and pine martin. However, there is no reason that a stink pit should catch a higher percentage of non-target species than a snare set in the open countryside. It is still the responsibility of the snare operator to ensure that snares are not set in close proximity to badger sets or otter halts where it is highly likely that they would in fact catch those non-target species. It is also the case that it is the responsibility of the snare operator to release unharmed any non-target species wherever it is caught. With regard to animal welfare or public health issues surrounding the use of stink pits, again I hear the comments that are being made, but we have no hard evidence substantiating those claims. If people believe that they can provide such evidence, I would strongly encourage them to do so. A review of snaring was recently undertaken by SNH on behalf of the Scottish Government. As I indicated in my response to the member's debate on snaring in May, I will ask the Scottish technical assessment group to look at the use of stink pits as part of their overall consideration of the snaring recommendations highlighted in that report. The issues raised by members today will be brought to the attention of that group. If a review of their use… Christine Grahame I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary. I went through some detail about my parliamentary question. I would like to ask, is the cabinet secretary aware of how many stink pits there are in Scotland? That would be a start and their location. Roseanna Cunningham I am going to mention that. At present, I have no information about the number, but that will possibly be because the numbers will change. They will not necessarily always be in the same place over the same period of time. I will come back to that in a minute, because I was talking about the fact that we are asking the Scottish technical assessment group to look at the use of stink pits. If the review of their use did highlight any significant issues, then, of course, we will look at their use, including the possibility of introducing further regulation. I also recently announced a package of measures in response to the report on the fate of the satellite tagged golden eagles, which included a commitment to set up an independently led group to consider grousmure management. I have yet to confirm details, but I would expect that the use of stink pits as part of predator control management would be within the scope of that group. Again, if the group comes up with proposals to regulate the use of stink pits, I will give them very serious consideration. That means that we will now have two separate groups looking at their use from slightly different perspectives, and I will inquire whether there is a possibility of establishing the extent of their use to answer the questions that my colleague has raised. I hope that members will accept that that is the proper way for Government to proceed. Snaring is a divisive issue, but I am determined that it and its associated activities, such as the use of stink pits, should be carried out to the very highest of standards. There are currently only 1,571 snaring operators that have passed the snaring training course and have been issued with a snaring identification number by Police Scotland. I regard that as an indicator of success. There have been prosecutions of the misuse of snares. I again regard that as an indicator of success. Our position has always been that this is an operation that, if it is to be done, requires a professional approach. It should not be undertaken unless it is really necessary and the operator is confident that they can meet the highest standard required. This meeting is suspended until 2.30 pm.