The Hunting Ban: A Great British Failure

By Shona Spray

Hunting for sport, rather than survival, dates back to a time when public executions were viewed as a fun day out. In medieval times, the rich and the royal would hunt for sadistic pleasure rather than necessity(1). It is a tradition that a small minority proudly exclaim to be a part of our heritage as British citizens (1). But is this pastime a tradition we should really be proud of, or a barbaric practice we should be proudly leaving in the past?

Currently, in England and Wales, the primary law banning the hunting of wild mammals with dogs is the Hunting Act 2004 (6). However, exceptions to the hunting law and legal loopholes still allow these activities to continue. For those conducting these activities illegally, it is extremely hard to catch and prosecute them (4).

Over the years, the general public in the UK has become increasingly disgusted with the idea of recreational hunting for the thrill of the chase (1). Pip Donovan, Co-Founder of Action Against Fox Hunting, fears that hunters don’t view foxes as living creatures, but as playthings.

“It’s a way of life for them. They are obsessed by it and can’t give it up. It makes them feel important. During the war, for instance, they were seen as heroes, protecting people’s chickens. They don’t appear to have noticed that things have changed.” Pip explained.

Hunting Act 2004

The Hunting Act 2004 is extremely long and poorly written, which has made it incredibly easy for hunters to manipulate. While the hunting ban prohibits hunting mammals with dogs, various exemptions to the law allow hunting if the mammal is causing significant damage to livestock, their food, property, crops, fisheries or growing timber (6).

It is also legal to hunt with dogs if the hunted mammal is to be used as a food source or if the hunters are participating in a field trial (6). These exemptions are conditional on the basis that no more than two dogs are used, only one dog can be below ground flushing out an animal at any time, steps are taken to ensure the dogs are not harmed, and the hunted animal must be shot immediately after being flushed out to ensure minimal suffering (6). Hunters must also have permission from landowners to allow hunting to take place on their land (6).

Those who support hunting argue that controlling the fox population, often seen as vermin, justifies their activities. Despite the unnecessary suffering of the animals who are exposed to extreme stress, pain and fatigue during the hunt (3,4). These excuses are poor, as foxes have never been classed as vermin by the government, and fox hunting is contributing to their rapidly declining population in the UK (3).

Hunting with dogs is contradictory to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which formally recognises animals as sentient beings which can feel pain. It should enforce the idea that animal control methods should cause the least amount of harm to the least number of animals as possible (3,7). Hunting with dogs affects not only the welfare of the hunted animal, non-target animals which are accidentally hunted and even the dogs themselves, who are often injured during the chase or fights with the hunted wildlife (3).

How Have Illegal Hunters Avoided Justice?

It has been estimated that around half of those who were accused of committing an offence under the Hunting Act 2004 claimed to be trail hunting, and a quarter maintained they were practising ‘exempt hunting’ (5). Many anti-hunting organisations, such as The New Hunting Ban, believe that trail hunting was invented simply as an excuse to continue hunting illegally (5). Rhys Giles, Director of the New Hunting Ban, suggests that hunters use several tactics to avoid prosecution.

“Hunts use several tactics to avoid prosecution. The best-known is the smokescreen of trail hunting. This now seems to be used mainly for PR, despite leaked 2020 webinars showing senior hunters urging hunts to maintain the charade. In the field, they rely on speed and remoteness to kill animals out of public sight.” Rhys Giles continues, “On top of that, the Hunting Act 2004 is unnecessarily complex and poorly written, making convictions difficult even when evidence seems strong.”

Philip Walters, Head of North London Hunt Saboteurs, believes that landowners are equally aware of the illegal activities taking place on their land as the hunters themselves.

“The connections between landowners and the local fox hunt are usually very historic. It is not unusual for various landowners to ride with the hunt across their own land.” Philip claims, “Section 3 of the Hunting Act does create the offence of allowing land to be used for illegal hunting; however, the police/CPS would have to prove the landowner, or person controlling the land, knew the illegal hunting was taking place. This is extremely difficult given the current wording of the law.”

Kate Fox, the Founder of Verify Humanity, highlights another hidden link between landowners and the hunt that is perpetuating hunting.

“If a farm animal dies, it has to be disposed of through a legitimate government route. One option is for farmers to call their local registered Hunt kennels to collect the body and feed it to the hounds (8). The Hunt will charge less if the farmer supports the Hunt. This could be through a subscription, or by letting them use their land to hunt on.” Kate points out. “If this relationship between the farmer and the Hunt could be broken, it would throw a significant spanner in the Hunt’s operations, as they have to have permission from the landowner to hunt.”

Wildlife crimes rarely carry serious penalties(4). Those who do end up being charged usually end up with minor or moderate fines, which do not provide a sufficient deterrent for the offender (4). This apparent lack of effort to effectively enforce the law tends to undermine the seriousness of these offences and creates an air of tolerance which needs to change if illegal hunting is to be stopped (4). Rhys Giles hopes that, to prevent future illegal hunting, a new, reinforced hunting ban can be passed which closes the legal loopholes in the current hunting act.

“My hope is to pass legislation that makes hunting so impractical that enforcement is rarely needed—the hunts simply give up and move on to another hobby.” He said.

Philip Walters suggests that more severe penalties might dissuade hunts from continuing their illegal activities.

“The sentencing guidelines for the Hunting Act need to be brought into line with those of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. This would mean a maximum five years’ imprisonment for illegal hunting” Philip proposed.

Drag Hunts and Clean Boot Hunts

Since the hunting ban has come into effect, some hunters have turned to more humane, legal hunting activities (5). Rhys Giles claims that these alternative sports are much more wildlife friendly.

“Drag hunts typically train hounds on aniseed scent trails, without kill training. Clean boot hunts use bloodhounds to follow human runners, making them even less likely to harm wildlife.”

“Of course, almost any dog is capable of killing an animal ‘by accident’, but there’s a reason hunt monitors and saboteurs don’t target drag hunts—they aren’t trying to kill animals”, said Rhys.

Drag hunting is a sport dating back to the 1800s and uses a non-animal scent which is laid out for the dogs to pursue along a pre-planned route (5). The latter issue is very important, as if the hounds pick up a live fox scent, the Huntsman knows they are going off track.

Clean boot hunting is another form of wildlife-friendly hunting where the scent of a human runner is used for the dogs to follow. However, despite these legal hunting alternatives which protect wildlife, most hunters have resorted to trail hunting (5).

Kate Fox is concerned that when trail hunting is banned, the lawless elements will infiltrate activities such as Drag Hunting. She feels the creation of an Animal Offenders Register, linked to a standard DBS check for hunting jobs, would act as a significant deterrent. She states that “not being able to hunt is the only meaningful solution to an entitled sector that feels it is their birthright to illegally ravage the countryside of its remaining wildlife.”

Trail Hunting – A Smokescreen?

“‘Trail hunters’—or, more accurately, fox hunters—often already take part in drag or clean boot hunting.” Rhys Giles claims, “This cross-pollination of staff and followers means legislators should be cautious about trail hunts rebranding as drag hunts.”

Trail hunting uses animal scents, such as urine (often fox urine), for the dogs to follow. The hunts are regularly conducted in a place where foxes are known to live, meaning the “accidental” killing of foxes is common in trail hunting(5).

Philip Walters echoes these concerns, “While many packs do appear to be disciplined, there are also numerous instances of hounds “rioting” on wildlife, such as deer. I would suggest, from nine years of attending hunt meets, that it is never possible for a huntsman to have 100% control of twenty plus dogs all the time.”

What can you do to help?

Verify Humanity is currently collaborating with The New Hunting Ban in their campaign to enforce a New Hunting Ban which will close the legal loopholes still allowing illegal hunting practices to continue.

Meetings have recently taken place in the House of Commons, hosted by The New Hunting Ban, to discuss future legislative changes, and Verify Humanity will be serving on an advisory board, the Change Network, to fight for these changes.

Rhys Giles from The New Hunting Ban, expressed the need for the public to help put an end to illegal hunting practices by contacting their local MPs.

“Whatever party they belong to. Tell them that this issue means a lot to them, and you won’t shut up until they hurry up and do something!”

Please join Verify Humanity in our fight against entertainment killing, and for change!

Sources

[1]  The Fox-Hunting Debate In The United Kingdom: A Puritan Legacy? Article Link  Copyright Link

[2]  Paying attention: the neurocognition of archery, Middle Stone Age bow hunting, and the shaping of the sapient mind Article Link Copyright Link

[3]  From Canada to Scotland: The Incorporation of Ethical Wildlife Control Principles: A Review Article Link Copyright License

[4]  Policing Wildlife: Perspectives on Criminality and Criminal Justice Policy in Wildlife Crime in the UK. Article Link Thesis in Open Access Repository

[5]  Intentionally Encouraging or Assisting Others to Commit an Offence: The Anatomy of a Language Crime Article Link Copyright License

[6]  Hunting Act 2004. Gov.uk. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents

[7]  Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Gov.uk. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/22 

[8] Defra (5.8.22) Fallen stock and safe disposal of dead animals. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fallen-stock