Have Your Say on Trail Hunting

Q1 – Would you like your response to this consultation to be confidential in the event of an access to information request (see confidentiality and data protection above)?

We suggest No: This means your response can be shared publicly but your name and contact details will not be made public.

If you choose Yes, you will be asked to explain what information you want kept confidential and why.

Q5 – If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, what is the name of that organisation?

Note that there has to be something added in the field even if you are submitting as an individual. If that is the case, we suggest entering ‘Not applicable’ or similar.

You can submit a personal response and respond on behalf of an organisation.

“For the purposes of the legislation, we propose to use the following definition of “trail hunting”:

“Trail hunting” is the activity in which a dog is directed to find and follow an animal-based scent which has been laid for that purpose. “Animal-based scent” means: a scent which is derived from a wild mammal, or a scent which mimics, replicates or resembles the scent of a wild mammal (or which is designed to do so), whether or not that scent is derived wholly or in part from artificial ingredients.”

We suggest No: the definition offered here appears to be taken from the websites of pro-hunting organisations and suggests that trail hunting is a legitimate activity.

In the very rare cases where hunts bother to lay a trail, our research shows that hunts use a variety of scents, mostly animal-based (fox) but at times they claim to use items such as aniseed and even human urine.

As for a definition, we would suggest pointing out the above. We do not suggest you try as an individual to write a definition of trail hunting.

Our proposed ban on trail hunting would mean that it would be an offence to engage or participate in trail hunting. We also intend to include offences for conduct which would assist unlawful trail hunting to take place.

Trail Hunting was created solely to be used as a smokescreen to conceal the continued practice of traditional hunting after the passing of the 2004 Hunting Act. Most hunts do not bother with pretending to lay a trail but will claim they did when they end up in court.

We suggest you mention the following points to identify their conduct:

• Laying a scent line (whether animal-based, artificial, or purely cosmetic with no scent).
• The carrying or display of bottles of scent and other trail laying equipment.
• Encouraging dogs to enter woodland, scrub, or crop field where quarry species will reside.
• Entering dogs to fields holding livestock.
• Use of horn and voice calls to encourage or direct hounds when they go into cry on any quarry species.

Answer: Yes.

You can of course leave it at that but we would suggest that it is common sense and the norm in other areas of law that assisting a criminal act makes the person involved part of that criminal activity.

Answer: Yes (any clarifications should be similar to Q9).

You can include hunt members in control of hounds and any incidents of hunt chaos on public roads, including who appeared to be in control at the time.

Answer: Yes.

All of the existing exemptions in the current Hunting Act assist illegal hunting.

We suggest mentioning the participation of terrier men at hunts with terriers, spades, quad bikes and other equipment used to assist illegal hunting.

You can also mention the exemptions relating to stag hunting and the argument that stag hunting only persists because of these loopholes.

The obstruction and physical assaults on people filming in a public space is another indication.

You may also want to see our Witness The End of Hunting Booklet for further details.

Answer: Yes.

To achieve a full ban on illegal hunting, we need more than the removal of smokescreen trail hunting.

We would suggest the following:

• Recklessness clause – to ensure that injury to any animal is a breach of the Act
• Reversal of the burden of proof
• Removal of all Hunting Exemptions outlined in the current Hunting Act 2004
• ‘Hunting’ definition to include the Act of ‘Searching for a Scent or Animal’
• Criminal penalties to be aligned to Animal Welfare Act 2006.

You may also want to see our Witness The End Of Hunting booklet for further details.

“We are aware that animal based scents, or scents which mimic animal based scents, are sometimes used to train dogs for specific purposes, other than trail hunting, such as pest control. We are keen to understand whether there might be a need for exemptions to cover such cases.”

We suggest you answer No to help prevent unnecessary exemptions which would be exploited by hunters.

Answer: No.

Specialist Dogs are obviously used to find dead bodies, explosives etc but these are for specific reasons and are for individual animals used for law enforcement and the issue is not relevant for any ‘sport’ activity.

“We understand that drag hunting is an equestrian sport where an artificial non-animal based scent trail, which does not mimic an animal based scent, is laid along a pre- determined route for hounds to follow.”

Answer: No

We would suggest that such a definition needs to include that a scent is not laid in any area such as roads, woodlands, crop fields or any other area where wildlife would normally reside.

We suggest: Yes.

This is a given, our experience shows that hounds will naturally do this, preferring the excitement of a live animal to chase over any artificial scent.

“We understand ‘clean boot’ hunting is an activity where hounds hunt human runners who neither wear nor drag any form of artificial scent enhancement.”

Answer No. We suggest it is important that the definition includes the use of Bloodhounds.

Answer: Yes.

It is fair to point out that as Clean Boot hunts use smaller number of Bloodhounds, trained from puppyhood to follow the unadulterated scent of a human runner (not a laid scent of any kind), the risk to wildlife is minimal and the sport does not have the culture behind it of killing animals, so the participants actively tend to prevent such occurrences.

Answer: Yes.

By its very nature the practice of Trail hunting crosses over into the practice of drag hunting although there are differences. If provisions are not made, hunts will just shift their claims from being a trail hunt to being a drag hunt. Our research shows that some hunts have already started doing this by joining, or attempting to join, drag hunt governing bodies.

Answer: Yes.

However point-to point racing is used by most hunts as a fund raising and membership raising activity, nothing else. We do not know of any other equestrian activities which would be affected directly by the end of hunting to hounds.

Answer: Yes.

Hounds are still being bred even while hunting is under threat. Hounds are killed around the age of 5-7 when they start to slow, also puppies are killed if they do not meet the hunting standard; be that in appearance, barking too much or stamina. It is worth pointing this out in your own words.

Answer: No.

Hunts have had over 20 years (a generation) to change their ways and have decided as a community to ignore the law. We see no reason to allow further time for their criminal activity.

Answer: No.

The rural communities are as supportive of the ban as any other area of the country. The only real effect of a ban on hunting with hounds would be to free rural communities of the burden of hunts blocking roads and trespassing on property and intimidating non-hunting members of rural communities.

If you have negative experiences of hunting in your community, you may wish to include short examples here.

This should not be a consideration. We do not consider the economic impact of other criminals being stopped in their activities.

The impact will be minimal, hunts do not generate much work for local businesses.

The impact will be minimal to none in most rural businesses. 99% of those who own horses do not hunt. There will be a negligible impact.

The effect on wildlife would be positive. Apart from animals not being killed, the reduction of habitat disturbance would be of benefit for all wildlife and their habitats.

Any ban must address the issues within the Hunting Act 2004, which have allowed hunts and their organising bodies to circumvent the legislation, including exemptions and the definition of hunting that permits the seeking and flushing of wildlife.

This is the place to put personal information of how hunting has detrimentally affected you:

• Perhaps you are a rambler, whose peaceful walk has been ruined by the horrifying sight of hounds chasing or killing a fox.
• Perhaps you are a rural resident whose garden has been invaded by hounds.
• Perhaps you live in fear of your pet or other animals being killed by the hunt.
• Perhaps you are a motorist whose journey is delayed by hunters and hounds on the road.
• Perhaps you are one of the majority of rural residents who is anti-hunt and suffers from intimidation by the local hunt.

Please add your own stories of how hunting has affected your life here.