© 2025 Hunt Saboteurs Association
Weaknesses In Current Hunting Act
The Smokescreen of ‘Trail Hunting’
Around the time of the Hunting Act coming into force in 2005, the fox and hare hunting community invented ‘trail hunting’ as a solution to what they saw at the time as a ‘temporary’ ban.
While hunts claim to be following a ‘trail’ – a scent based on their traditional quarry animal (such as a fox) – they are covering themselves legally but can continue hunting as they did before. They do this using the same hounds, and hunt through the natural habitat of prey species (such as foxes or hares). When animals are hunted and killed they can claim hounds deviated from the ‘trail’ and that the pursuit or kill was therefore accidental.
The lie of trail hunting was finally exposed in 2020 when the Hunt Saboteurs Association published leaked webinars from the Hunting Office – hunting’s governing body – showing that ‘trail hunting’ is, in their own words, “a smokescreen.” The webinars further confirmed that when trails are visibly and overtly laid in front of observers – such as police or sabs – it is merely a tactic designed to conceal illegal hunting.
The next Government should follow the lead of Scotland and update the law to ban the sham that is ‘trail hunting’ to ensure that hunts can no longer use this smokescreen to cover their illegality.
Too many loopholes
Terrier Work
Terrier work is a practice undertaken on hunts by terrier men – the people often on quad bikes with terriers in boxes and spades – and is particularly cruel. It involves putting a terrier into an underground earth to either bait or kill the fox, or to ‘bolt’. Terrier men on hunts also ‘dig out’ foxes for the same reason, often damaging protected badger setts (where foxes sometimes take refuge) in the process.
An exemption under Schedule 1 of the Hunting Act allows the “use of dogs below ground to protect birds for shooting,” which is what hunt terrier men claim they are doing.
Even Hunting’s own governing bodies understand that terrier work is inexcusable – in the leaked Hunting Office webinars it was described as “hunting’s soft underbelly” – and the BHSA have recently admitted that it has no place in ‘legal hunting’ and have tried to impose a self-enforced ban.
The next Government must act quickly to end cruel and unnecessary terrier work and can do easily by removing the ‘Code of Practise’ written into the Act.
Exempt hunting
There are also a number of forms of ‘exempt hunting’ listed under the Act:
- Hunts are able to use hounds to flush a fox to be killed by a ‘bird of prey,’ or to use no more than two hounds to flush a fox to be killed by a gun. Hunts have rarely used this, but will often have these present to help muddy the waters.
- Hunts are able to use hounds to flush animals for ‘observation and research’ purposes, a cover that Stag Hunts frequently abuse.
- Hunts are able to chase and kill rabbits and rats with hounds, a claim often used by Beagle, Basset and Minkhound packs.
- Hunts being able to retrieve ‘shot hares’ with hounds, a claim sometimes used by Beagle, Basset and Harrier packs.
These loopholes need to be closed so the spirit of the law is upheld, and hunts are not able to muddy the waters to cover their intentions to break the law.
Not enforced
The Hunting Act is rarely enforced effectively, due to the lack of willingness, understanding and resources from police forces to do so. Hunts know this, and so get away with routinely breaking the law.
Proper resources should be made available to deal with the organised crime gangs that are hunts, with proper guidance and training for officers. Policing should be preventative and proactive, involving random spot checks and covert monitoring, rather than relying on the goodwill of hunts and evidence brought forward by the public.
No deterrent
The weak sentencing options available under the Hunting Act means there is little deterrent to stop offenders, with many repeatedly offending.
Currently, fines given are often based on the weekly income of the individual offender. As many hunt staff roles include tied properties and limited income, these are often small and ineffective. This also allows the culpable institution (the Hunt as a whole) or Hunt Masters, to pass the buck onto an employee or subordinate and continue unaffected.
Sentencing should be brought in line with Animal Welfare Act offences, with larger fines, prison sentences and animal ownership banning orders available to deter repeat offending.
Our Rogues’ Gallery provides a revealing snapshot of offenses committed by hunters and their associates, highlighting the inadequacy of the current sentencing for these crimes.