Hubbry Logo
Hunting Act 2004Hunting Act 2004Main
Open search
Hunting Act 2004
Community hub
Hunting Act 2004
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hunting Act 2004
Hunting Act 2004
Hunting Act 2004
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Hunting Act 2004[1]
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long titleAn Act to make provision about hunting wild mammals with dogs; to prohibit hare coursing; and for connected purposes.
Citation2004 c. 37
Territorial extent England and Wales[2]
Dates
Royal assent18 November 2004
Commencement18 February 2005[3]
Other legislation
AmendsGame Act 1831
Game Licences Act 1860
Protection of Animals Act 1911
Protection of Badgers Act 1992
Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996
Amended bySerious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Status: Amended
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended

The Hunting Act 2004 (c. 37) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which bans the hunting of most wild mammals (notably foxes, deer, hares and mink) with dogs in England and Wales, subject to some strictly limited exemptions; the Act does not cover the use of dogs in the process of flushing out an unidentified wild mammal,[4] nor does it affect drag hunting, where hounds are trained to follow an artificial scent.[5]

The Act came into force on 18 February 2005. The pursuit of foxes with hounds, other than to flush out to be shot, had been banned in Scotland two years earlier by the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. Such hunting remains permitted by the law in Northern Ireland, where the Act does not apply.

History

[edit]

Background

[edit]
See also: Legislation on hunting with dogs

Several UK laws on animal welfare, such as the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 contained specific exemptions for hunting activities, thereby preventing prosecutions of other hunts activities that might otherwise have been considered cruel.[6][7][8][9]

Many earlier attempts had been made to ban hunting. Two private member's bills to ban, or restrict, hunting were introduced in 1949, but one was withdrawn and the other defeated on its second reading in the House of Commons.[10] The Labour government appointed a Select Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, chaired by John Scott-Henderson KC, to investigate all forms of hunting, and it published a report in 1951.[11] Opponents of hunting claimed that the membership of the committee had been chosen to produce a pro-hunting report.[10] The inquiry reported its view that "Fox hunting makes a very important contribution to the control of foxes and involves less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them. It should therefore be allowed to continue."[12] The select committee was unanimous in recommending no action on hunting, but it made proposals on the use of spring traps.[13]

Twice, in 1969 and in 1975, the House of Commons voted in favour of bills to ban hare coursing, but neither bill became law. Three further private member's bills were introduced by Kevin McNamara in 1992 (Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill), by Tony Banks in 1993 (Fox Hunting (Abolition) Bill), and by John McFall in 1995 (Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill)—all of which failed to go on to become law.[14]

The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 made it unlawful to chase or deliberately kill mammals with dogs in 2002. There are a number of differences between the two Acts: The Scottish Act does not place a two dog limit on the flushing of a mammal to guns in order to shoot it; with respect to flushing foxes above ground to guns to shoot them, only the Scottish Act permits this to be done to protect game birds; with respect to flushing foxes below ground to guns to shoot them, only the Scottish Act permits this to be done to protect livestock. The Scottish Act allows someone convicted to be sentenced for up to six months in prison, there is no such power in the Hunting Act 2004.[15]

At the time of this bill fox hunting with hounds was "not practised or is largely banned" in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Spain and Sweden,[16] but was allowed in Australia, Canada, France, India, Ireland, Italy, Russia and the USA.[17]

Drafting

[edit]

The Labour Party came to power in 1997 with a manifesto saying, "We will ensure greater protection for wildlife. We have advocated new measures to promote animal welfare, including a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with hounds should be banned."[18] A new private member's bill, introduced by Michael Foster MP, received a second reading with 411 MPs voting in support, but failed due to lack of parliamentary time.[19] The Burns Report in 2000 concluded that forms of fox hunting "seriously compromise the welfare of the fox",[16] but (in line with its remit) did not draw any conclusion on whether hunting should be banned or should continue. In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."[20] Following the Burns inquiry, the Government introduced an 'options bill' which allowed each House of Parliament to choose between a ban, licensed hunting, and self-regulation. The House of Commons voted for a banning bill and the House of Lords for self-regulation. The 2001 general election was then called and the bill ran out of parliamentary time.[21]

In what he described as an attempt to raise animal welfare standards at the same time, and as an alternative to legislation that specifically targeted hunting, Lord Donoughue proposed the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill.[22] This would have made it the case that "any person who intentionally inflicts, or causes or procures, unnecessary suffering on or to any wild mammal shall be guilty of an offence." A matching Bill was introduced in the Commons with the support of The Middle Way Group (see below). Both bills failed to become law as they were blocked by Labour members who wanted a specific hunting ban. Animal welfare groups such as the League Against Cruel Sports criticised the Bill on two grounds. Firstly, they opposed the exemption in the Bill for activities undertaken "in accordance with an approved code of conduct". Secondly, they argued that, if an activity was inherently cruel, it should be deemed as such by Parliament, rather than prosecutors having to argue and prove cruelty in every court case.

Following a series of evidence hearings in 2002,[23] on 3 December 2002, DEFRA Minister of State for Rural Affairs Alun Michael introduced a bill which would have allowed some licensed hunting.[24] In July 2003, by a majority of 208 in a free vote, the Commons passed an amendment proposed by Tony Banks to ban hunting entirely, but in October 2003 this was rejected by the House of Lords by a majority of 212.[25]

Voting, conflict with the Lords and royal assent

[edit]

A bill identical to the one passed by the House of Commons in 2003 was reintroduced to the Commons on 9 September 2004.

On 15 September 2004, the day of the final vote (third reading) on the bill, two protesters staged the first invasion of the House of Commons chamber since King Charles I in 1641. The protesters were quickly removed by Parliamentary officials, but the incident led to a review of parliamentary security, given that it was the second breach of the security of the chamber in four months (Fathers 4 Justice activists had thrown purple flour in the Commons four months earlier). Simultaneously, a demonstration of between 8,000 and 10,000 people, including protesters from the Countryside Alliance filled Parliament Square outside.[26] Later, John Holliday wrote for the Guardian an essay on his actions.[27]

On 17 November, on one of the days of the Parliamentary session, the Lords again insisted on its amendments to the main Bill. In the Commons, the Government's last-ditch attempt to compromise on a delay until 31 July 2007 won the support of only 46 MPs, although the delay until 2006 was inserted in the Bill. The Lords, who would have had to have accepted the Commons' other amendments (including the principle of a ban on hunting) and dues, rejected the proposal by 153 to 114.

With the Lords and Commons unable to come to agreement by the end of the Parliamentary year the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, invoked the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, an infrequently used legislative device that allows the Commons to overrule the Lords where agreement can not be reached.[28] The Hunting Act was only the seventh statute since 1911 enacted using these provisions.[29] The House of Lords was criticised for undemocratically blocking the legislation;[30] however, other newspapers and broadcasters condemned Tony Blair's Labour administration for giving in to what they perceived as the prejudicial views of anti-hunting Labour backbenchers.[31]

The act came into force on 18 February 2005, three calendar months after it received royal assent.[32][33]

Exempt hunting

[edit]

The Act exempts some limited forms of hunting believed to be necessary.[34] Hunting with dogs is exempt from the Act if it falls within a class listed in Schedule 1, which may be amended by an Order made by the Secretary of State for the Environment.[35]

Schedule 1 of the Act specifies nine forms of hunting with dogs which are exempt, subject to conditions in each case:[36]

  1. Stalking and flushing out
  2. Use of dogs below ground to protect birds for shooting
  3. Rats
  4. Rabbits
  5. Retrieval of hares
  6. Falconry
  7. Recapture of wild mammal
  8. Rescue of wild mammal
  9. Research and observation

The Countryside Alliance has noted that "The Act makes it an offence to hunt a mouse with a dog but not a rat, you can legally hunt a rabbit but not a hare. You can flush a fox to guns with two dogs legally but if you use three it's an offence. You can flush a fox to a bird of prey with as many dogs as you like."[37]

Stalking and flushing out

[edit]

Traditionally, in some upland areas, foxes were flushed by packs of dogs to be shot.[38]

Stalking and flushing out are exempt under the Act, subject to five conditions:[36]

Firstly, the stalking or flushing out is for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage which the wild mammal would otherwise cause to livestock, to game birds or wild birds, to food for livestock, to crops, to growing timber, to fisheries, to other property, or to biological diversity; or for obtaining meat for human or animal consumption; or for participation in a field trial competition in which dogs flush animals out of cover and/or retrieve animals that have been shot.[36]

Secondly, the stalking or flushing out must take place on land which belongs to the person doing the stalking or flushing out or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose.[36]

Thirdly, only one or two dogs may be used.[36]

Fourthly, the use of a dog below ground is limited as in the next section.[36]

Fifthly, reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out, the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person, and that each dog used is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not obstruct the prevention or reduction of serious damage.[36]

Flushing to guns is still permitted in Scotland under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002.[15] However MPs, in making law for England and Wales, decided that this activity did result in unnecessary suffering, not least because it is more difficult to control a large number of hounds in dense woodland where this activity used to take place.[39]

This exemption was claimed by one stag hound pack in the Exmoor area. In an appeal judgment following the conviction of two stag hunt officials, the judge said that such hunting conducted primarily for recreation was unlawful.[40]

Use of dogs below ground to protect birds for shooting

[edit]

Hunting below ground often took place with terriers, and the Act outlaws hunting with terriers, apart from a narrowly drawn exemption, described by the Minister, Alun Michael MP, as existing "for gamekeepers".[41]

The use of one such dog is exempt, but only in the course of stalking or flushing out, and in accordance with four conditions.[36]

The activity must be carried out "for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to gamebirds or wild birds which a person is keeping or preserving for the purpose of their being shot."[36]

The stalker or person doing the flushing out must have written evidence that the land concerned belongs to him, or that he has been given permission to use it for the purpose, and must make the evidence immediately available for inspection by a constable who asks to see it.[36]

Only one dog can be used below ground at any time.[36]

Reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that

  • as soon as possible after being found the wild mammal is flushed out from below ground and is shot dead by a competent person
  • the dog is under close control
  • injury to the dog is prevented; and
  • the use of the dog complies with any code of practice issued or approved by the Secretary of State.[36]

Despite this, many fox hunts continue to use terriers regularly. Three people, not associated with hunts, have pleaded guilty to offences under the Hunting Act 2004 for hunting with terriers and a fourth was found guilty after a trial.[42]

Hunting rats and rabbits

[edit]

In enacting the Hunting Act, parliament accepted the view that the hunting of rats and rabbits is legitimate, as they are pests.[34] Parliament did not believe there was any necessity to use dogs to hunt mice, so provided no such exemption.[43]

The hunting of rats and rabbits is exempt only if it takes place on land which belongs to the hunter, or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose by the occupier or (if unoccupied) by an owner.[36]

Retrieval of hares

[edit]

The hunting of a hare which has been shot is exempt if it takes place on land which belongs to the hunter, or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose.[36]

In a private prosecution under the Act brought by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) who had observed two hare coursing events in villages near Malton, North Yorkshire in March 2007 organised by the Yorkshire Greyhound Field Trialling Club, the District Judge in Scarborough magistrates court clarified that the club was mistaken in believing that because the dogs they had been using were muzzled, the practice was lawful.[44]

Falconry

[edit]

In making falconry an exempt form of hunting, the Act lays down two conditions.[36]

"Flushing a wild mammal from cover is exempt hunting if undertaken for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the wild mammal."[36]

Such activity must be done on land which belongs to the hunter or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose.[36]

Many traditional hunts have bought birds of prey and say that they are using hounds to flush foxes to the bird of prey. Many experts, such as the Hawk Board, deny that any bird of prey can reasonably be used in the British countryside to kill a fox which has been flushed by (and is being chased by) a pack of hounds. If this view proves to be correct, then it is unlikely that such a use of dogs is lawful.[45]

Expert opinion on the limitations of flushing foxes to birds of prey will be available to advise courts considering such cases, when they are litigated. For now, the question of what is lawful remains to be determined.[36]

Recapture of wild mammal

[edit]

This exemption is for the hunting of a wild mammal which has escaped or been released from captivity, subject to these conditions:[36]

The activity must take place on land which belongs to the hunter, or on land which he has been given permission to use for the purpose, or with the authority of a constable.[36]

Reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that as soon as possible after being found the wild mammal is recaptured or shot dead by a competent person, and that each dog used in the hunt is kept under close control.[36]

The wild mammal must not have been released or allowed to escape for the purpose of being hunted.[36]

Rescue of wild mammal

[edit]

The hunting of an injured wild mammal is exempt, subject to these conditions:[36]

The hunter must reasonably believe that the wild mammal is or may be injured.[36]

The hunting must be for the purpose of relieving the wild mammal's suffering.[36]

No more than two dogs may be used.[36]

There must be no use of a dog below ground.[36]

The activity must take place on land which belongs to the hunter or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose or with the authority of a constable.[36]

Reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that as soon as possible after the wild mammal is found appropriate action (if any) is taken to relieve its suffering, and that each dog used in the hunt is kept under close control.[36]

The wild mammal must not have been harmed to enable it to be hunted under this exemption.[36]

Research and observation

[edit]

The last form of exempt hunting which is provided for in the Act is subject to these conditions:[36]

The hunting must be undertaken "for the purpose of or in connection with the observation or study of the wild mammal."[36]

No more than two dogs may be used, and no dog below ground.[36]

The activity must take place on land which belongs to the hunter, or which he has been given permission to use for the purpose.[36]

Each dog used must be kept under close control to ensure that it does not injure the wild mammal.[36]

Failed challenges

[edit]

Challenges to the Act which questioning the legality of the Parliament Act 1949 in the High Court and Court of Appeal failed (for example Jackson v Attorney General). The House of Lords in their judicial capacity agreed with the lower courts in a judgment delivered in October 2005.[46]

An application for judicial review was made to the High Court of England and Wales which argued that the anti-hunting legislation contravenes individual human or property rights protected in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and under European Community law and on grounds of the free movement of goods and services.[47] The application was dismissed by the High Court in July 2005,[48] the Court of Appeal in June 2006[49] and the House of Lords in November 2007.[50] An application to the European Court of Human Rights was ruled inadmissible.[51][52]

Penalties and enforcement

[edit]

A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable on summary conviction to an unlimited fine at the discretion of judges. (The provisions of the law state a penalty not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, however, level 5 currently has no upper limit).[53]

Analysis published in 2015 by pro-hunting pressure group the Countryside Alliance of 2005-14 data from the Ministry of Justice shows that 378 people have been convicted of Hunting Act offences over that period, but only 24 of the offenders were involved with registered hunts. They therefore conclude that more than 94% of Hunting Act convicted offenders were not members of registered hunts but were involved in poaching or other casual hunting activities.[54] Justice Minister Crispin Blunt said in a written answer to Parliament in June 2011 that "it is not possible to separately identify those specific cases proceeded against under the Hunting Act 2004 related to hunts recognised and regulated by the Council of Hunting Associations" since "statistical information available centrally does not include the circumstances of each case."[55] In 2014, the number of successful convictions under the act had risen to 430.[56]

Animal welfare groups such as the RSPCA, IFAW and the League Against Cruel Sports monitor some hunts, which they believe may be breaking the law. Small, local groups of Hunt Monitors, made up of independent, private individuals, also engage in regular hunt monitoring.[57] In 2011 the League Against Cruel Sports complained that "On several occasions over the last few years, we have provided what we believed to be good evidence to Devon & Cornwall Police, but the police haven't even moved from the starting blocks by interviewing suspects. Some cases have run out of time and sometimes the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decide to take no action."[58]

Police forces have said, on a number of occasions, that enforcement of the Hunting Act 2004 like much wildlife crime is a low priority for them, although they say that they will enforce the law. However, the Police's UK National Wildlife Crime Unit has said that policing of hunting should be a priority for forces in some areas of the country, most notably the South West.[59]

Key court cases involving registered hunts

[edit]

Tony Wright (Exmoor Foxhounds): 2006–2009

[edit]

Tony Wright, huntsman for the Exmoor Foxhounds, was convicted of illegal hunting with dogs in Barnstaple magistrates court in August 2006 in a private prosecution by the League Against Cruel Sports,[60] but was then acquitted by the High Court on appeal.[4] The appeal took place at the request of the Crown Prosecution Service who wished to determine if it is necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate that any hunting taking place was not exempt, or for the defence to prove that it was exempt; also to define what was meant by "hunting". The High Court ruled that it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the conditions of the exemption had not been met. It also ruled that for the offence of "hunting a wild mammal" to take place there must be an identifiable mammal.[4]

Julian Barnfield (Heythrop Hunt): 2009

[edit]

Charges of illegal hunting of a fox between November 2008 and February 2009 brought against Julian Barnfield of the Heythrop Hunt by the Crown Prosecution Service were dropped in March 2009 in response to the earlier High Court ruling in the Tony Wright case that 'searching' for a mammal was not hunting and that "hunting could only be an 'intentional' activity".[61]

Derek Hopkins and Kevin Allen (Fernie Hunt): 2011

[edit]

Huntsman Derek Hopkins and terrierman Kevin Allen, employees of the Fernie Hunt from Great Bowden, were convicted of illegal hunting in October 2011.[62] They also lost their appeal, partly based on video evidence collected by the League Against Cruel Sports.[63] It was the third successful prosecution for illegal fox hunting using the 2004 Act.[62]

Crawley and Horsham Hunt: 2008–2013

[edit]

In 2008, the Crawley and Horsham Hunt launched a legal action in the High Court for trespass, nuisance, and harassment against Simon and Jane Wild of West Sussex Wildlife Protection and West Sussex Badger Protection Group. The hunt used Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden, an expert in the use of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in such cases. This was viewed as a test case and received support from the Countryside Alliance, the Master of Foxhounds Association and 80 landowners and if successful was planned to lead to a request for an injunction against everyone associated with these groups from interfering with the hunt. The defendants claimed to have evidence of illegal hunting taking place and were asking the court to accept this as a defence to the Harassment Act action. The original judge, Justice Cranston, stepped down in July 2008 due to earlier comments made in support of the ban made while an MP. During the second trial it was reported that the judge dismissed nuisance and trespass, because they had "fundamental defects", leaving only harassment. It was also reported that the protestors, using an undercover infiltrator, had been able to get hold of conclusive evidence that the claimants were engaged in illegal fox hunting. The principal plaintiff, Simon Greenwood, was filmed using his hounds to chase a fox to ground and then call in terrier-men to dig it out and throw it to the hounds. The plaintiffs dropped the case in July 2009, and agreed to pay costs estimated at over £120,000.[64][65]

Officials of the Crawley and Horsham Hunt were found guilty in May 2012 of Hunting Act offences: professional huntsman Andrew Phillis, joint master Neill Millard and the hunt secretary Rachel Holdsworth were convicted on a total of five charges of illegally hunting. Millard and Holdsworth were fined £1000 each and both ordered to pay £2500 costs. Phillis was later sentenced to a £500 fine and £2500 costs.[66]

In September 2013, professional huntsman Nicholas Bycroft pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 1 of the Hunting Act: he admitted illegally hunting a fox during a meet at Angmering Park, near Arundel, West Sussex, on 19 February 2013. He was given a 12-month conditional discharge, £150 costs and £15 victim surcharge.

RSPCA vs Heythrop Hunt: 2012

[edit]

In December 2012 the RSPCA took out a private prosecution against Heythrop Hunt Limited. This was a landmark case, as it was the first time that an organized hunt was prosecuted as a corporate body. The Heythrop Hunt, its Huntsman, Julian Barnfield, and its Senior Master, Richard Sumner, all pleaded guilty to four charges of illegally hunting a fox at Oxford magistrates court in December 2012.[67] Barnfield, a former huntsman with the Heythrop and one of those convicted, said that the case had been politically motivated with its links with David Cameron's constituency.[68] The presiding magistrate called the RSPCA's £327,000 costs "staggering";[69] however, Gavin Grant, the chief executive of the RSPCA, said that the organisation would prevent cruelty to animals by all lawful means and had prosecuted 1,341 individuals and secured 3,114 convictions in the past year with a success rate of more than 98%.[70]

Other cases

[edit]

Subsequently, three pending prosecutions against hunts, including one brought privately by the League Against Cruel Sports, were dropped[71] and a further two cases which did reach court were thrown out at the conclusion of the prosecution cases when the District Judges ruled that there was no case to answer.[72]

From March to November 2013, staff of six separate hunts were either acquitted of Hunting Act offences or had the prosecutions against them dropped, including three foxhound packs (The York & Ainsty South, the Avon Vale and the Ledbury), a harrier pack (Weston & Banwell Harriers), a staghound pack (The Quantock Staghounds) and a beagle pack (The RAC Beagles).

In September 2013 David Parker, the huntsman of the Seavington Hunt, was fined after he admitted illegally hunting a fox with dogs in Dorset. The prosecution was brought by the RSPCA with evidence from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW).[73]

Perspectives

[edit]

Public opinion

[edit]

Public opinion has tended to be in favour of the ban on fox hunting:

  • A survey commissioned by The Daily Telegraph in 2002 indicated that a majority of people (57%) agreed with the statement that 'hunting with dogs is never acceptable'.[74]
  • A survey by MORI for the BBC carried out in February 2005 found that there was a plurality of support for the new legislation, but not an absolute majority (47% supporting, 26% opposed).[75]
  • In 2009, Ipsos MORI found that a total of 75% supported the ban on fox hunting.[76]
  • In 2010, the figure was almost identical, with 76% being opposed to repealing the Hunting Act, including with 71% of rural residents. There was 18% support for repeal.[77]
  • A poll by MORI in December 2012 showed no change on fox hunting, with 76% being opposed to moves to make it legal, rising to 81% in respect to deer hunting.[78]
  • Ahead of Boxing Day 2016 a poll was released which indicated opposition to fox hunting had reached all-time highs, with 84% of voters, including 82% of those in rural areas, opposing fox hunting.[79]
  • An opinion poll in May 2017 revealed overwhelming public opposition to hunting with dogs, including the repeal of the Hunting Act 2004. 64% of voters disagreed with the statement that "the ban on fox hunting should be reversed", including 46% who "strongly disagreed". Just 11% supported the repeal of the ban. The poll was published in the aftermath of the release of the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2017 general election, which promised a vote on the repeal of the Act.[80] Only 16% of Conservative voters want the ban overturned, with 50% opposed.

Supporters of the bill

[edit]

Opponents of the bill

[edit]

Neutral

[edit]

Proposed Coalition review

[edit]

The Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Agreement, agreed by the new government following the 2010 general election, aimed to give MPs a free vote "to express its view" on repealing the Hunting Act 2004[110] when parliamentary time allowed; in late 2010, it was thought this might be in "early 2012".[111] The prime minister, David Cameron, explained in January 2012 "I always thought the hunting ban was a pretty bizarre piece of legislation ... I think there should be a free vote in the House of Commons. I think the Commons should make its mind up about this. My problem has always been that it was just taking the criminal law into an area of activity where it didn't really belong."[112] However, in December 2012 Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, said that there was no immediate likelihood of winning a Commons vote to make hunting legal again and that supporters of hunting would need to do "more work" to win over sceptical MPs.[113]

Proposed Conservative amendments

[edit]

The 2015 Conservative Government proposed "technical" amendments to the Act. These were officially postponed on 14 July 2015.[114]

At the 2017 election Theresa May pledged to hold a free vote on repealing the Hunting Act if the Conservative Party won a majority.[115] These plans were scrapped in January 2018.[116]

At the 2019 election the Conservative Party announced that they would not make any changes to the Hunting Act leading to suggestions that the Conservatives would no longer oppose the Hunting Ban.[117][118][119]

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hunting Act 2004

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Hunting Act 2004 (c. 37) is an Act of the that prohibits hunting wild mammals with dogs in , thereby criminalizing traditional practices such as , stag hunting, and except under narrowly defined exemptions for , habitat management, or scientific research. It received on 18 November 2004 after a contentious free vote in the and came into force on 18 February 2005. The Act stemmed from decades of polarized debate over hunting with hounds, framed by supporters as advancing by ending pursuits seen as protracted cruelty, while opponents viewed it as an assault on rural customs, effective pest management for livestock predators like foxes, and community traditions involving significant economic and social roles in the countryside. Enacted under the Labour government led by , who expressed personal reservations but permitted the legislation to proceed, it ignited mass protests, including the Countryside Alliance's Liberty & Livelihood marches drawing hundreds of thousands to , and faced judicial scrutiny in cases like R (Jackson) v for the Home Department, where the upheld its validity despite procedural challenges under the Parliament Acts. Key provisions establish offenses for using dogs to pursue, search for, or kill wild mammals, with penalties including fines or up to six months' imprisonment, alongside separate bans on events; exemptions permit limited use of dogs for flushing or retrieving in agricultural or conservation contexts but exclude pack for sport. Enforcement has yielded 448 prosecutions and 228 convictions for offenses by 2022, alongside 47 prosecutions for , though critics contend this underrepresents evasion through practices like "trail hunting," which simulates hunts without live quarry but has faced allegations of deliberate circumvention. The legislation's impacts remain disputed, with no empirical consensus that it has reduced overall animal suffering—alternative methods like or snaring arguably prolong distress without the rapid dispatch possible in some pursuits—and populations, already rising pre-ban due to factors like reduced incidence, have shown no significant post-Act decline attributable to diminished pressure. It symbolizes enduring urban-rural tensions, class-based resentments, and the prioritization of symbolic moral stances over , as pre-ban inquiries like the Burns Report found hunting's welfare effects comparable to substitutes yet recommended rather than .

Overview

Legislative Purpose and Scope

The Hunting Act 2004 establishes a general prohibition on hunting wild mammals with dogs in England and Wales, making it an offence for a person to engage in such activity unless it qualifies as exempt hunting under Schedule 1. The core offence in section 1 targets the use of dogs to pursue, capture, or kill wild mammals—defined as non-domesticated animals not in captivity—primarily addressing practices like fox, deer, hare, and mink hunting with hounds or packs of dogs. This scope excludes game birds and certain vermin controls but extends liability to those knowingly permitting land use or dog provision for prohibited hunting under section 3. The Act's legislative purpose derived from campaigns emphasizing , positing that hunts involving multiple dogs caused undue suffering through prolonged pursuit, exhaustion, and injury before killing, as opposed to quicker dispatch methods like . Explanatory materials frame the ban as a regulatory measure to curb these practices while permitting limited exemptions for practical necessities, such as or . However, the Burns Inquiry of 2000, commissioned by the government, found hunting inflicted "distress and suffering" but provided no quantitative that it exceeded welfare impacts of alternatives, nor substantiated claims of net conservation benefits from bans; opponents highlighted this evidentiary gap, arguing the legislation prioritized moral sentiment over of cruelty or efficacy. In addition to the hunting prohibition, the Act's scope encompasses a outright ban on under section 5, criminalizing participation in or facilitation of events where dogs compete to chase and catch hares, with penalties including unlimited fines or up to three years' imprisonment. Exemptions in Schedule 1 are narrowly tailored, allowing up to two dogs for or flushing mammals to prevent serious damage to , crops, or game birds; single-dog use below ground for control in bird protection; and retrieval of wounded animals or limited , research, or escaped mammal recapture, all conditioned on minimizing suffering and avoiding recreational intent. The provisions do not apply in or , where distinct laws govern similar activities.

Core Prohibitions

The core prohibitions of the Hunting Act 2004 are established primarily under Section 1, which makes it an offence for a person to hunt a wild with a dog unless the activity qualifies as exempt hunting. Section 11(2) interprets "hunting a wild mammal with a dog" to include engaging or participating in the pursuit of a wild mammal, or employing one or more dogs in that pursuit, regardless of whether the person directly controls the dogs. This encompasses the use of dogs to search for, chase, capture, or kill wild mammals, thereby criminalizing practices such as organized fox hunts with hounds, with dogs, and similar involving packs or pairs of dogs for pursuit. The scope of prohibited mammals is defined broadly in Section 11(1), where "wild mammal" includes any mammal living wild, as well as those bred or tamed for any purpose, held in captivity or confinement, or escaped from such conditions. In practice, this applies to common British species targeted in traditional hunts, including foxes (Vulpes vulpes), deer (such as Cervus elaphus and Capreolus capreolus), hares (Lepus europaeus and Lepus timidus), and (Neovison vison). The prohibition does not extend to or without dogs, nor to hunting birds or , focusing specifically on mammalian pursuit by canines. Separate but related core prohibitions target under Section 5, which bans participation in, attendance at, facilitation of, or use of land for "hare coursing events"—competitions in which dogs are assessed for skill in pursuing live hares. Liability extends to those entering dogs in such events, permitting their entry, or controlling/handling them during the activity. Section 3 reinforces the bans by prohibiting the use of dogs underground to seek wild mammals, such as terriers entering fox earths, except in narrowly defined exempt scenarios like flushing for . Section 4 further criminalizes aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring any offence under Sections 1 or 3. These provisions collectively dismantle organized pack and competitive coursing, with enforcement relying on evidence of intentional pursuit rather than incidental encounters.

Historical Context

Traditional Hunting Practices in Britain

Traditional hunting practices in Britain, particularly hunting wild mammals with packs of , originated as a means of and resource management, with formalized emerging in the . The use of scent-tracking to pursue prey has ancient precedents traceable to practices in and Roman-influenced regions, but in Britain, it adapted to local needs following the decline of larger game like deer due to and changes. By the mid-16th century, farmers in areas such as began employing dogs specifically to hunt foxes, which posed threats to by preying on and . Fox hunting, the most prominent form, involved a pack of —typically 20 to 30 animals bred for scenting ability—pursuing a across countryside , followed by mounted huntsmen and supporters on horseback. The hunt began with the release or disturbance of a from its (den), after which followed the scent trail, often covering 10 to 20 miles in a single chase lasting up to an hour. Upon locating the , the would typically kill it by the pack, a process viewed by practitioners as a natural culmination of the pursuit rather than deliberate . Deer hunting with , dating to , followed similar protocols but targeted red or in organized stag hunts, while hare hunting and mink pursuits employed adapted packs. These methods relied on the ' innate predatory instincts and training, emphasizing communal effort over individual marksmanship. In rural Britain, these practices served dual roles in and social cohesion, with hunts maintaining populations at levels that prevented and associated agricultural damage—foxes annually kill an estimated 1-2 million lambs in the UK. By the 18th and 19th centuries, had evolved into a structured equestrian sport patronized by the and , fostering community ties across classes as farmers provided land access and local support. Subscriptions funded hunts, with masters of foxhounds overseeing packs and territories divided into hunt countries covering much of . This tradition reinforced countryside stewardship, as hunts managed coverts (wooded areas) to sustain quarry populations and contributed to equine breeding standards still influential in events like the Grand National.

Emergence of Anti-Hunting Campaigns

Opposition to fox hunting and other field sports in Britain traces back to the late 18th and 19th centuries, when radical reformers and urban critics portrayed hunting as emblematic of aristocratic privilege and rural backwardness amid industrialization and class tensions. These early critiques, often tied to broader humanitarian sentiments against blood sports, lacked sustained organization until the late 19th century. The Humanitarian League, established in 1891 by Henry S. Salt, represented the first coordinated effort against blood sports, including fox hunting, by advocating for ethical treatment of animals and linking hunting to unnecessary cruelty. Organized anti-hunting advocacy solidified in the with the formation of dedicated groups. The League for the Prohibition of Cruel Sports—later renamed the League Against Cruel Sports—was founded in 1925 by figures including Henry B. Amos and Ernest Bell, successors to Humanitarian League efforts, explicitly targeting hunting with hounds, stag hunting, and otter hunting as inhumane practices. A schism in 1932 led to the creation of the National Society for the Abolition of Cruel Sports, which intensified against through publications and parliamentary testimony. These organizations focused on evidence of animal suffering, such as prolonged chases and pack attacks, though early legislative pushes, like failed private members' bills in 1949, met resistance from rural interests and failed to gain traction. Direct action emerged in the mid-20th century, marking a shift toward confrontational tactics. The Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA), formed in 1963, pioneered on-the-ground interference with hunts by using horns, scents, and legal observation to disrupt proceedings and expose perceived barbarity to the public. By the 1970s and 1980s, partial bans—such as on otter hunting in 1978 and in in 1959—demonstrated incremental progress, bolstered by alliances with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). Urbanization, rising awareness, and polling data showing growing public disapproval fueled escalation, with groups like the (IFAW) joining in 1989 to push for comprehensive bans on hunting with dogs. This period saw anti-hunting shift from fringe advocacy to a mainstream cause, setting the stage for intensified parliamentary efforts in the 1990s.

Legislative Passage

Drafting and Parliamentary Debates

The Hunting Bill originated from the Labour government's response to the Burns Inquiry, established in October 1998 to assess the practical aspects of hunting with dogs, including its impacts on , rural , , and . The inquiry's June 2000 report concluded that hunting caused suffering to animals but did not recommend an outright ban, noting that alternatives like also involved without clear evidence of superior welfare outcomes, and emphasized that decisions on legality should rest with . The government drafted the bill as a regulatory compromise, avoiding a total in favor of a licensing regime that would permit hunting only if it passed a "test of utility," weighing benefits against and other factors. Introduced in the on 9 2004 by , Minister of State for Rural Affairs, the bill aimed to implement evidence-based regulation rather than moral prohibition, drawing on Burns Inquiry findings to balance with rural practices. During the second reading on 15 2004, Michael defended the draft as pragmatic and non-ideological, arguing it addressed concerns without disrupting effective vermin control, while critics from anti-hunting factions labeled it insufficiently protective of animals and pro-hunting MPs decried it as bureaucratic overreach lacking empirical justification for restricting traditions. Protesters disrupted proceedings that day, storming the chamber to oppose the bill, highlighting public divisions. In and stages, anti-hunting amendments shifted toward an outright ban, defeating the regulatory framework by a vote of 376 to 198 on 16 November 2004, reflecting Labour backbench pressure prioritizing ethical objections over the Burns Inquiry's evidence-based approach. The government tabled minimal amendments, maintaining a free vote but facing internal rebellion. Transferred to the on 12 October 2004, debates there—spanning multiple days in October and November—intensely scrutinized the ban's proportionality, with peers like Lord Mancroft arguing it violated property rights and rural livelihoods without proven welfare gains, while supporters invoked animal sentience and public morality. Lords repeatedly amended to restore regulation or exemptions, citing the Burns 's rejection of as uniquely cruel, but rejected these, leading to procedural invocation of the Parliament Act 1949. Overall, debates underscored tensions between empirical utility assessments and deontological welfare arguments, with over 500 hours of parliamentary time devoted to across sessions.

Voting Process and House of Lords Conflicts

The Hunting Bill advanced in the through a series of free votes, unwhipped by party leaders to allow members to vote according to . On 15 September 2004, the approved the second reading by 356 votes to 166, a majority of 190, marking the fifth such endorsement of a ban since 1997. Given the bill's identical text to a version that had received third reading in the prior session on 9 July 2003, this vote facilitated expedited passage under procedures aligned with the Parliament Acts, effectively combining stages to meet procedural requirements for bypassing Lords delay. The third reading vote, referenced in debates as securing 317 ayes against 145 noes among participating members, underscored persistent but insufficient opposition within the to halt progress. Upon arrival in the , the bill encountered robust resistance, with peers advocating for regulatory alternatives over prohibition, such as a "utility test" balancing harms against purported benefits like and rural traditions. Lords debates in and 2004 focused on amendments permitting licensed hunting under codes of conduct, exemptions for upland sports, and restrictions without broader bans on hounds for foxes or hares. Multiple divisions occurred, including on 17 2004, where peers supported amendments for conditional allowances, and on 18 , rejecting certain insistences by margins reflecting cross-party rural advocacy. These amendments triggered iterative "ping-pong" exchanges, as the Commons systematically disagreed with Lords changes, viewing them as undermining the ban's intent. The standoff peaked on 18 November 2004, when the Lords voted 153 to 114 against proposing an 18-month delay, yet Commons Speaker Michael Martin certified the bill's passage under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, overriding Lords veto power after refusal to accept amendments. This marked the seventh invocation of the Acts since 1911, highlighting constitutional friction over an unelected chamber's role in thwarting elected majorities on non-financial legislation, though critics argued the free-vote Commons margins reflected moral rather than electoral mandates.

Royal Assent and Effective Date

The Hunting Act 2004 received on 18 November 2004, marking the culmination of contentious parliamentary proceedings that invoked the to bypass further opposition. Section 15 of the Act provided that it would commence at the end of the three-month period beginning with the date of , resulting in the prohibitions taking effect on 18 February 2005 in . The legislation did not extend to , where separate hunting restrictions under the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 had already been implemented in 2002.

Provisions and Exemptions

Main Bans and Definitions

The Hunting Act 2004 primarily prohibits the hunting of wild s with s in , making it an offence under Section 1 for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless the activity qualifies as exempt. This core ban targets practices such as , , and mink hunting, which traditionally involved packs of hounds pursuing and killing quarry. Related offences under Section 3 criminalize knowingly permitting land to be used for such hunting or permitting a to be used in it, extending liability to landowners and hunt organizers. Additionally, Section 5 bans events, defined as competitions in which dogs are assessed for skill in pursuing and catching hares using live animals as quarry. Key definitions underpin these prohibitions. "Hunting a wild with a " is interpreted broadly under Section 11(2) to include searching for, pursuing, or attempting to kill a wild using one or more s, whether the dogs are under the person's control or direction. This encompasses intentional participation in the pursuit, even if the kill occurs incidentally. A "wild " is defined in Section 11(1) as any that ordinarily lives independently of humans and reproduces in the wild, excluding domesticated animals like ferrets unless . For , the offence applies to participation, attendance, facilitation, or permitting land or dogs for events where dogs compete against hares released alive. These terms ensure the bans apply to organized rather than incidental encounters.

Exempt Activities and Loopholes

The Hunting Act 2004 permits certain activities involving dogs and wild s under exemptions outlined in Schedule 1, primarily intended for , , and limited welfare or research purposes. These exemptions include or flushing out a wild , which is allowed if conducted to prevent serious damage to , crops, , , , or habitats, or to obtain or take lawfully, using no more than two dogs unless in where up to 40 dogs may be used under specific conditions for flushing. Similarly, the use of dogs below ground is exempt when necessary to protect birds kept for , limited to terriers not exceeding two in number and only after reasonable steps to ascertain the presence of the . Hunting rats and rabbits with dogs is fully exempt on any , reflecting their as common pests rather than species targeted by traditional hunts. Additional exemptions cover retrieval of hares wounded by lawful , using no more than two dogs if necessary; , where a may be flushed or killed by a using no more than two dogs; recapture of escaped from enclosures; of in immediate distress; and or authorized by the appropriate , such as for scientific studies. These provisions were designed to balance the ban on recreational pack with practical necessities in rural and agricultural settings, where dogs aid in efficient control without alternatives like being feasible in all terrains. bodies, including the , have affirmed that all such exempt activities are permissible on managed estates, underscoring their role in maintaining and property protection. Critics, particularly from animal welfare organizations, contend that these exemptions contain loopholes enabling the continuation of hunting-like practices under the guise of compliance. For instance, the flushing exemption has been invoked by hunts using packs of hounds to pursue foxes over extended distances before a shot is fired, allegedly exceeding the intent of short-range pest control. Trail hunting, a post-2004 practice where hounds follow artificial scents laid to mimic traditional routes, is not formally exempt but is defended by hunt supporters as non-hunting activity; however, investigations by groups like the League Against Cruel Sports document instances of hounds killing wild mammals during these events, suggesting it serves as a legal facade for illegal pursuits. Enforcement data indicates challenges, with 448 prosecutions for hunting offenses since 2004 yielding 228 convictions, implying selective or difficult application of exemptions in field conditions. Proposals to close perceived loopholes, such as banning trail hunting outright, gained traction by 2025, with Labour pledging amendments to tighten flushing rules and eliminate ambiguities exploited by organized hunts. Despite these critiques, proponents of the exemptions argue they are essential for evidence-based land management, as empirical studies on rural pest dynamics support the use of dogs for targeted interventions where firearms pose safety risks.

Penalties for Violations

Under the , all offences, including the core prohibition on hunting wild mammals with dogs under section 1, are summary-only matters triable exclusively in . A person guilty of such an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the , as stipulated in section 6 of the Act. Originally capped at £5,000, level 5 fines for offences committed after 12 March 2015 became subject to unlimited amounts following amendments introduced by section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which removed upper limits on magistrates' court fines previously set at or above that threshold. In addition to monetary penalties, section 7 empowers courts to order the forfeiture of any , , or other "hunting article" used in the commission of an offence under Part 1 of the Act, as well as any vehicle employed in the activity. Such orders are discretionary and aimed at preventing further violations. No provision exists for custodial sentences, distinguishing the Act from the contemporaneous Protection of Wild Mammals () Act 2002, which permits up to six months' . Secondary offences, such as knowingly permitting land to be used for illegal hunting under section 2 or facilitating hunts under section 3, attract identical penalties: the same fine regime and potential forfeiture provisions. Prosecutions must commence within six months of the offence, aligning with standard summary procedure timelines. While statutory maxima allow severe financial deterrence, reported fines in practice have often been modest, though this reflects prosecutorial and sentencing discretion rather than legislative limits.

Prosecution Difficulties and Key Court Cases

Enforcement of the Hunting Act 2004 has encountered substantial evidentiary hurdles, primarily in distinguishing illegal from permitted exemptions such as using limited dogs or hunting along artificial scent lines. Prosecutors must demonstrate specific intent to pursue and kill wild mammals beyond allowable activities, which often relies on contested witness testimony from hunt monitors or saboteurs amid chaotic field conditions. Ambiguities in statutory terms like "searching" for have further complicated cases, as courts require proof that actions exceeded flushing or retrieval limits. Conviction rates reflect these challenges, with only 228 convictions from 448 prosecutions for dog-assisted hunting offences between 2005 and 2022, and 16 from 47 for . Among cases against organized hunts, success rates have been particularly low, at approximately 13.8% for charges leading to convictions, attributed to defenses invoking exemptions and difficulties corroborating illegal kills. A majority of prosecutions—around 97% in early years—targeted unlicensed poachers rather than registered hunts, indicating enforcement prioritization away from traditional foxhunting packs. Rural policing resources and potential sympathies have also been cited as factors hindering investigations, though official data underscores systemic under-prosecution relative to reported incidents. Prominent court challenges tested the Act's constitutional validity rather than routine enforcement. In R (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney General UKHL 56, the affirmed the 's enactment via the , rejecting claims that the procedure bypassed required Lords' consent and upholding the ban's legitimacy. The addressed related human rights claims in Friend and Others v United Kingdom (Application nos. 16065/10 and 16369/10, decided 17 December 2009), ruling unanimously that prohibitions on with dogs did not infringe Articles 8 (private life), 11 (assembly), or 14 (discrimination) of the European Convention, as the restrictions pursued legitimate aims without arbitrariness. Enforcement-specific rulings have clarified interpretations, aiding later prosecutions. Early cases established that exceeding two dogs for flushing constitutes , while appeals have overturned convictions lacking of quarry pursuit, reinforcing the intent threshold. Despite these precedents, ongoing debates highlight persistent gaps, with advocacy groups on arguing the law's wording enables evasion through simulated trail hunts that inadvertently—or deliberately—target live animals.

Impacts and Effectiveness

Effects on Wildlife Populations and Welfare

Empirical studies prior to the Act's implementation indicated that hunting with hounds accounted for approximately 10-15% of annual fox mortality in the UK, insufficient to significantly regulate populations, which are primarily limited by density-dependent factors such as food availability, disease (e.g., sarcoptic mange), and territorial behavior. A temporary hunting ban during the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak resulted in no measurable increase in fox numbers, with population densities remaining stable due to these self-regulating mechanisms. Post-2005 data from the British Trust for Ornithology's Breeding Bird Survey, which tracks mammal sightings as predators of ground-nesting birds, recorded a significant decline in fox abundance, with no evidence of a post-ban surge. Fox populations in England and Wales exhibited an overall downward trend continuing from the 1990s, with estimates suggesting a 41% decline in red fox numbers since 1995, attributable to factors including habitat loss, increased road traffic, and disease rather than the cessation of hunting. Veterinary reports in 2023 highlighted a "catastrophic decline" in rural fox densities since the Act's enforcement, potentially exacerbated by shifts to less targeted control methods like shooting, though comprehensive government monitoring (e.g., via DEFRA) has not confirmed a direct causal link to the ban. Similar patterns hold for other hunted species like deer and hares, where populations have not shown marked increases post-ban, as natural mortality and alternative culling maintain equilibrium. Regarding welfare, the Act's prohibition of pack hunting shifted fox control predominantly to shooting, which peer-reviewed assessments indicate has lower clean-kill rates, with one study reporting an average of 55% lethality across 574 shots at 386 foxes, implying substantial wounding and prolonged suffering among escapes. In contrast, hounds typically dispatch caught foxes rapidly via neck bites, though the preceding chase elevates physiological stress markers (e.g., elevated cortisol and heart rates), a factor also present in evasion from predators in wild contexts. Post-enactment analyses, including the Burns Inquiry's pre-ban review, found no method—hunting, shooting, or snaring—achieves ideal humane outcomes, but the ban correlated with unchanged total fox killings (~300,000 annually pre- and post-2004) via alternatives prone to higher non-fatal injury rates. For deer and hares, exemptions allowing limited dog use for flushing to guns have sustained some welfare concerns, as incomplete shots remain common, underscoring that the Act did not demonstrably enhance overall wildlife welfare amid persistent pest control needs.

Socioeconomic Consequences for Rural Communities

The Hunting Act 2004, effective from 18 February 2005, prompted pre-enactment predictions of substantial job losses in rural , with estimates ranging from 6,000 to 8,000 positions dependent on activities, including direct roles like hunt staff and indirect ones in equestrian services. The Burns Inquiry of 2000, a government-commissioned , assessed direct employment in hunting at approximately 700, alongside broader contributions to rural spending estimated at £15.6 million annually, but emphasized that not all roles would vanish post-ban due to transferable skills and potential shifts to alternative equestrian pursuits. Actual post-ban data, however, indicated far fewer disruptions, as the majority of the roughly 200 registered hunts adapted by transitioning to trail hunting under exemptions, preserving much of the associated ; the Council of Hunting Associations reported recruiting 25 young people into hunt services since 2005, with no evidence of widespread . Economic analyses post-2005 underscored hunting's marginal role in the rural relative to dominant sectors like , which faced greater pressures from factors such as declining farm incomes and the 2001 outbreak. The British Equestrian Trade Association's 2006 survey documented growth in the equine industry, with 1.35 million horses and 4.3 million riders, and £70 million in related spending unaffected by the ban, suggesting resilience through diversification rather than collapse. Claims of severe impacts, often advanced by rural advocacy groups like the , relied on inflated multipliers for indirect jobs (e.g., farriers, publicans, and transporters), yet empirical reviews in rural studies journals argued these overstated hunting's significance amid broader countryside economic restructuring, where hunting accounted for less than 0.2% of rural GDP in affected areas. Beyond , the ban contributed to localized strains on rural social structures, where had served as a nexus for ties among farmers, landowners, and service providers, fostering informal networks for and mutual support. Adaptation to legal alternatives mitigated some cohesion losses, but persistent enforcement challenges and cultural resentment exacerbated urban-rural divides, with rural communities perceiving the legislation—passed by a dominated by urban constituencies—as dismissive of countryside traditions without delivering promised gains. Nonetheless, no verifiable links the Act to measurable declines in rural population retention or business viability, contrasting with more substantive socioeconomic pressures like subsidy reforms under the .

Evidence of Compliance and Ongoing Hunting

Despite the prohibitions under the , enforcement data indicates persistent breaches, with 448 prosecutions and 228 convictions recorded for hunting wild mammals with dogs between the Act's implementation and April 2022. A further 573 successful prosecutions occurred from 2005 to 2021, alongside 47 admissions of guilt, though these figures represent a fraction of the estimated scale of hunting activities. Convictions under the Act reached over 150 within the first six years post-enactment, averaging roughly one every two weeks, but overall rates have fluctuated, with a spike in 2021 followed by a return to prior levels by 2022. Trail hunting, introduced after 2004 as a purported legal alternative involving artificial scent trails, has been widely documented as facilitating illegal pursuits of live , such as foxes, with frequently deviating from laid trails to chase wild mammals. Independent police reviews, including one in in 2023 and in 2025, have identified challenges, such as difficulties proving and the need for more proactive monitoring, underscoring incomplete compliance. Footage from hunt monitors and saboteurs has captured instances of killing foxes during supposed trail hunts, leading to charges; for example, in June 2025, multiple individuals faced arrests for Hunting Act violations alongside offenses. The low relative to reported incidents—exacerbated by the Act's complex definitions of "" and exemptions—suggests adaptation by hunts to evade detection, with critics arguing the legislation's ambiguity renders it ineffective against organized evasion tactics. Prosecutions remain sporadic, often reliant on covert compliant with regulatory guidelines, yet systemic underreporting and rural policing priorities limit broader deterrence. These patterns indicate that while some hunts have transitioned to compliant activities, illegal persists on a notable scale, prompting ongoing calls for legislative tightening.

Perspectives and Debates

Arguments from Animal Welfare Advocates

Animal welfare advocates, including the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), contend that hunting wild mammals with dogs, as prohibited by the Hunting Act 2004, inflicts severe and unnecessary suffering on the pursued animals. They argue that the prolonged pursuit—often extending over hours and distances up to 20 miles—induces extreme physiological stress, including elevated heart rates, buildup, and exhaustion, compromising the animal's welfare long before capture, as detailed in the 2000 Burns Inquiry, which concluded that being closely pursued, caught, and killed by a pack of dogs seriously affects . Post-mortem examinations of hunted foxes, cited by LACS, reveal multiple bites and lacerations indicating that is not instantaneous but involves being torn apart while alive, causing acute from tissue and shock. Advocates highlight additional cruelties, such as hunts blocking escape routes or deploying terriers into earths to flush foxes, leading to underground maulings where the prey suffers bites and suffocation before extraction. The emphasizes that foxes are chased to the point of exhaustion before being deliberately set upon by hounds, a process they deem inherently cruel compared to alternatives like clean shooting, which can achieve rapid kills with minimal preceding distress. Veterinary evidence supports these claims, with over 500 British veterinarians in 2000 asserting that foxes endure painful deaths from being disemboweled or having their spines broken by dogs, refuting pro-hunting assertions of humane dispatch. LACS and maintain that such serves no essential purpose, as foxes can be managed effectively through methods like lamping and , which avoid the terror of pack pursuit and reduce overall suffering; pre-ban data showed hunts killed around 15,000 foxes annually in , a fraction compared to road traffic (100,000+) or , underscoring 's recreational rather than utilitarian nature. The is viewed by these groups as a in animal protection, having led to over 400 convictions for illegal by 2022, thereby deterring practices that perpetuate cruelty, though advocates call for stricter enforcement and closure of trail hunting loopholes, which they describe as a facade for continued fox killing based on investigative footage and witness accounts. They argue the aligns with sentiment, with polls showing 80-90% opposition to with dogs even among rural populations, prioritizing empirical welfare outcomes over .

Counterarguments from Rural and Conservationist Viewpoints

Rural advocates contended that the Hunting Act 2004 inflicted economic harm on countryside communities by curtailing a traditional activity that generated local spending and employment, with hunts collectively supporting ancillary jobs in areas such as horse care, farriery, and prior to the ban. Organizations like the emphasized that the recreational aspect of subsidized efforts, fostering rural economic resilience in regions dependent on . From a conservation standpoint, proponents argued that with hounds served as an effective mechanism for managing fox populations, which prey on ground-nesting birds, lambs, and species, thereby aiding in the absence of natural predators like wolves. The and Trust's research indicated that farmers in multiple study areas preferred as a control method over alternatives, citing its efficiency in targeting dispersed es without the inefficiencies of . Conservationists further maintained that the practice aligned with principles of sustainable by selectively removing weaker or surplus animals, promoting genetic vigor within populations and preventing localized overabundance that could exacerbate disease or habitat degradation. The Burns Inquiry of 2000, a government-commissioned review, concluded that dispatch by hounds occurred rapidly—typically within seconds—and was not demonstrably crueler than or , supporting claims of superior outcomes compared to less precise methods post-ban. Rural conservation groups warned that the Act's restrictions shifted reliance to potentially less humane alternatives, such as increased , which risks wounding and prolonged suffering.

Public Opinion and Polling Data

Public opinion in the has shown consistent majority support for retaining the Hunting Act 2004 since its enactment, with polling data indicating opposition to repealing the ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs exceeding 70% in most surveys. An poll conducted shortly after the Act's implementation in 2005 found that 57% of respondents believed the law should remain in place and hunting should not restart, while 28% favored repeal. This early result reflected a stabilization following pre-enactment debates, where support for a ban had grown from around 50% in the late to a slim majority by 2004. Subsequent polls demonstrate strengthened backing over time, particularly as awareness of enforcement issues like trail hunting emerged. A 2017 Ipsos MORI survey, commissioned by the Against Cruel Sports but conducted by the independent pollster, reported 85% of the public opposing the legalization of , 87% against with dogs, and 80% against . Similarly, a 2015 Ipsos MORI poll found 83% support for keeping the ban intact. Partisan divides exist but are not absolute; the same 2017 data showed 73% of self-identified Conservative voters agreeing fox hunting should remain illegal. Recent surveys confirm enduring support amid calls to close loopholes. A YouGov poll from November 2024 indicated 79% of Britons believe the ban should remain in place two decades later, with only 12% favoring . A May 2024 poll by Savanta, referenced by the League Against Cruel Sports, found 76% national support for strengthening the Act to prevent with dogs, including 70% among rural voters and majorities across key constituencies.
DatePollsterKey FindingSample Size
February 200557% support retaining ban; 28% favor repealNot specified in topline
December 201583% want ban to remain2,036
September 201785% oppose legalizing fox huntingNot specified
November 202479% favor keeping banRepresentative UK adults
These figures highlight a rural-urban gradient, with urban support typically higher (over 80%), though rural majorities have solidified; however, earlier analyses like a review noted that pre- and immediate post-ban polling sometimes showed narrower margins or regional variations, underscoring polling sensitivity to question wording and sampling. Polls on related practices, such as trail hunting, reveal widespread , with an August 2024 survey finding only 18% believing it is not a for illegal . Overall, the data reflect stable, cross-partisan public endorsement of the Act's core , despite advocacy from hunting supporters claiming cultural traditions.

Post-Enactment Developments

Failed Repeal Efforts by Conservatives

Following their 2010 general election victory and formation of a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats—who opposed repeal—the Conservatives included in their manifesto a commitment to provide Parliament with an opportunity for a free vote on repealing the Hunting Act 2004, though no such vote materialized during the 2010–2015 Parliament due to coalition constraints and internal party divisions among newer MPs less supportive of hunting. In the 2015 Conservative manifesto, the party explicitly pledged to "give the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote," prompting to back an amendment to the Infrastructure Bill that would have effectively repealed or relaxed the ban by allowing packs of hounds for in varied terrain. This effort collapsed on July 14, 2015, when the government shelved the vote after the announced unified opposition, citing concerns, combined with insufficient Conservative support to secure passage amid a slim majority. The 2017 Conservative manifesto under reiterated a promise for a free vote on hunting, reflecting her personal support for repeal as a rural tradition, but the government deferred action in July 2017, stating no vote would occur for at least two years due to parliamentary priorities and post-election fragility. By January 2018, May abandoned the pledge entirely, avoiding a divisive free vote that risked alienating moderate voters and urban MPs. Subsequent efforts waned; the 2019 Conservative manifesto omitted any commitment for the first time since the Act's passage, signaling prioritization of electoral viability over the issue amid persistent public opposition to . These repeated failures stemmed from a combination of lacking a decisive parliamentary , cross-party resistance, and shifting internal dynamics where pro- rural advocates could not overcome broader anti- sentiment within the party and electorate.

Labour Government Proposals on Trail Hunting

The Labour Party's 2024 general election committed to strengthening the Hunting Act 2004 by closing the loophole allowing trail hunting, which involves hounds following an artificially laid scent trail in imitation of traditional hunts but has been criticized for facilitating illegal pursuit of live quarry. Following their July 2024 electoral victory, the government reaffirmed this pledge on December 26, 2024, stating it was "committed" to banning trail hunting amid traditional hunt gatherings across the . On April 1, 2025, during a House of Commons debate initiated by Labour MP Perran Moon, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Minister announced plans for a on the commitment to prohibit trail hunting, emphasizing the need to ensure the 2004 Act delivers intended animal protections by removing exemptions for scent-following activities. This followed parliamentary calls to address evidence of non-compliance, with the consultation aimed at informing legislative changes to explicitly ban trail hunting of foxes, deer, and hares. At the in September 2025, contemporary motions passed by delegates reiterated the push to ban trail hunting alongside other measures like ending snare traps, underscoring internal party support for tougher against perceived evasions of the 2004 ban. However, as of September 10, 2025, no draft legislation had been introduced to , despite repeated government statements of intent, including in April 2025, leaving the proposal in a pre-legislative consultation phase amid ongoing rural opposition and debates over efficacy.

References

  1. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/contents
  2. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/hunting-act-2004
  3. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2007-03-22/debates/07032282000003/HuntingAct2004
  4. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack-3.htm
  5. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldconst/141/141.pdf
  6. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-04-25/debates/3B9901EF-11D1-488B-8BF0-B7ECF8991C90/Hunting
  7. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20093306832
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11175358_Ecology_-_Effect_of_British_hunting_ban_on_fox_numbers
  9. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/18/has-hunting-act-stopped-cruelty-towards-foxes-10-years-on
  10. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/section/1
  11. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/notes
  12. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/notes/division/4
  13. https://www.wildlifeonline.me.uk/articles/view/fox-hunting-the-hunting-act-2004
  14. https://www.jeremywright.org.uk/hunting-act
  15. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/section/5
  16. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/schedule/1
  17. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/notes/division/5
  18. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/section/11
  19. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/section/3
  20. https://ruralhistoria.com/2024/05/15/from-necessity-to-nobility-the-history-of-fox-hunting-in-britain/
  21. https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Fox-Hunting-in-Britain/
  22. https://www.britannica.com/sports/foxhunting
  23. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071022.2013.873180
  24. http://apjh.mobile.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her122/pardoprato.pdf
  25. https://henrysalt.com/fact-check/league-against-cruel-sports-founded
  26. https://atom.aim25.com/index.php/league-against-cruel-sports-2
  27. https://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/a-history-of-the-long-campaign-to-ban-hunting-with-hounds/
  28. https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/history-of-the-hsa-timeline
  29. http://teamfox.org.uk/31-what-s-new/23-the-burns-inquiry
  30. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/sep/15/hunting-bill
  31. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/150/2004150.htm
  32. https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/10-years-since-hunting-ban-463664
  33. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2004-09-15/debates/329ce6a9-825e-4717-a3b7-c400c92f368c/HuntingBill
  34. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3656524.stm
  35. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/nov/19/houseofcommons.lords
  36. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2004-10-26a.1175.6
  37. https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2004-10-12/debates/84e3c997-90ee-4f34-85ea-2f6b214f4a9d/HuntingBill
  38. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2004-11-11a.1019.1
  39. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32889769
  40. https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-09-15&house=commons&number=250
  41. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2004-09-15/debates/488d4aab-694e-4733-9980-8a1f9a075595/HuntingBill%28Procedure%29
  42. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2004-10-27a.1292.3
  43. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2004-11-17a.1554.6
  44. https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Lords/Division/808
  45. https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Lords/Division/813
  46. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/section/15
  47. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/pdfs/ukpga_20040037_en.pdf
  48. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hunting-on-the-defence-estate/mod-policy-on-exempt-hunting-on-the-defence-estate
  49. https://protectthewild.org.uk/our-campaigns/proper-ban-on-hunting/hunting-case-for-proper-ban-hunting-2024/
  50. https://www.league.org.uk/news-and-resources/news/lets-finish-what-the-hunting-act-started/
  51. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/26/labour-calls-for-toughening-of-hunting-act-and-vows-to-close-loophole
  52. https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/trail-hunting-dogs-ban/
  53. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/unlimited-fines-for-serious-offences
  54. https://protectthewild.org.uk/protectors-of-the-wild/hunting-act-2004/
  55. https://protectthewild.org.uk/blogs/why-strengthening-the-hunting-act-isnt-the-answer-to-ending-fox-hunting/
  56. https://campaigntostrengthenthehuntingact.com/completed-prosecutions.php
  57. https://apgaw.org/review-of-the-hunting-act/
  58. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf
  59. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-96372
  60. https://www.actionagainstfoxhunting.org/broken-law-how-the-hunting-act-has-failed-a-report-by-aaf/
  61. https://www.nature.com/articles/419034a
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12214224/
  63. https://www.countryside-alliance.org/resources/news/tim-bonner-the-cruelty-of-the-hunting-act
  64. https://www.keele.ac.uk/natsci/facultynews/2019/january/nowonderfoxhuntingisstillprevalentthebanisdesignedtofailbritishwildlife/ash-murphy.php
  65. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/hunting-ban-has-caused-catastrophic-decline-of-foxes/
  66. https://www.falcons.co.uk/conservation-research-and-welfare/animal-welfare/parliamentary-middle-way-group-on-hunting-with-dogs/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11171279/
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0743016799000510
  69. https://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2010/12310.pdf
  70. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/nov/08/hunt-ban-illegal-popular
  71. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30940176
  72. https://www.huntingact.org/the-hunting-act/prosecutions/
  73. http://teamfox.org.uk/2-uncategorised/82-prosecutions-under-the-hunting-act
  74. https://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/Wildlife_Crime_Report_October_2023%2520%281%29.pdf
  75. https://www.actionagainstfoxhunting.org/trail-hunting-is-foxhunting/
  76. https://www.northwales-pcc.gov.uk/policing-hunting-act-north-wales-examined-newly-published-review
  77. https://www.warwickshire-pcc.gov.uk/independent-review-into-policing-of-hunting-related-activities-in-warwickshire-published/
  78. https://protectthewild.org.uk/fox-hunting/hunting-news-roundup-06-june-2025-hunting-charges-and-convictions-over-the-past-month/
  79. https://www.alaw.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Hunting-Act-2004.pdf
  80. https://criminologicalencounters.org/index.php/crimenc/article/view/94/75
  81. https://www.league.org.uk/what-we-do/hunting/fox-hunting/
  82. https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/wildlife/foxes/hunting
  83. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jun/11/hunting.ruralaffairs
  84. https://www.league.org.uk/what-we-do/hunting/hunting-act/
  85. https://www.countryside-alliance.org/hubfs/Imported_Blog_Media/CASE-FOR-HUNTING2012.pdf
  86. https://www.countryside-alliance.org/campaigns/hunting/what-is-the-campaign-for-hunting
  87. https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/new-hunting-law
  88. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35179185
  89. https://www.conservativesagainstfoxhunting.com/new-ipsos-mori-poll-shows-73-of-conservative-supporters-agree-with-the-ban-on-fox-hunting-daily-mail-30th-september/
  90. https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/50958-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-hunting
  91. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/the-league-england-wales-hunting-conservatives-b2553253.html
  92. https://www.league.org.uk/news-and-resources/news/new-figures-fox-hunting/
  93. https://faunalytics.org/british-public-opinion-on-hunting-2/
  94. https://protectthewild.org.uk/news/survey-just-18-of-public-believe-trail-hunting-is-not-a-smokescreen/
  95. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/28/countryside-alliance-conservatives-foxhunting
  96. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-16622527
  97. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/government-publishes-amendment-fox-hunting-act-free-vote
  98. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/14/foxhunting-vote-shelved-by-tories-in-face-of-snp-opposition
  99. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40491921
  100. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/07/theresa-may-drops-manifesto-promise-to-allow-foxhunting-vote
  101. https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-conservatives-set-to-ditch-fox-hunting-pledge-in-manifesto-11864897
  102. https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/politics/fox-hunting-conservative-manifesto-legal-carrie-symonds-a9216126.html
  103. https://theecologist.org/2015/jul/20/fox-hunting-political-poison-david-cameron-and-tory-party
  104. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mrj3r30nno
  105. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-04-01/debates/3F9D289E-4A7E-41D5-9F53-6B8AD2E3A479/TrailHunting
  106. https://protectthewild.substack.com/p/trail-hunting-government-reaffirms
  107. https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/MOTIONS-ADDENDUM-TO-CAC1.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.