Frequently Asked Questions

‘Trail’ hunting was invented after the Hunting Act – supposedly as a form of simulated hunting, but in reality as a smokescreen for old fashioned illegal hunting.

Trail hunting works by making it difficult to prove that hunting was not accidental. This is because to obtain a conviction under the Hunting Act, the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to hunt a wild mammal.

While claiming to be following pre-laid trails of animal-based scent, trail hunting mirrors traditional hunting in almost every other detail. They use hounds trained to follow the scent of animals, send their hounds through areas such as dense undergrowth where foxes and other wildlife are known to live, and don’t tell the people in charge of the hounds where trails were supposedly laid.

When a live animal is chased or killed, hunts are then able to claim that they accidently crossed the path of a fox or other wild mammal and that they didn’t realise until it was too late to stop their hounds. Even if hunts were really trail hunting as they claim to be, their actions would be so reckless that the chasing and killing of animals would be inevitable.

The credibility of trail hunting took a major hit following controversial training webinars by the Hunting Office (now the British Hound Sports Association) in which trail hunting was described as a “smokescreen”.

“Now you know more about hunting than the saboteurs or courts will know but what it [laying a trail] will do is create that smokescreen or that element of doubt that we haven’t deliberately hunted a fox, so if nothing else you need to record that and it will help us provide a defence to huntsman.” – Phil Davies, Countryside Alliance police liaison officer

Now widely discredited, trail hunting is increasingly seen not as a legitimate sport, but as a calculated effort to sidestep the law and continue fox hunting by stealth. Rather than hiding behind implausible claims of accidents, hunts must be held responsible for the chasing or killing of animals unless all reasonable steps are proven to have been taken to prevent it.

So what is the solution?

To combat the smokescreen of trail hunting the League is advocating for:

• Provisions to ban reckless behaviour and require all reasonable steps to be taken to prevent animals being hunted
• The expansion of the definition of hunting to include searching for a wild mammal
• An explicit ban on the practice of trail hunting

The Hunting Act was never an outright ban on hunting mammals – it’s riddled with exemptions that leave the door wide open for abuse. Loopholes and vague wording have allowed hunts to carry on chasing and killing animals under flimsy justifications. It’s increasingly clear: these exemptions need a full, and those routinely exploited by hunts must be scrapped.

For example, stag hunts frequently invoke exemptions intended for the use of up to two dogs for purposes of “research and observation”, or claim that a chase is conducted to “rescue” a wild mammal. These justifications lack both scientific credibility and ethical grounding – there is no legitimate need to pursue a wild animal to the point of exhaustion in order to observe or assist it.

Similarly, fox hunts, often operating under the banner of trail hunting, take advantage of an exemption that permits the use of a single dog below ground to prevent serious damage to game birds on shooting estates. A cruel practice in itself, this has also enabled the continued use of terrier men by hunts who send dogs into underground fox earths to flush out or kill foxes that have sought refuge. A particularly disturbing incident involving this practice was brought to light by ITV in 2023, highlighting the brutality involved and the inadequacy of current protections.

Hare hunts also frequently rely on exemptions, either by claiming to be pursuing rabbits – still permitted under the Act – or by stating that they are retrieving hares believed to have been wounded during shooting. In reality, these exemptions are often used as a pretext for traditional hunting practices.

These are not isolated abuses, but part of a systemic pattern of exploitation that undermines the intent of the Hunting Act. If the law is to be effective in protecting wildlife from unnecessary cruelty, it must be strengthened and clarified, including the removal of all exemptions which allow illegal hunting to continue.

So what is the solution?

• The removal of all exemptions which are open to misuse by hunts
• If any exemptions remain, their conditions must be tightened significantly
• A requirement for hunts to prove, on the balance of probability, that they followed those conditions

The weaknesses of the Hunting Act extend well beyond its loopholes and exemptions – they are also evident in the limited ability to investigate, prosecute, and penalise those who break the law. This has been widely acknowledged by law enforcement. As Matt Longman, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on fox hunting crime, bluntly put it:

“When new legislation comes to the police, there is an accompanying toolbox of powers and legislation that gives them a number of options to tackle it. When the Hunting Act came in 20 years ago, the tools box was opened and all that was really found was a leaky sieve.”

Prosecutions under the Act are unusually difficult. Beyond the already complex nature of hunting cases – where establishing intent can be particularly challenging – there are significant procedural barriers. One of the most problematic is the six-month time limit for police and the CPS to bring charges from the date of the offence. This short window is often inadequate for investigating rural, resource-intensive crimes such as illegal hunting.

Compounding the issue, hunting offences are not classified as notifiable crimes, meaning they do not appear in national police statistics. This absence from official crime data effectively disincentivises enforcement, making it harder for officers to justify allocating already limited resources to the policing of hunting activity.

Even in the rare instances where a prosecution is successful, the penalties are strikingly lenient. Unlike other wildlife and animal welfare offences, the Hunting Act does not permit custodial sentences – even for repeat or serious offenders. In 2024, the average fine issued for a Hunting Act offence was just £454 – a paltry sum that offers little, if any, deterrent effect.

These enforcement failures leave the law hollow. Without the power to investigate thoroughly, prosecute effectively, or impose meaningful penalties, the Hunting Act falls short of delivering justice – and fails to protect the very animals it was meant to defend.

So what is the solution?

• Introduce the possibility of custodial sentences for hunting offences
• Make Hunting Act offences recordable – so that they appear in police statistics
• Increase the length of time the police and CPS have to charge offenders under the Hunting Act

The government has not yet announced the date the consultation will be launched or the questions that will be asked. As soon as this information is available we will update this page to include a question-by-question guide for your responses.