League advice for responding to the consultation on hunting

The best responses are personal
If you have lived experience of hunting, talk about it
Don’t cut and paste answers – write them in your own words

Consultations are about evidence as well as opinions
   The consultation will ask for your opinion, but facts and evidence will impact the consultation outcome as well

Your answers don’t need to be long
    It’s better to write a short answer than none at all

No.

Trail hunting is just a smokescreen for illegal hunting and trails are rarely actually laid. A ban focused only on the type of scent used won’t work, because hunts may just pretend to follow non-animal based scents in ways which lead to “accidental” hunting. Recklessly or “accidentally” chasing or killing animals should also be banned.

Engaging in trail hunting should include laying a trail, or following a pack of dogs, through areas where wild mammals are likely to be. Participating in trail hunting should cover everyone involved, including hunt staff, organisers, riders and followers who assist in any way.

Q9. In relation to offences or conduct which would assist unlawful trail hunting to take place, we intend that it should be an offence for the owner or occupier of land to knowingly cause or permit another person to engage or participate in trail hunting on that land. Do you agree?

Yes.

Landowners should be held responsible because hunting with dogs can only happen if there is land to do it on. They should also have to take all reasonable steps to prevent hunting on their land so they can’t just turn a blind eye to what is happening on their property. Responsible landowners like the National Trust, the Malvern Hills Trust and many National Parks have already banned trail hunting.

Q10. In relation to offences or conduct which would assist unlawful trail hunting to take place, we intend that it should be an offence for the owner or person responsible for a dog to knowingly cause or permit another person to use the dog for trail hunting. Do you agree?

Yes.

The law should go further and require the owner or person responsible for a dog to take all reasonable steps to prevent it being used for trail hunting, so the hunts which own the hounds cannot shift all the responsibility onto individuals.

Yes.

Trail hunting is a smokescreen for illegal hunting which allows hunts to claim chasing and killing animals was an accident rather than intentional. Conduct which assists trail hunting includes:

• Behaving recklessly or not taking all reasonable steps to prevent a wild mammal being chased or killed
• Encouraging dogs to enter areas where wild mammals are likely to be
• The use of terriers or presence of terrier men, including blocking of earths to prevent animals escaping underground

Yes.

Banning the trail hunting will not work unless the law is strengthened more widely. If not, other loopholes will be exploited and new smokescreens created to carry on hunting illegally.

The Hunting Act 2004 should be strengthened, including by:

• Banning reckless or “accidental” hunting, by requiring hunts to take all reasonable steps to prevent an animal being chased or killed
• Removing all exemptions, which are also used as covers for illegal hunting
• Expanding the definition of hunting to include ‘searching’ for an animal
• Strengthening penalties, including with jail sentences

Yes.

There is no good reason for which dogs would need to be trained to follow an animal-based scent.

All exemptions in the Hunting Act which would involve hunting a wild mammal, such as carrying out scientific research, ‘rescuing’ a wild mammal, or conducting ‘wildlife management’ are cruel, unnecessary and exploited for illegal hunting and should be removed.

No.

Allowing animal-based scents for any purpose risks creating loopholes which will be exploited by hunts.

All exemptions in the Hunting Act which would involve hunting a wild mammal, such as ‘rescuing’ wild animals, carrying out scientific research or conducting ‘wildlife management’ are cruel, unnecessary and exploited for illegal hunting and should be removed.

No.

It is important to make sure hunts do not pretend to be drag hunting instead of trail hunting. An accurate description should also include that:

• Trails are not laid in areas wild mammals are likely to live, in a way which mimics the path of a wild mammal, through dangerous areas such as roads, or on private land without the landowner’s permission
• The people in charge of the hounds know where the trail has been laid

Yes.

The risk is low in genuine drag hunting. However, the law must be strengthened to ban reckless or “accidental” hunting, which will help to prevent hunts pretending to drag hunt.

No.

The description should also include that clean boot hunting involves the use of bloodhounds, which are very different to the dogs used for real/trail hunting.

No.

The risk to wild mammals is limited, but the law should be strengthened to ban reckless or “accidental” hunting, which will help to prevent hunts creating a new smokescreen.

Yes.

Reckless and “accidental” hunting should be banned, by requiring hunts to take all reasonable steps to prevent an animal being chased. This will help prevent hunts pretending to drag hunt.

No.

Other than being used by hunts to raise money, point to pointing is unrelated to trail hunting. Few people own horses only for trail hunting and there is no reason that other alternative equestrian activities can’t continue if trail hunting is banned.

Yes.

Hunts have a responsibility for the welfare of their hounds and should find loving homes for those no longer needed for hunting. Hounds often suffer at the hands at hunts, with thousands a year killed simply because they are seen as ‘unsuitable’ – such as being too slow. Hounds rarely live beyond seven years old before being killed by the hunt.

No.

Any transition period will lead to an extended period of time where animals will continue to be chased and killed under the smokescreen of trail hunting. Hunts have had more than twenty years to move away from illegal hunting and have known since at least 2024 that trail hunting would be banned.

Yes.

The majority of people who live in the countryside support a ban. A ban will be good for rural people and communities whose lives are disrupted by the crime and antisocial behaviour of hunts such as trespass, livestock worrying, violence, pets being chased and killed, hounds being hit on railway lines and accidents being caused on roads.

Hunts can switch to other activities which don’t involve chasing and killing wild animals.

The impact is likely to be limited especially if hunts switch to other activities which don’t involve chasing and killing wild animals.

No.

The rural economy doesn’t depend on trail hunting and hunts can switch to other activities which don’t involve chasing and killing wild animals. Money not spent on trail hunting is likely to be spent on other things in rural areas rather than being lost.

A ban will benefit wildlife and the environment because fewer animals will be illegally hunted and disturbance to habitats will be reduced. Hunting is also linked to the persecution of other animals such as badgers.

A ban will not work unless the law is strengthened more widely. If not, other loopholes will be exploited and new smokescreens created to carry on hunting illegally.

The Hunting Act 2004 should be strengthened, including by banning reckless or “accidental” hunting, removing all exemptions, expanding the definition of hunting to include ‘searching’ and strengthening penalties to include jail sentences.

You can use this question to add any personal experience you have. For example, you may have been directly affected by the hunt in your area, witnessed animals being chased or killed, or seen news coverage which has persuaded you that animals are still being hunted with dogs.