You Can Help Close The Trail Hunting Loophole
Trail hunting was never believable. Not really.
The idea that people who spent generations chasing foxes suddenly got together after the Hunting Act and developed a deep spiritual passion for following pretend smells across the countryside was always insulting.
Now the UK government is consulting on a proposed ban on trail hunting in England and Wales. Good. About time.
But if this becomes another polite reform full of loopholes, exemptions, licensing schemes, transition periods and trust-based nonsense, hunts will do what they have done for the last 20 years. They will adapt the costume. They will keep the hunt.
Hunting wild mammals with dogs was banned in 2004. Since then, hunts have claimed they are no longer chasing foxes, hares or other wild animals. They are simply following a pre-laid trail.
What a coincidence, then, that the hounds so often seem to end up pursuing living animals.
What a coincidence that hunt monitors, local residents, passers-by and activists have recorded thousands of hours of footage suggesting trail hunting is used as a smokescreen for unlawful hunting.
What a coincidence that the countryside keeps filling with people on horses, packs of hounds, terrier men, blocked roads, trespass, intimidation, badger sett interference and dead animals.
At some point, “accident” becomes model.
The public is not on the side of hunting. A League Against Cruel Sports poll found that 62% of people support a trail hunting ban. More than 80% of Britons oppose fox hunting. Just 12% want it legalised.
Hunts love pretending they are the countryside. They are not.
There is no single rural community. There are rural people who oppose hunting. There are rural people whose land is invaded, whose companion animals are chased or killed, whose roads are blocked, whose lives are disrupted by people who think tradition is a licence to do whatever they want.
Hunting does not represent rural life. It imposes itself on rural life, then hides behind it.
The proposed ban must not focus only on the fiction of the “trail”. That is the wrong starting point. The law should not be built around what hunts claim they are doing. It should be built around what their actions predictably cause.
If a pack of hounds is taken into places where wild mammals live, such as coverts, hedgerows, setts and resting places, it is foreseeable that those hounds may locate, pursue or hunt a wild animal. That should be enough.
The requirement to prove intent has helped create the theatre of plausible deniability. Hunts do not need to openly announce their intentions if the whole structure allows everyone involved to shrug and call it an accident afterwards.
The law should use a foreseeability or recklessness test. Would a reasonable person recognise that these actions could result in a wild mammal being hunted with dogs?
If yes, that should be an offence.
This also means liability cannot stop with the person nearest the hounds. Hunting is a joint enterprise. It relies on organisers, masters, directors, landowners, dog handlers, drivers, funders, equipment providers and supporters. Everyone gets a role. Everyone gets distance. Everyone gets to pretend responsibility belongs somewhere else.
That must end.
Landowners who knowingly allow hunts onto their land should be liable. Those who provide dogs, transport, equipment, access or logistical support should be liable. Those who witness unlawful hunting and fail to take reasonable steps to stop it, report it or withdraw support should not be able to just stand there. A “failure to prevent” offence should be introduced.
A “going equipped” offence should be introduced too. If someone turns up with the dogs, tools or equipment associated with locating, pursuing, digging out or killing wild mammals, they should not be able to escape responsibility because no animal happened to be caught that day.
We already understand this principle elsewhere. You do not need to wait for the full damage before recognising the machinery of the offence.
The same logic applies to drag hunting and clean boot hunting. If these activities put packs of hounds into environments where wild mammals are present, they create the same foreseeable risk. A fox does not care whether the humans call it trail hunting, drag hunting or clean boot hunting. Once hounds are in pursuit, the branding collapses.
Hunts have had 20 years to prove they can be trusted with ambiguity. They have proved the opposite.
Protect the Wild found more than 300 incidents of hunt cruelty, chaos and criminality before the 2024 hunting season had even begun. In the previous season, nearly 600 wild animals were reportedly chased or killed. There were at least six illegal attempts to dig foxes from the ground and 124 incidents involving interference with badger setts.
This is not culture war nonsense.
This is organised animal exploitation protected by loopholes, status and political cowardice.
Animal-based scents and artificial scents that mimic animal scents should also be banned. There is no good reason to preserve the tools that allow hunts to train hounds around the pursuit of wild animals, then act shocked when hounds do exactly what they have been bred and trained to do.
The same applies to transition periods. No.
Wild animals do not need a managed phase-out of being hunted. Hunts do not need extra time to reorganise their excuses.
And the “what about the hounds?” argument deserves no patience from people who routinely kill hounds when they are no longer useful. Existing hounds should be retired, rehomed or moved into suitable sanctuary environments with proper oversight. They should not be used as hostages to keep hunting alive.
This consultation is a chance to do more than ban a word.
A real ban must cover hunting with hounds in practice. It must focus on foreseeable outcomes, not claimed intent. It must criminalise facilitation. It must hold the hunt as a whole responsible. It must close the trail hunting loophole without opening new ones under different names.
Wild animals are not resources.
They are not moving targets for rural cosplay.
They are not legal puzzles for hunts to manoeuvre around.
The government is asking for feedback until the 18th of June 2026.