a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The

Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive

law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act

is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The

Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive

law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act

is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The

Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive

law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act

is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The

Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive

law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act

is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The

Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive

law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act

is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The

Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive

law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act

is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The

Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive

Following many years of debate and numerous parliamentary Bills the Hunting

A CONFUSING LAW From the outset, the practical application of the Hunting Act has been

22nd May 2007.

Exeter Crown Court, 30th November 2007.

4th August 2006. This conviction was overturned on appeal.

on hunting, The Times, 3rd July 2003.

An illi beral law The Hunting Act never had the support of the majority of parliamentarians who

in Parliament Square, 15th September 2004. “Now that hunting has been banned, we ought

Michael, Sunday Telegraph, 21st November 2004.

Tony Blair, A Journey (2010). “Over the last 20 years, the public and the media have come to regard several

I struggle to see how the Hunting Good Government a report by the Better Government Initiative, January 2010.

Lords, 12th October 2004.

a cruel law The Hunting Act does not protect wild mammals from unnecessary suffering,

Lord Burns 12th October 2004.

House of Lords, 12th March 2001.

Defra Minister Ben Bradshaw, House of Commons, 24th May 2005.

a divisi ve law Every law should start with a principle. Seeking to reduce the suffering of

Dennis Skinner MP, Labour Party Conference, 26th September 2004.

1st May 2007.

New Statesman editorial, 7th July 2003.

A cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive law The Hunting Act is a divisive law The Hunting Act is a 
divisive confusing law The Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive 
is a cruel law The is a cruel Hunting Act 2004 
law The 

The Case For 
divisive 

The Hunting Act 

REPEAL 

is a cruel 
law The 
divisive 

The Hunting Act 
is a cruel law The 
divisive 

is a cruel 
law The 

divisive 
law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act 
is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive law The Hunting Act is a confusing law The 
Hunting Act is an illiberal law The Hunting Act is a cruel law The Hunting Act is a divisive 


The Hunting Act 

THE CASE FOR REPEAL 


The Hunting Act 

INTRODUCTION 

F
F
ollowing many years of debate and numerous parliamentary Bills the Hunting 
Act finally came into force on 18th February 2005. The prejudice, misuse of 
science and abuse of parliamentary process that saw the Act onto the statute 
book and, now, clear evidence that this law is unworkable has led to criticism from 
politicians of all parties, including the Prime Minister at the time, senior civil servants, 
the police, the judiciary, veterinarians, the media and the public. 

The Hunting Act is unique in that its effects are entirely negative. It diminishes 
respect for Parliament; it diverts police attention from serious crime; it brings no 
benefit to the environment; it is a blatant example of political prejudice and it does 
nothing for the welfare or conservation of the species it claims to ‘protect’. In fact it 
is detrimental to their welfare. 

The Hunting Act is a law that fails at every level – it is confusing, illiberal, 
unprincipled and divisive. The question now is not whether hunting should, or should 
not, have been banned, but whether the Hunting Act is a piece of legislation that 
should remain on the statute book. In other words, should the Act be scrapped? 

This document makes the “Case for Repeal”. 


The Hunting Act 

F
F
rom the outset, the practical application of the Hunting Act has beenA CONFUSING LAW surrounded by confusion. Hunting is an ‘intentional’ activity. So it is the 

intention of a person engaged with a dog or dogs, not the action of those 

dogs, that is criminal. The fact that a dog is pursuing a fox, or another mammal, 

does not necessarily mean that an offence is being committed. 

The series of ‘exemptions’ designed to allow some types of hunting to continue 
were the result of political wrangling and are both illogical and unclear. For instance 
it is legal to hunt a rabbit, but not a hare unless it has been shot; a rat, but not a 
mouse. It is legal to use two dogs to flush a wild mammal to be shot by a waiting 
gun, but not three dogs. It is legal to use a terrier to flush a fox from below ground 
to be shot if it is threatening game birds, but illegal to use the same method if the 
fox is killing lambs. 

Defining these exemptions has been left to the police and the courts and experience 
has demonstrated both are confused. Not surprisingly so too are huntsmen. 

The Hunting Act has the same status as a minor road traffic violation. The police 
have said that they will investigate allegations of illegal hunting, but that they can 
only police hunting in the context of existing policing priorities. The situation is made 
even more confusing by spurious allegations of illegal hunting encouraged by antihunting 
groups, even though only a tiny number of Hunting Act prosecutions have 
involved registered hunts. The vast majority of convictions under the legislation are 
not connected to registered hunts and could have been achieved under legislation 
that pre-existed the Hunting Act. Unfounded allegations of Hunting Act offences 
are wasting police time and resources that could be better spent tackling serious 
crimes that affect the lives of ordinary people. 

THEY SAID IT… 


“Parliament’s vote for an outright ban on hunting with dogs fills many of 
my fellow officers with dread. Not because the police are pro-hunting 

– the service is determinedly neutral – but because of the practical 
implications of enforcing such a ban.” 
Unfortunately the wording 
Alastair McWhirter, Chief Constable of Suffolk and ACPO spokesman 
on hunting, The Times, 3rd July 2003. of the Act is ambiguous. 

Professor Sir Patrick Bateson appearing as a witness for the 
League Against Cruel Sports against the Quantock Staghounds, 
22nd May 2007. 

We observe at the outset that the experience of this case has led us to the conclusion that the 
(Hunting Act) is far from simple to interpret or to apply: it seems to us that any given set of facts 
may be susceptible to differing interpretations. The result is an unhappy state of affairs which 
leaves all those involved in a position of uncertainty. 

Judge Graham Cottle and two lay magistrates overturning the conviction of Tony Wright. 
Exeter Crown Court, 30th November 2007. 

The Act is difficult to 
enforce, as there are 
I might have been found guilty but I certainly don’t feel like a criminal. 

We had two hounds; a marksman and we shot a fox. I don’t know 
what else we were supposed to do to comply with the law. 

so many exemptions… 

Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor of the Daily 

Tony Wright, huntsman of the Exmoor Foxhounds, on being the 

Telegraph and BBC commentator on law. 

first huntsman to be convicted under the Hunting Act, 
April 2007. 4th August 2006. This conviction was overturned on appeal. 


The Hunting Act 

T
T
he Hunting Act never had the support of the majority of parliamentarians whoAN ILLIbERAL LAW voted during the passage of this law – in fact, more parliamentarians voted 

against it than for it. After some 700 hours of parliamentary time the Act was 

eventually driven through the House of Commons in a single day following a blatant 

breach of parliamentary protocol. It was then forced through using the ultimate 

constitutional sledgehammer, the Parliament Acts, which was used for only the 

fourth time since 1949. 

The measure of a true democracy is tolerance: tolerance of minorities and, in 
particular, tolerance of activities that the majority might not support. Legislation, 
especially legislation that prohibits an activity of profound cultural importance, 
should be considered only if it can be proved to remove a demonstrable harm. 

Despite years of consultation and debate, and a government inquiry, there was 
never any evidence that hunting created that harm. Scientific evidence was either 
ignored or invented to suit the argument for a ban. Meanwhile, there was clear 
evidence that the motivation of many who supported the Act was straightforward 
prejudice and the settling of old political scores. 

As long as the Hunting Act remains on the Statute Book, it will be a contradiction of 
Britain’s claim to be a tolerant and moderate society. 

THEY SAID IT… 


This is what happens when democracy goes wrong. 

BBC Political Editor Andrew Marr during a pro-hunt demonstration 

“Now that hunting has been banned, we ought

in Parliament Square, 15th September 2004. 

at last to own up to it: the struggle over the Bill 
was not just about animal welfare and personal 
freedom, it was class war.” 

Peter Bradley MP, PPS to Defra Minister Alun 

The fox hunting subject resulted 
Michael, Sunday Telegraph, 21st November 2004. 
in one of the domestic legislative 

measures I most regret 

Tony Blair, A Journey (2010). 
“Over the last 20 years, the public and the media have come to regard several 
events as notorious examples of bad government: the Community Charge 
(now remembered as the Poll Tax) in 1990, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, 
the failure of the Child Support Agency, the Hunting Act 2004, the story of the 
Millennium Dome.” 

I struggle to see how the Hunting 
Good Government a report by the Better Government Initiative, January 2010. 

Act 2004 passes the Minister, Alun 

Michael’s, test that the legislation 

should be soundly based on 

evidence and principle and that it 

Tony, if you invoke the Parliament Act it will 

should stand the test of time. 

Lord Burns, Chairman of the Inquiry be the most illiberal act of the last century. 

into Hunting with Dogs, House of Former Labour Home Secretary and mentor to Tony Blair, Roy Jenkins to Blair 
Lords, 12th October 2004. shortly before Lord Jenkins’ death in January 2003. 


The Hunting Act 

A CRUEL LAW 

T
T
he Hunting Act does not protect wild mammals from unnecessary suffering, 
nor does it promote their conservation. It simply bans most forms of hunting 
despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that the alternatives are 
better for wild mammal welfare. Indeed hunting is the only form of wild mammal 
management that is inherently both selective and non-wounding. The impact of the 
Hunting Act has actually been that more foxes, deer and hares are being killed. 

A pack of hounds has a unique “search and dispatch” function so hunting can truly 
be regarded as the natural means of managing wildlife. However, the Act limits the 
options available to farmers and land managers for controlling and managing wild 
mammals, which makes it difficult to find animals that are suffering and almost 
impossible to protect lambs and other livestock in many areas. 

Hunting with dogs is a combination of wildlife management, pest control and 
recreation and has also played a crucial role in the creation and management of 
the British countryside for centuries. The Act threatens the conservation work that 
hunts, and land managers who support hunting, have carried out for generations. 

Despite the millions of pounds spent on the anti-hunting campaign and given the 
difficulties that the Hunting Act creates for the management and welfare of wildlife, 
neither the previous Government nor any animal welfare group has been willing to 
assess the impact of this legislation. 

THEY SAID IT… 


Hunting is the natural and most humane 
“Describing, as we did, the final moments of a hunt

way of controlling the population of all as ‘seriously compromising the welfare of the hunted 

animal’ should not be taken as a suggestion that

four quarry species. 

hunting was measurably worse than other legal 
Supported by over 560 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons methods, or that abolition would improve the plight of 

– June 2004. [A Veterinary Opinion on Hunting with Hounds.] wild animals in the countryside.” 
Professor Sir John Marsh and Professor Michael 
Winter, members of the Committee of Inquiry into 

Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... 

Hunting with Dogs, a letter to Environment Minister

the short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient 

Margaret Beckett, May 2005. 

verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. 

Lord Burns, Chairman of the Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs. 
House of Lords, 12th March 2001. 

“[There] are a range of reasons why I concluded that it was difficult to reach a 

“Yet it may come as a surprise to those 

very clear view on the issue of welfare, and that to use that argument in a very

whose understanding of wildlife conservation 

strong position, one way or the other, continues to fall some way short of the sort 

is shaped by beguiling television images of 

of evidence needed to make substantial political interventions... there is no clear

‘wild nature’ that field sports, as practiced 

scientific support for the animal welfare implications of a ban.” 

over the last 50 years, have been almost 
universally good for the hunted species 

Lord Burns 12th October 2004. 

and the non-hunted, non-predators that 
thrive in the same habitat.” 

Robin Sharp; Chair Emeritus of the 
International Union for Conservation of 

The Government have no plans to 

Nature and Natural Resources (European 

Sustainable Use Specialist Group), Silent evaluate the effects of the Hunting Act. 

Summer, (2010). Defra Minister Ben Bradshaw, House of Commons, 24th May 2005. 


The Hunting Act 

E
E
very law should start with a principle. Seeking to reduce the suffering of A DIvISIvE LAW any animal is desirable, but to choose to remove one activity without proper 

understanding of its process and without consideration of what may fill the 

vacuum is irresponsible. To do so against the united view of a sizeable body of law-

abiding citizens means that the measure will never work and will inevitably create 

a profound division in society. The Hunting Act, which was based on ignorance, 

prejudice and ill informed moral stances, is just such a measure and the outcome 

was always going to be bad, not least for the animals involved. 

At a time of profound social and economic change in rural communities it was this 
issue that dominated the then Government’s agenda and cemented the view that 
it did not understand, or care about, the real issues of the countryside. Worse, it 
became quite clear that Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior ministers knew 
that there were more pressing issues and felt that a ban was wrong. Unfortunately, 
backbenchers who were obsessed with what they saw as a need for a total ban on 
hunting would accept no compromise. 

Repealing the Act and removing the running sore at the heart of rural policy need 
not be complicated or time consuming and with the list of critics growing, many 
people increasingly see its demise as inevitable. A Government determined to focus 
on working for the countryside could send no clearer signal than scrapping the 
Hunting Act. 

THEY SAID IT… 


My own view is that the ban isn’t 

Although what has been prohibited by the Hunting

working. It’s a farce really. 

Act is a specific set of practices what has been put 
under threat, from the perspective of those who

David Cameron MP, as Leader of the Opposition, 

hunted, is a cherished way of life. 

1st May 2007. 

International Journal of Cultural Property (2007) 
Garry Marvin, Professor of Human-Animal 
Studies, Roehampton University. 

The more I learned, the more 
uneasy I became. I started to realise 

Be clear. Only one argument matters on 

this wasn’t a small clique of weirdo 
inbreds delighting in cruelty, but a hunting: that it doesn’t matter… if politics is

tradition, embedded by history and 
profound community and social the language of priorities, then our politicians 
liens, that was integral to a way 
of life… Fox hunting mattered have never got it so badly wrong. 
profoundly to a group of people, New Statesman editorial, 7th July 2003.
who were a minority but had a right, 

at least, to defend their way of life. 

Tony Blair, A Journey (2010). 

“This is a dispute we must win, having long ago ceased to be 
about the fate of a few thousand deer and foxes. It’s about 
who governs us. Us or them?” 

Chris Mullin (former Labour MP) – A View from the Foothills 
“This has nothing to do with animal welfare – this is for the miners.” (2009). 

Dennis Skinner MP, Labour Party Conference, 26th September 2004. 


Countryside Alliance 
The Old Town Hall 
367 Kennington Road 
London SE11 4PT 

Tel: 020 7840 9200 
Fax: 020 7793 8484 

Email: info@countryside-alliance.org.uk 
Website: countryside-alliance.org.uk 
© 2011 Countryside Alliance 

Channel 

Political Awards 

Political Personality of the Decade