Broken Countryside – briefing paper 2025

[While this new document reveals the welfare problems the Hunting Act has created for the fox, hare and red deer, it also addresses issues surrounding the proposed ban on trail hunting which are absolutely relevant to the We Are Hunting project, hence its link is included on this website.]

The Unintended Impact of Hunting Legislation on

• Animal Welfare
• Rural Economies
• Rural Communities

Introduction

To help you evaluate the evidence produced in this briefing paper, and arrive at a reasoned and objective conclusion about hunting and the full impact of past and future regulation, it is important to establish our credentials and to describe the methods we employed to gather the material presented here.

Jim Barrington and I have spent much of the last thirty-five years, together and independently, observing the animal welfare consequences of hunting, analysing the contribution that hunting makes to rural economies and rural communities and, since 2004, charting the unintended negative consequences of the Hunting Act. While much of our work is undertaken voluntarily, some has been funded by private individuals and by organisations, though never on a condition of influencing the independence and objectivity of our findings. Indeed, Jim and I disagree about some aspects of hunting, which we have been happy to air publicly.

Neither of us has ever hunted. From long observation we believe that most aspects of hunting provide better animal welfare than alternative methods of fox, hare and deer control.

I have written extensively about ecology, conservation, farming and development issues in both published books and for a wide range of newspapers and magazines. My services are for hire but not my judgment or beliefs.

Jim is a former hunt saboteur and director of the League Against Cruel Sports, who left the League when he realised that a hunting ban would decrease the welfare of hunted species. He is Animal Welfare Advisor to the Countryside Alliance.

Our sole aim in issuing this briefing paper is to inform legislators and others about how the 2004 Hunting Act has made life worse for both animals and people and to stimulate debate. We hope that lessons can be learned before further restrictions are introduced.

The authors, environmental writer Charlie Pye-Smith and animal welfare consultant Jim Barrington, received reports of animal suffering and other negative impacts arising as a direct consequence of the 2004 Hunting Act.

In 2022 the authors established the Rural Wrongs project to find out at first hand how the 2004 legislation has affected formerly hunted species.

Over the course of 18 months, the two travelled across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, talking to farmers, landowners, gamekeepers, hunters, conservationists and shooters – the people at the sharp end of countryside management – about the impact of the 2004 hunting ban. They also consulted scientists studying fox, deer and hare populations.

Their findings were published in Rural Wrongs: Hunting and the Unintended Consequences of Bad Law (2023, reprinted in paperback 2025), copies of which can be purchased from www.amazon.co.uk and from www.browndogbooks.uk.

Summary

This briefing paper provides a summary of the evidence collected over the last twenty years which shows that the 2004 Hunting Act has made matters worse for animal welfare and rural communities. Much of the evidence appears in Rural Wrongs¹, of which a second edition has recently been published, and in Rural Rites².

We now have clear evidence that the 2004 legislation has caused extensive animal suffering. The Labour government has recently pledged to introduce legislation to ban trail hunting without considering whether this could cause even more suffering. There is absolutely no doubt that a ban would have a negative impact on the rural economy and local communities.

Trail hunting, exempt under the 2004 Hunting Act, uses a pre-laid scent rather than live quarry for hounds to follow, and was previously considered to be the ‘humane alternative’ by groups opposed to hunting. Now some animal rights groups claim that trail hunting is used as a smokescreen for pursuing a wild mammal and the Labour government appears to accept this accusation.

The latest Labour Party Animal Welfare manifesto states that they plan to go much further than a ban on trail hunting. The party has pledged to “Enhance and strengthen the Hunting Act” by introducing a recklessness clause, removing some of the current exemptions, and possibly introducing custodial sentences. Again, no attention has been given to the unintended consequences inflicted by bad law.

This paper sets out to brief politicians and others by providing examples of the animal suffering and rural economic and social impoverishment inflicted by the legislation. The purpose is to encourage politicians to think carefully before compounding the misery caused by the 2004 Act by introducing even more restrictive legislation.

1. C. Pye-Smith, Rural Wrongs: Hunting and the Unintended Consequences of Bad Law (RS Surtees Society, 2023) ↩︎
2. C. Pye-Smith, Rural Rites: Hunting and the Politics of Prejudice (All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group, 2006) ↩︎

1. The Unintended Consequences of the 2004 Hunting Act

The 2004 Hunting Act banned most forms of hunting with dogs in England and Wales. Anti-hunting groups initially claimed that the legislation was effective and urged hunts to adopt trail hunting, which involves hounds following a pre-laid scent rather than live quarry.
Many hunts have complied by adopting trail hunting while others have used various legal exemptions within the Hunting Act to manage or control fox, brown hare and red deer populations. For example, staghounds in the West Country can use only two dogs to track deer, rather than a full pack, under two exemptions, one for scientific purposes, the other for the dispatch of an injured animal.

1.1 More suffering for foxes

Since the ban, foxes have been virtually wiped out in some areas. The availability of affordable thermal imaging and night-vision equipment has made it much easier to shoot foxes. Some areas, such as grouse moors and nature reserves, will require a much-reduced fox population to ensure that vulnerable species, and especially ground-nesting birds, can flourish. However, a new field sport callec “foxing” has emerged. This is now practised not just by gamekeepers, who have a legitimate reason to control fox numbers, but by people who enjoy killing foxes and often boast about their exploits on social media.

Prior to the hunting ban, foxes killed above ground by hounds tended to be the weak, the diseased and the unlucky. Death was almost instantaneous. Shooting, in contrast, takes out the fit and healthy as well. Inevitably, shooting carries with it the risk of wounding as not every shooter is competent or uses the latest equipment.

Before the ban, many sheep farmers who had problems with a fox would ask the local huntsman to come with his or her hounds to track it down. Nine out of 10 times, they would get the guilty party. Since the ban, most hill farmers have relied on hired marksmen. They frequently shoot a dozen or more foxes on a farm without getting the lamb-killing fox. These deaths are totally unnecessary.

Before the hunting ban, many landowners recognised that hunting was about more than controlling foxes. It was about culture and tradition and there was a social contract whereby many estates made sure there were always some foxes around during the hunting season. Hunting’s soft power has waned since the ban, and it is now open season on the fox, year round, in many parts of the countryside.

This vixen had survived a rifle shot wound which shattered her jaw,

blinded her in one eye and severed her tongue. The post-mortem showed that she had survived for some days before she was found and killed by the Llanbrynmaer Foxhounds in early 2004.

Shooting of foxes, often touted as a viable alternative to hunting,

is less selective, in this case causing the death of a nursing vixen whose cubs will be left to starve (© J. Barrington)

1.2 Less healthy deer herds

Under the 2004 Hunting Act, stag hunting in the West Country has been allowed to continue under the “research and observation” and “rescue” exemptions. However, hunts can now use only two dogs rather than a full pack. This has made a significant difference – for the worse, not the better.

As a result, deer are now congregating in larger and less mobile herds. This has led to a significant increase in bovine TB. Over 42% of the deer shot on the National Trust’s Holnicote Estate, where hunting was banned in 1997, recently tested positive for bovine TB, compared to just 16.6% in areas on Exmoor where the hunt still operates. Hunting acts as a prophylactic which helps to maintain a healthy deer population, even if the hunts can only use two dogs.

A key function of the hunts has always been to find and dispatch casualty deer, such as those wounded by shooters or hit by cars. However, this has become much harder with two dogs. One hunt reports that it is now dispatching about a quarter of the number of casualty deer it dealt with before the Hunting Act. That means many more animals are being left to die slowly of their injuries.

Some people on Exmoor no longer see hunting as an effective community-based conservation process. As a result, there has been a loss of respect for the species and an increase in poaching. This has led to more wounding and more suffering.

1.3 Increased Hare Poaching

Two different field sports were banned by the 2004 Hunting Act: hare coursing, which tested the skills and stamina of two greyhounds as they chased a hare; and hare hunting using scent hounds like beagles.

During three days after the ban came into force in 2005, 3000 hares were shot on just two estates in East Anglia – not for food or to protect arable crops, but to deter gangs of poachers from invading the land. This was a classic example of the unintended consequences of bad law.

Before the ban, hares benefited from conservation measures. For example, coursing clubs encouraged farmers to plant cover crops to provide shelter from predators. They paid for crop damage caused by hares. They organised anti-poaching controls. All this conservation work came to an end with the hunting ban.

Since the ban, illegal coursing, which involves setting dogs on hares, has become a major problem in parts of the lowlands. Poaching gangs threaten and frequently attack farmers, gamekeepers and the police. The economic and social costs of illegal coursing have been huge.

While some farmers have spent large sums of money installing heavy iron gates and digging trenches to keep the gangs off their fields, many others are dealing with the problem in a different way. They simply shoot hares on their land whenever they appear. This is another example of the hunting ban’s negative impact.

1.4 Observed Examples

The following occurrences can be attributed, in whole or in part, to the 2004 Hunting Act, legislation that was supposed to make life better for the hunted species:

• a dozen foxes hung up on a farm gate in West Wales by the men who shot them the night before – just to show what they’ve done.
• A pyramid of fox corpses outside the back door of a gamekeeper’s house on an intensive shooting estate in Devon
• Fox cubs starving to death in their earths because their mothers have been killed
• Broken gates, damaged crops, terrorised farmers and a pile of dead hares on a farm track in East Anglia – the calling card of the illegal coursers who plague the eastern lowlands
• Sick and injured red deer dying a slow, painful death on Exmoor because huntsmen can no longer use a full pack of hounds to find them.

Neither the anti-hunting organisations, which spent an estimated £30 million campaigning for a ban, or the UK government have commissioned studies to assess the impact of the 2004 Hunting Act on quarry species. Furthermore, there has been a striking lack of scientific research to evaluate which methods of population control – shooting, hunting with dogs, the use of terriers, snaring – cause the least, or most, suffering. Having previously claimed the 2004 Hunting Act was sound and workable law, anti-hunting organisations now consider it to be unsatisfactory.

If the Labour Party pursues its manifesto pledges, this will almost certainly have a further detrimental impact not just on animal welfare but on the rural economy too. It will also have a devastating impact on communities where hunting with hounds binds together people from all walks of life.

Based on the evidence we gathered, the next section describes the likely impact that a ban on trail hunting, and other measures proposed by the Labour Party, would have on animal welfare, rural jobs and the mental welfare of hunting communities.

2. The unintended consequences of banning trail hunting

2.1 An unconstitutional affront to liberty

Banning trail hunting on the grounds that some hunts have used it as a smokescreen for pursuing live quarry would mean that the innocent, the registered packs which are trail hunting within the law, would be punished for crimes they have not committed. It would be like closing down public lavatories because some of them are used for dealing or taking hard drugs. It would be deeply illiberal.

2.2 Damaging Rural Trades

Hunt kennels are small rural businesses. Not only do they house the hounds, they employ full and part-time staff, and provide housing and livery for horses. In addition, ancillary trades, such a feed merchants and farriers, rely on the hunts for business. Many hotels and pubs benefit from the patronage of hunts and their supporters, especially during the winter months. A fallen stock service is also offered to livestock farmers by many hunts. Hunt kennels are recognised by the government and local authorities as local businesses, supporting the sometimes fragile rural economy.

2.3 Loss of rural jobs

Hunt staff tend to live at the kennels. A ban, in whatever form it takes, could make many hunts unviable and could lead to the closure of some 170 kennels in England and Wales. Many hundreds of hunt staff would lose their jobs, and they and their families would lose their homes too.

2.4 The fate of hunting hounds

A ban on trail hunting could have devastating implications for some 10,000 hounds. Some could be sent abroad to other hunts, and some might be re-trained to hunt the drag, but for the majority their fate would be far worse. Foxhounds and their close relatives are pack animals. It is very hard to turn them into pets. If there were a full ban the vast majority of hounds would almost certainly be put down.

2.5 Draghounds and bloodhounds

These types of hunts became popular in the 1800s and like trail hunting do not involve pursuit of a live prey. In the case of drag hunting, a false trail is laid in precisely the same way trail hunting is undertaken, the only difference being that the scent is not animal-based. Bloodhound packs follow the scent of a human runner.

If trail hunting is banned, it is unclear how anyone, includingthe police, will be able to determine what type of scent is being laid and what chemical, if any, is being used. The photographs here illustrate how similar trail and drag hunts appear. The police cannot be expected to determine which activity is, or isn’t, against the law if trail hunting is banned and drag hunting is allowed to continue.

2.6 An uncertain future for hunting horses

Some people maintain that a ban on trail hunting would not prevent a change to drag hunting. However, this view is based on ignorance. Drag hunting is a much faster sport than trail hunting and many of the horses and ponies used in trail hunting are not suited to it. If Labour carries out its manifesto pledges, large numbers of horses will almost certainly come on the market. Whether they will find buyers is another matter. Many hunting horses are far too feisty for “happy hackers” who like trotting around the countryside at weekends.

2.7 The impact on mental health

Access to the countryside, and the company of others, is highly beneficial for mental health. This is widely recognised. Following hunts, watching hounds and taking part in the numerous social events organised by hunts is a vitally important part of their lives for tens of thousands of people.

A ban on trail hunting and the closure of hunts would have a devastating impact on mental health, especially in remote rural areas.

2.8 Increased suffering for quarry species

Prior to the Hunting Act, fox populations were limited and kept healthy by removal of the weak, diseased and injured. Hunting also ensured that foxes were not exterminated.

The possibility of a total ban on hunting, as proposed by the Labour Party, will almost certainly make life even worse for the fox and other quarry species. The legal exemptions in the current legislation allow for a degree of control where necessary and for wounded animals, such as hares, to be found and dispatched. A total ban will almost certainly mean that foxes and hares will be killed in greater numbers, and sometimes more horribly by other means.

3. Who to believe?

Those who oppose hunting and those who support hunting have strong feelings and often present subjective and emotive arguments rather than rational and objective evidence. Who should you believe?

3.1 The damage done is undeniable

First, we propose that, though unintended, the harm to animal welfare, rural economies and rural communities inflicted by the 2004 Hunting Act is true and undeniable. It is fact. Wherever you stand on the issue of hunting, no-one on either side wishes to see unnecessary animal suffering or economically and socially impoverished communities. Any future legislation on hunting needs to make an honest consideration of the damage done by previous legislation to ensure that the problems are not made worse.

3.2 Not all anecdotal evidence is unreliable

Previous work by the present authors has been criticised by some people, both within and outside the hunting community, on the grounds that much of the evidence presented is anecdotal. This is true. However , precisely the same could be said about the 2000 Burns Report, which describes the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales and is widely quoted. Likewise, the Bonomy Report commissioned by the Scottish government is not a scientific report.

Much of the scientific “evidence” put forward in favour of the 2004 hunting ban has subsequently been shown to be anything but sound. Good law cannot be founded on bad science.

Furthermore, other motives, including class prejudice and cash for policies – Tony Blair’s government accepted a £1m donation from an anti-hunting group – have played a major role in the campaign to secure banning legislation.

Legislators and others therefore need to weigh the credibility and motivation of anyone presenting evidence and select which evidence they should use to make a reasoned and objective judgment.

3.3 95% of prosecutions are not for hunting

The League Against Cruel Sports claims that there have been hundreds of eyewitness reports of illegal hunting, yet since 2004 there have been only a handful of successful prosecutions. In fact 95% of prosecutions brought under the 2004 Hunting Act have been for offences not involving organised hunts, though admittedly a few hunts have been prosecuted.

3.4 Evidence of lawbreakers is suspect

The few successful prosecutions of hunts make it clear that widespread reports of hunts breaking the law are unreliable and that evidence has been distorted or grossly exaggerated. Many reports of the law being broken come from so-called ‘hunt monitors’ and hunt saboteurs. As is well known, hunt saboteurs resort to violence on a regular basis to disrupt hunts.

Other evidence comes from ordinary members of the public who, for a variety of reasons, report what they think are illegal activities but which may be trail hunting, drag hunting, hunting using legal exemptions, or simply hunts exercising hounds.

4. Where do we go from here?

It is abundantly clear that the 2004 Hunting Act has been a dismal failure. Nobody is happy: neither the hunters who feel that their activities have been severely curtailed, nor the animal rights activists who campaigned for a ban. It has made life worse for the quarry species, not better. It has led to an increase in conflict in the countryside, not peace. It was so poorly drafted that it has been difficult and expensive to enforce.

4.1 Blair regrets introducing the 2004 Act

The Hunting Act has been criticised by many individuals unconnected to hunting, including veterinarians, animal welfare experts, chief police officers, conservationists, senior civil servants and the person whose government introduced the hunting ban. Tony Blair’s masterly British compromise, as he termed it, has been nothing of the sort, and Blair has since publicly regretted introducing the measure.

4.2 Consider an alternative approach

It is clear that those opposed to hunting view the activity in extremely narrow terms and therefore they ignore the consequences of a hunting ban. Now they are pushing for a tightening of the legislation, once again ignoring the damaging consequences a full trail hunting ban would bring. 

While many people feel the use of scent hounds hunting in a pack is an important component in the various methods used in wildlife management, they may also have concerns about how some hunts operate. Their preference may be to regulate hunts, which begs the obvious question, how might this be achieved? Yet examples of alternative legislation that genuinely addresses acts of cruelty exists while also allowing for the use of scenting hounds in wildlife management.

It is time to call a truce between pros and antis and allow a significant amount of time for an independent body to dispassionately decide what is best for the relevant wildlife species, the rural economy and countryside communities.

“Instead of compounding its errors with a total ban, the government should invite an independent body to review existing legislation and determine whether the Hunting Act should be amended, repealed or retained.”

While we do not have the resources to handle large numbers of enquiries, if you would like to contact one or both of the authors please send an email to rural.wrongs@gmail.com.