The 2026 Hunting Consultation

Q 7: Do you agree with this proposed definition of “trail hunting”?

No. Trail hunting has been widely used as a cover for illegal hunting with dogs. Evidence shows that trails are frequently not laid, not followed, or are abandoned when a live animal is encountered. To prevent this, the definition must focus on the effects of ‘trail hunting’ and foreseeable risks of the activity, rather than on claimed intent or scent type. The definition of trail hunting should extend to include any activity in which one or more dogs are deployed, encouraged, or permitted to pursue a scent in circumstances in where it is reasonably foreseeable that a wild mammal may be flushed, chased, pursued, injured or killed by those dogs.

Q 8: What types of conduct should be covered by ‘engagement’ or ‘participation’ in trail hunting? 

‘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 the hunt in any way. The definition should also include failures to take reasonable steps to prevent pursuit where a person has the ability to do so. Liability for ‘participation’ should not depend on intent, or holding a formal role. 

Q 9: 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 for what is happening on their land. 

Any new legislation should require landowners  to take all reasonable steps to prevent hunting on their land and to report suspected illegal activity to ensure that they are not simply claiming to be ignorant of illegal activity happening on their property.  

Q 10: 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.  

Trail hunting is an organised activity, and dogs are often provided by people who are not physically present in control. Making it an offence to knowingly cause or permit a dog to be used closes a clear loophole and creates proper accountability for dog owners. 

The law should go further and require the owner or those responsible for a dog to take all reasonable steps to prevent them being used for trail hunting.  

This would ensure that hunts which own the hounds cannot shift all the responsibility onto individuals.

Q 11: Are there any other forms of conduct which should be considered as possible offences in relation to offences or conduct which would assist unlawful trail hunting to take place? 

Yes.

The current Hunting Act has allowed Trail hunting to act as a smokescreen for illegal hunting.  

Under the current law, hunts have been able to claim chasing and killing animals was an accident rather than the intended purpose of the hunt.  

Updated legislation should remove loopholes which allow for unlawful hunting to take place. This 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 

Q 12: Do you consider that any other legislative changes are necessary to ensure that a ban on trail hunting is effective? 

Yes. Banning trail hunting alone will not work unless the existing law is strengthened alongside it. The current legislation that banned hunting with dogs allowed trail hunting to develop as a convenient loophole.

Simply banning trail hunting isn't enough; hunters will exploit existing loopholes to continue to hunt illegally, unless comprehensive safeguards are put in place.

To be effective, in addition to a ban on trail hunting, the Hunting Act 2004 must be strengthened by:

• Banning reckless or "accidental" hunting: Requiring hunts to take all reasonable steps to prevent an animal from being chased or killed or risk prosecution.
• Removing all existing exemptions: Closing off avenues that are frequently used as covers for illegal hunting such as allowing hunting with dogs to take place for ‘research and observation’, ‘falconry’ and ‘rescue of a wild animal’  
• Expanding the definition of hunting: Ensuring it explicitly includes "searching" for an animal rather than simply ‘hunting’  
• Strengthening penalties: At present, the average fine for a conviction under the Hunting Act is less than £500, despite the offence technically carrying the potential for an unlimited fine. New legislation should seek to introduce jail sentences, increase minimum fines, and allow for the seizure of property connected with an offence. 

Q 13: Do you think that it is possible for dogs to be appropriately trained for specific purposes other than trail hunting without the use of either animal based scents or artificial scents which mimic an animal based scent. 

Yes.

Dogs can be effectively trained for many purposes without animal-based scents or artificial scents that mimic prey. Examples include dogs trained for detection of explosives, drugs and other specific non-animal chemical compounds, and recreational scent work using plant-based or neutral scents. These disciplines are well established and effective, showing there is no evidence that dog training requires animal-based scents. The use of animal scents, or animal mimic scents, only increases the likelihood for the trained dog to pursue a wild animal.

There are several exemptions in the Hunting Act which are exploited as cover for illegal hunting, including: carrying out scientific research; ‘rescuing’ a wild mammal; and conducting ‘wildlife management’. These exemptions are unnecessary and should be removed. 

Q 14: Do you think that it should remain lawful, in certain circumstances, for animal based scents, or scents which mimic animal based scents, to be used in training dogs for certain purposes? 

No.  

Given the widespread evidence that animal based and prey mimicking scents are routinely used as a proxy for hunting, there is no safe or necessary justification for their continued lawful use.  

Effective dog training can be achieved using non animal scents for all legitimate purposes. Allowing animal based or mimic scents creates an inherent risk of misuse and will create major enforcement challenges. A clear prohibition will provide legal certainty, prevent abuse, and better protect wildlife. 

Q 15: We understand that drag hunting is an equestrian sport where an artificial non-animal based scent trail, which does not mimic an animal based scent, is laid along a pre-determined route for hounds to follow. Do you agree that this is an accurate description of drag hunting? 

No.

To prevent drag hunting from being exploited as a loophole to continue hunting wild animals with dogs, drag hunting should be further defined as an activity in which:

a) the risk of encountering wild mammals is proactively minimised, through both route planning and timing;

b) the behaviour, path or escape patterns of a wild mammal are not mimicked;  

c) the trail is not laid through or close to dangerous areas such as roads, or on private land without the landowner’s permission.  

d) those in charge of the hounds know and have a detailed map of where the trail has been laid. 

Q 16: Do you think that there is a risk that dogs engaged in drag hunting will deviate from the pre-laid trail by the scent of a wild mammal and then pursue the wild mammal? 

Yes. Although the risks associated with genuine drag hunting are limited, packs of hounds cannot always be reliably controlled in the field.  

Consequently, current legislation must be strengthened to criminalise reckless or 'accidental' hunting. This necessary change will prevent hunts from using the pretense of drag hunting to continue to circumvent the law and put animals at risk. 

Q 17: We understand ‘clean boot’ hunting is an activity where hounds hunt human runners who neither wear nor drag any form of artificial scent enhancement. Do you agree that this is an accurate description of ‘clean boot’ hunting? 

No.

The description should also include a clear statement that clean boot hunting involves the use of bloodhounds, which are very different to the foxhounds used in trail hunting.

The description should also include a provision that runners follow a pre-set course that avoids known habitats of wild animals, private land, farmland and infrastructure such as roads and railways.  

Q 18: Do you think there is a risk that dogs engaged in clean boot hunting will deviate from their pursuit of human runners to the pursuit of wild mammals? 

The risk to wild mammals is limited however packs of hounds cannot always be reliably controlled in the field.

The law should be strengthened to ban reckless or “accidental” hunting, which will help to prevent hunts creating a new smokescreen. 

Q 19: Do you think that a new law to ban trail hunting would need to include any additional provisions in relation to drag hunting or clean boot hunting? 

Yes. Although drag and clean boot hunts offer a humane alternative that significantly reduces the risk to wildlife and community conflict, strict safeguards are necessary to prevent these activities from being exploited as a cover for illegal hunting.

Legislation must be amended to prohibit reckless and "accidental" hunting, extending these provisions to encompass drag and clean boot hunts.  

This would place a legal duty on organisers to take all reasonable steps to prevent the pursuit of wild animals.  

In addition to this hunt organsiers should be required to produce a planned route maps ahead of time alongside a risk assessment.  

Q 20: Are there any equestrian activities other than drag hunting, for example point to pointing, which you think are at risk from being affected by the proposed ban on trail hunting? 

No.

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. 

Q 21: How do you think the introduction of a ban on trail hunting will affect dogs used for trail hunting? For example, will they be able to be re-directed to other activities? 

The effect of a ban on trail hunting on hounds used for trail hunting will be positive. 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 are also placed in dangerous situations, such as on busy roads and railway tracks, due to the reckless nature of the hunts.  

Hunt organisers and kennels have a responsibility for the welfare of their hounds and should be required and supported to find homes for those no longer needed for hunting. 

Q 22: Do you think that there should be a transition period following the introduction of a ban on trail hunting and if so, how long should that period be? 

No.  

We strongly oppose any transition period. Such a delay would only serve as an extended window for animals to be illegally chased and killed under the guise of trail hunting.  

The intention of the Hunting Act was to make hunting with dogs illegal and ‘trail hunters’ are currently breaking that law with almost complete impunity. There can be no justification for delaying action to stop illegal hunting. 

Q 23: Do you think that the proposed legislation to ban trail hunting in England and Wales will affect people and/or communities more widely? 

Yes. Polling has consistently shown that a significant majority of people who live in the countryside support a ban.  Polling commissioned in January 2026 found that 62% of the public want to see trail hunting banned.  

A ban will protect rural communities and members of the public who visit and enjoy the countryside whose daily lives are currently disrupted by the crime and antisocial behaviour associated with hunts. This disruption takes many forms, including trespassing, livestock worrying, acts of violence, the tragic chasing and killing of pets (including cats and alpacas), and severe safety hazards caused by hounds encroaching on railway lines and roads.

Reports indicate that children are often present at these hunts. Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) General Comment No. 26, there is a clear directive that children must be protected from exposure to physical and psychological violence, explicitly including violence inflicted upon animals. Banning hunting with dogs will ensure that children of hunt participants and are safeguarded from witnessing potentially traumatic events, preventing the normalization of cruelty toward animals during their formative years.

Q 24: How do you think the proposed ban on trail hunting might affect the income and activities of the hunts currently involved in this activity? 

Some hunts may cease operating altogether, while others could transition to lawful alternatives such as drag hunting and trail free equestrian events.

There should be no imperative to protect income derived from illegal hunting carried out under the ‘smokescreen’ of trail hunting.  

Q 25: How do you think the proposed ban on trail hunting might affect the income and activities of businesses directly linked with hunts which currently engage in trail hunting? 

The operational and economic impact of these legislative changes is expected to be minimal, provided that hunts transition to lawful activities that do not involve the pursuit and killing of wild animals.  

Businesses relying on illegal practices for their income should naturally anticipate a loss of revenue upon the proper enforcement of the law.  

Ultimately, economic viability cannot be used as a justification to sustain illegal activities; entities operating outside the law assume the financial risk of eventual compliance.

Most people in rural communities (58%) believe that hunting is not important to the rural economy, compared to just 28% who do, and 51% believe that it isn’t socially important to rural communities, compared to 38% who do. 

Q 26: Do you think that the proposed ban on trail hunting in England and Wales might affect other businesses not directly linked with hunts? 

No. The rural economy is vast and diverse. Hunts are fully capable of transitioning to legitimate equestrian activities that are not centred around the killing of wild animals.  

There is no evidence to indicate that the current rural spend associated with businesses not directly involved in hunts will disappear.  It is highly likely to be invested into other local rural businesses, such as pubs, tack shops, and alternative outdoor pursuits, ensuring the wider rural economy remains secure. 

Q 27: How do you think that the proposed ban on trail hunting could affect the environment or wildlife? 

A ban will benefit wildlife and the environment because fewer animals will be illegally hunted and disturbance to habitats will be reduced.  

Uncontrolled hunting with dogs is also linked to the persecution of other animals such as badgers and can caused undue stress in animals. It is estimated that 16% of all crimes affecting badgers are related to the illegal blocking of setts, a majority of which are linked to trail hunting.  

Hunting with dogs also has the potential to threaten ground nesting birds, disturbing them during Spring nesting seasons by forcing them off of their nests and away from their eggs.  

Uncontrolled hunting also can damage environmental features and habitats such as hedgerows and saplings, vital for biodiversity.  

Banning trail hunting and ensuring that drag and clean boot hunting take pre-designated paths which avoid wildlife and limits damage to landscapes would help. Penalties for ‘accidental’ environmental damage done by hunts would help to mitigate these issues.  

Q 28: Are there any other matters, including possible alternatives to primary legislation, which you feel should be taken into account in developing the legislation to ban trail hunting? 

The Hunting Act 2004 should be strengthened and amended to include ‘accidental hunting’, remove exemptions which allow hunting to continue for research and management and strengthening penalties to include jail sentences and seizures of property.