The New Hunting Ban is a campaign working with experts and stakeholders to push for the legislative changes required to deliver a full ban on hunting foxes, hare, deer and other wildlife with dogs.
Currently, we’re supporting the principles of the Hunting Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill during the Government’s consultation on banning ‘trail hunting’.
Read on to find out more, or click here to access our regular home page.
Hunting Act 2004
(Amendment) Bill
Introduction
In December 2025, The New Hunting Ban published its Legislative Recommendations - the gold standard of hunting law - authored in collaboration with experts, activists, parliamentarians, and legal professionals, and scrutinised through thousands of submissions to its Open Consultation survey.
Shortly afterwards, Neil Duncan-Jordan MP announced that he would adapt the recommendations into a Private Member’s Bill. This would provide an exemplar of what any future government legislation should look like, and allow supporters and MPs to unite behind a cohesive and comprehensive set of reforms.
While the Hunting Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill is not intended to become law directly, it aims to influence the government into delivering the radical and structural changes required to finally end hunting with hounds.
Below, you can learn the contents of the bill, and use our easy tool to contact your MP, asking them to support its principles.
What will the bill do?
Strengthen the core offence.
1
The core offence in the Hunting Act is structurally flawed, relying on an intent-based test that is poorly suited to the realities of hunting with hounds and has consistently allowed illegal activity to go unpunished. In practice, hunts exploit this weakness by claiming accidental contact with wildlife, even where their actions make pursuit or killing entirely predictable.
Replacing intent with a foreseeability test corrects this imbalance by focusing on the natural and likely consequences of conduct.
Clarifying the definition of hunting to include searching for, locating, or pursuing wildlife ensures the law captures the full sequence of behaviour that constitutes a hunt, rather than an artificially narrow endpoint.
Criminalising the entering of dogs into setts, earths, or other structures where wildlife is likely to be present then closes a critical loophole within that broader definition, preventing practices that deliberately force animals into pursuit while remaining falsely framed as lawful activity.
-
A person commits an offence if they -
Hunt a wild mammal with a dog, or engage in conduct which a reasonable person would expect to result in a risk that a wild animal would be hunted with a dog.
-
For the purposes of this Act, a reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where:
(a) A person engages in behaviour that a reasonable person would interpret as searching for, locating, or pursuing a wild mammal, or in conduct which a reasonable person would foresee as likely to result in a dog searching for, locating, or pursuing a wild mammal; and
(b) One or more dogs are employed in such behaviour, whether or not by that person and whether or not under their control or direction;
This subsection is without prejudice to the operation of section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
-
A person commits an offence if, in circumstances a reasonable person would consider connected with hunting activity, they enter a dog into any structure, sett, earth, burrow, building, or other place a reasonable person would consider likely to be used by a wild mammal for shelter or protection.
Expand liability to reflect hunting practices.
2
Hunting with hounds is a coordinated group activity involving multiple roles, yet the current law focuses narrowly on the individual deemed to be hunting at the point of pursuit. This fails to reflect how hunts actually operate and allows organisers, supporters, and enablers to distance themselves from responsibility.
Extending offences to include going equipped to hunt addresses situations where individuals are found in possession of equipment clearly intended for illegal hunting, even if it has not yet been used. This captures preparatory conduct that demonstrates an intention to commit an offence, such as carrying shovels and terriers for digging out foxes, while avoiding overly narrow definitions. By drafting the provision broadly, the law remains adaptable and future-proofed against hunters altering their methods or equipment to evade enforcement.
Creating offences for assisting, enabling, or facilitating hunting ensures that liability extends to those who play an active supporting role, such as organisers, land coordinators, or hunt staff.
Hunt masters and hunt staff are personally liable for breaches of the Act and any associated regulations.
Introducing a failure to prevent offence for those present or involved in hunts reflects established approaches in other areas of criminal law and places a clear duty on participants to prevent illegal conduct, by, for example, contacting the police.
-
A person commits an offence if, when not at their place of abode, they have with them any article, equipment, device, dog(s), or other item that a reasonable person would consider capable of being used in the locating, searching for, pursuit, or capture of a wild mammal with a dog, and the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would infer that the item may be intended for use in connection with hunting a wild mammal with a dog.
For the avoidance of doubt, this offence may be committed regardless of whether a wild mammal is found or any hunting activity occurs.
Behaviour connected solely with exempt drag hunting shall not be treated as hunting activity for the purposes of this subsection.
-
A person commits an offence if they engage in conduct that a reasonable person would consider to facilitate, enable, or materially support hunting a wild mammal with a dog.
-
A person commits an offence if, being present at, accompanying, or otherwise involved in hunting activity, they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent conduct that a reasonable person would consider to involve the hunting of a wild mammal with a dog.
Ban trail hunting.
3
Trail hunting is, in the words of the Countryside Alliance, a “smokescreen” for illegal hunting with hounds, providing plausible deniability while wildlife is deliberately and routinely pursued and killed. The absence of a clear prohibition has allowed the public, the police and courts to be misled, undermining confidence in the law.
Making trail hunting an offence, regardless of the scent supposedly used, removes this ambiguity and draws a clear legal line between lawful recreational activity and illegal hunting.
At the same time, providing a tightly regulated exemption for law abiding drag hunts - wearing identification, using non-animal scents, pre-mapped routes, and enforceable compliance requirements - ensures that legitimate activities can continue without creating cover for wildlife crime. This approach balances clarity, fairness, and enforceability.
-
A person commits an offence if they organise, participate in, or facilitate trail hunting, defined as any activity purporting to lay or follow a scent trail for the purpose of exercising, directing, or using a pack of hounds in a manner resembling hunting a wild mammal, unless the activity is an exempt drag hunt carried out in accordance with this Act.
-
A draft list of exempted drag hunts (drag hunts of the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association, as of 1st January 2026):
Berks & Bucks Draghounds
Crawley & Horsham Hunt
Cambridge University Drag Hounds
Isle of Wight Hounds
Mid Surrey Farmers’ Draghounds
Staff College Draghounds
-
Hunts must provide advance notice, normally no less than 7 days, to police and relevant local authorities.
Notifications must include:
• Meet details
• Mapped routes
• Confirmation of the scent to be used, including provision of samples where requiredFailure to comply without reasonable excuse constitutes an offence and may result in suspension or closure of the hunt.
Draghounds must be microchipped and registered on the national database.
Drag hunt staff, riders, horses and vehicles must wear a tag (or arm band or similar), identifying them as part of the specific hunt.
Draghounds will follow a scent which must not be of animal origin.
A sample of the scent to be used must be made available to relevant authorities upon request. A further sample must be provided if that scent is changed or modified at any stage.
All routes that the drag will be laid must be mapped out in advance and clearly communicated to the person(s) laying the drag.
The routes taken should be chosen in consultation with legal occupiers and landowners, as well as any relevant public bodies. They should at all times seek to avoid any conflict with wildlife, or domestic livestock; adverse effects on crops or other assets; and any conflict with the general public, private or public landowners.
Hounds used on the hunting field should be bred and trained specifically to hunt the drag.
Any hound which demonstrates hunting behaviour which risks contravention of the law must cease to be used for drag hunting; being retired in kennels or rehomed as appropriate.
Drag hunts must provide in advance or retrospectively, upon request, to the relevant authorities:
Date, time and specific location of hunting meets.
The name, email, phone number and address of the Master/Hunt Official who has organised the meets.
The name, email, phone number and address of the person either laying the drag.
The name, email, phone number and address of the person in control of the hounds.
A map in a readable form of each route.
Drag hunts will be subject to inspection without notice from relevant authorities.
Individuals with unspent convictions under relevant legislation, including the Hunting Act 2004, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, are prohibited from organising or controlling a drag hunt.
Strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
4
Weak penalties and procedural barriers have rendered the existing law largely ineffective as a deterrent.
Aligning penalties with those available under the Animal Welfare Act reflects the serious harm caused by hunting with hounds and brings sentencing into line with comparable animal welfare offences.
Hunting offences would become notifiable, allowing police services across the country to be aware of offenders arriving in their juristiction.
Requiring courts to consider banning orders ensures that repeat offenders and organised hunts can be prevented from continuing their activities, rather than treating each offence in isolation.
Mandating that offenders pay the costs associated with seized hounds and investigations prevents the financial burden of enforcement from falling on charities, police forces, or the public purse.
Extending the statutory time limit for prosecutions to two years recognises the complexity of hunting investigations and prevents cases from collapsing simply because evidence could not be gathered within an unrealistically short timeframe.
-
A person who commits an offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding £40,000 (or both).
-
Upon conviction for an offence under this Act, the court must consider making a disqualification order prohibiting the offender from owning, keeping, transporting, managing, or otherwise having custody or control of animals for a minimum period of 10 years, up to an indefinite period.
-
Where a dog or other animal is seized or forfeited in connection with an offence under this Act, the offender must reimburse the reasonable costs incurred for the housing, care, medical treatment, and rehoming of that animal.
-
The court may order an offender to reimburse reasonable investigative costs incurred by police, local authorities, or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, including forensic analysis, veterinary examinations, and other evidential or specialist procedures.
-
Proceedings in England and Wales for a summary offence under this Act may be brought within the period of 6 months beginning with the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to their knowledge.
Subsection (1) does not authorise the commencement of proceedings more than 2 years after the date on which the offence was committed.’
For the purposes of this section, a certificate signed by or on behalf of the prosecutor stating the date on which evidence sufficient in their opinion to warrant the proceedings came to their knowledge shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.
A certificate stating that matter and purporting to be so signed shall be deemed to be so signed unless the contrary is proved.
Abolish all forms of exempt hunting with hounds.
5
The existing exemptions within the Hunting Act were intended to allow limited and necessary pest control, but in practice they have been systematically exploited to facilitate illegal hunting. Activities such as flushing to guns, rabbit hunting, and the use of birds of prey have repeatedly been used as pretexts for hunting with hounds, creating confusion and undermining enforcement.
Abolishing all exemptions removes these loopholes entirely and establishes a clear, consistent prohibition that is easier to understand, police, and comply with.
Where wildlife management is genuinely required, it should be addressed through separate, tightly regulated ethical frameworks rather than embedded exemptions that enable abuse.
Current exemptions include:
Stalking and flushing out.
Use of dogs below ground to protect birds for shooting.
Hunting rats.
Hunting rabbits.
Retrieval of shot hares.
Flushing to birds of prey.
Recapture of a wild mammal.
Rescue of a wild mammal.
Research and observation.
Protect hunting hounds.
6
Hounds are often treated as disposable tools within hunting operations, with seized or forfeited dogs facing uncertain futures despite being victims of the activity themselves.
Ensuring that hounds are rehomed or placed into appropriate care, rather than destroyed, recognises their welfare interests and aligns enforcement with broader animal protection principles.
-
Where a forfeited dog is retained by or surrendered to a constable, the police force of which the constable is a member shall ensure that such arrangements are made for its rehoming.
Ready to support the bill?
Ending hunting with hounds requires public pressure and political leadership.
The Hunting Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill represents the gold standard of hunting law.
Now it needs your support.
Contact Your MP
Complete our super-simple 2-step process