Responding to the government consultation on ‘trail hunting’
In December 2025, The New Hunting Ban published its Legislative Recommendations - the gold standard of hunting law - authored in consultation and collaboration with experts, activists, parliamentarians, and legal professionals, and scrutinised through thousands of submissions to its Open Consultation survey.
You can find the full Legislative Recommendations here.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) are now consulting on how best to deliver a ban on ‘trail hunting’. While we don’t believe that a simple ban on laying trails will be enough to end hunting with dogs, it’s important to participate in this consultation to push the government to adopt the structural and radical changes that would deliver real change.
Click here to find the consultation:
Scroll to the bottom of the first page, and select Continue to begin the consultation.
The first page consists of questions on your personal details, so the guidance below addresses the questions on the second page (from questions 7 to 22), on policy.
Each section provides guidance on what to include in your answer, and an example answer. It’s best to put the example answer into your own words, if you have time.
Question 7
Do you agree with the proposed definition of “trail hunting”?
For the purposes of the legislation, we propose to use the following definition of “trail hunting”:
“Trail hunting” is the activity in which a dog is directed to find and follow an animal-based scent which has been laid for that purpose. “Animal-based scent” means: a scent which is derived from a wild mammal, or a scent which mimics, replicates or resembles the scent of a wild mammal (or which is designed to do so), whether or not that scent is derived wholly or in part from artificial ingredients.
How to Answer
Points to hit
No.
Trail hunting only exists on paper, and is a cover for illegal hunting.
Hunts and hunting authorities have themselves acknowledged using a variety of scents, including aniseed, clove oil, and fish-derived products.
In practice, as documented by monitors and saboteurs over the past 20 years, many hunts do not even pretend to lay trails, so the specific scent used is entirely irrelevant.
A definition based on scent type or intent is therefore unenforceable.
Legislation must focus on outcomes (dogs pursuing wild mammals), including recklessness and foreseeability.
Example answer
No.
Firstly, hunts and hunting authorities have, at times, stated that they use a range of scents, including aniseed, clove oil, and fish-derived products.
However, the evidence gathered over the past 20 years by monitors and saboteurs shows that most hunts do not lay trails at all, making the distinction between “animal-based” and other scents completely irrelevant. As a result, a definition based on the nature of the scent or the claimed intention of participants is not enforceable.
Legislation aimed at tackling illegal hunting must begin from the reality of how hunts operate in practice. The law should prohibit the use of dogs to pursue wild mammals, including where this occurs as a foreseeable or reckless consequence of other behaviour.
Why is this our recommendation?
The definition presented attempts to regulate what hunts claim to be doing, rather than what has been proven to happen by 20 years of evidence gathering.
This evidence shows that:
Hunts have varied the scent they claim to be using.
Trail laying is very rarely carried out, and when it is, the trails aren’t followed.
By recognising that scent is inconsequential in practice, this approach removes one of the central loopholes in existing legislation.
Focusing on outcomes and real-world behaviour, rather than scent types or intent, would create a law that is enforceable and capable of delivering a full and final ban on hunting with hounds.
Question 8
What types of conduct should be covered by ‘engagement’ or ‘participation’ in trail hunting?
Our proposed ban on trail hunting would mean that it would be an offence to engage or participate in trail hunting. We also intend to include offences for conduct which would assist unlawful trail hunting to take place.
How to Answer
Points to hit
Participation must include all roles in a hunt.
Include: riders, terrier men, hunt staff, organisers, security, supporters, vehicle followers.
Include those facilitating or enabling the activity.
Avoid narrow definitions that allow people to evade liability.
Include a “failure to prevent” offence where individuals have the ability to intervene but do not.
Example answer
Participation should include all individuals involved in organising, facilitating, or taking part in a hunt. This must extend beyond those directly handling dogs to include riders, terrier men, hunt staff, organisers, security, supporters, vehicle followers and those assisting or supporting the activity.
In addition, the legislation should include a “failure to prevent” offence. Individuals in positions of responsibility, or those who are aware that unlawful hunting is taking place and are in a position to act, should be required to take reasonable steps to prevent it. This should include actions such as intervening where safe to do so or reporting the activity to the police.
Why is this our recommendation?
Hunting is a collective activity. Limiting liability to a narrow group allows the wider operation to continue. A broad definition ensures the law captures the full structure of hunts.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes.
Strongly support liability for landowners.
Include a duty to prevent illegal hunting.
Landowners should be expected to take reasonable steps, including contacting police.
Land access is essential for hunts to operate.
Example answer
Yes.
Landowners play a crucial role in enabling hunts, and it is appropriate that they are held accountable where they permit hunting to take place.
However, this should go further to include a “failure to prevent” duty. Where a landowner or occupier is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, that hunting is taking place on their land, they should be required to take reasonable steps to prevent it. This could include actions such as withdrawing permission for access and reporting the activity to the police.
Why is this our recommendation?
Access to land is fundamental to hunting activity. Without it, hunts cannot operate.
A stronger duty on landowners disrupts the infrastructure that supports hunting.
Including a “failure to prevent” element ensures that landowners cannot avoid responsibility simply by not acting, helping to deliver a more effective and enforceable ban.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes.
Responsibility must sit clearly with handlers/owners.
Prevent outsourcing or denial of responsibility.
Example answer
Yes.
Those responsible for dogs must be held accountable for their use in hunting, including where they permit others to use those dogs, or fail to prevent them from doing so.
Why is this our recommendation?
Clear responsibility prevents diffusion of blame, a common tactic used to avoid prosecution.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes.
Introduce a “going equipped” offence.
Reiterate extending offences to include enablement and facilitation.
Introduce a “failure to prevent” duty.
Use a reasonable person test throughout.
Example answer
Yes.
The legislation should be expanded to include a broader range of conduct.
First, a “going equipped” offence should be introduced. A person should commit an offence if they have with them any article, equipment, device, or dog 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 where the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would infer that the item may be intended for use in connection with such activity. This offence should apply regardless of whether a wild mammal is found or any hunting activity ultimately occurs.
Second, offences should be extended to include enablement and facilitation. A person should commit an offence if they engage in conduct that a reasonable person would consider to facilitate, enable, or materially support the hunting of a wild mammal with a dog.
Third, a “failure to prevent” offence should be introduced. A person should commit an offence if witnessing 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. This should include, where appropriate, actions such as safely intervening or reporting the activity to the police.
Why is this our recommendation?
Together, these provisions reflect the collective and organised nature of hunting, ensuring that responsibility cannot be avoided by distancing oneself from the final act.
By focusing on what a reasonable person would infer from the circumstances, rather than relying on stated intent, these measures create a framework that is practical to enforce and resistant to exploitation, helping to deliver a full and final ban on hunting with hounds.
Question 12
Do you consider that any other legislative changes are necessary to ensure that a ban on trail hunting is effective?
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes - fundamental reform of the Hunting Act 2004 is required.
Remove reliance on intent and replace with a foreseeability (reasonable person) test.
Expand offences to include:
Entering dogs into areas likely to contain wild mammals.
Clear, outcome-based definition of hunting.
Remove all exemptions, which have been widely abused.
Example answer
Yes.
A ban on trail hunting will not be effective without broader reform of the Hunting Act 2004.
First, Section 1 should be rewritten to remove the requirement to prove intent. A person should commit an offence if, by their conduct, a reasonable person would foresee a risk that a wild mammal would be hunted with a dog, and they nevertheless engage in that conduct. Proving intention in hunting is extremely difficult in criminal court, and has been the downfall of otherwise simple trials against hunts.
Second, offences should be extended to include entering dogs into areas likely to contain wild mammals. A person should commit an offence where, in circumstances connected with hunting activity, they enter a dog into any structure, sett, earth, burrow, building, or other place that a reasonable person would consider likely to be used by a wild mammal for shelter or protection.
Third, the definition of hunting a wild mammal with a dog should be clarified. It should include behaviour that a reasonable person would interpret as searching for, locating, or pursuing a wild mammal, or behaviour that would foreseeably result in a dog doing so, whether or not the dogs are under that person’s direct control.
Finally, all existing hunting exemptions should be removed. These exemptions have been widely used to obscure and facilitate illegal hunting. Practices such as flushing to guns, the use of birds of prey, and supposed pest control activities have repeatedly been abused as justifications for continued hunting with dogs. Removing exemptions would create a clear and consistent ban that is easier to understand and enforce. Where wildlife management is genuinely required, it should be addressed through separate, properly regulated and humane systems.
Why is this our recommendation?
The current legislation fails because it is complex, loophole-ridden, and dependent on proving intent, which is extremely difficult in practice.
These reforms address those failures by:
Removing intent - replacing it with a foreseeability test based on what a reasonable person would expect.
Capturing key hunting behaviours - such as searching, flushing, and entering cover.
Clarifying definitions - ensuring the law reflects real-world hunting practices.
Eliminating exemptions - which have been consistently exploited to continue hunting under legal cover.
Question 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?
We are aware that animal based scents, or scents which mimic animal based scents, are sometimes used to train dogs for specific purposes, other than trail hunting, such as pest control. We are keen to understand whether there might be a need for exemptions to cover such cases.
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes, it is possible.
Avoid creating loopholes via “training” exemptions.
Example answer
Yes.
Dogs can be trained effectively without the use of animal-based or mimicking scents. This has been proven by lawful drag hunts. Allowing such scents risks creating a loophole for continued hunting activity.
Why is this our recommendation?
New loopholes should be avoided at every opportunity. Removing scent-based justifications prevents covert continuation of hunting.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
No.
Avoid opening new loopholes.
Example answer
No.
Allowing the continued use of animal-based or mimicking scents risks undermining the ban.
Why is this our recommendation?
Again - new loopholes should be avoided at every opportunity. Removing scent-based justifications prevents covert continuation of hunting.
Question 15
Do you agree that this is an accurate description of drag hunting?
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.
More information:
We want to ensure that the legislation to ban trail hunting should not inadvertently affect other activities such as drag hunting or ‘clean boot hunting’ where they do not present the same risk to wild mammals as trail hunting.
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes, the description is broadly accurate.
Key distinguishing features:
Use of non-animal-based scents,
Pre-determined routes shared in advance,
Activities that can be monitored and verified for compliance.
Support for drag hunting to continue only under strict, clearly defined legal conditions.
Proposal to grandfather in legitimate drag hunts, with regulation enshrined in law.
Example answer
The description is broadly accurate. Genuine drag hunting is distinguishable from trail hunting because it uses non-animal-based scents, follows routes that are pre-determined and often shared in advance, and operates in a way that allows for meaningful monitoring and verification of compliance.
These characteristics make it possible to regulate drag hunting effectively. As such, legitimate drag hunts should be allowed to continue, but only under strict conditions that are clearly defined and enshrined in law.
This should include a requirement that only non-animal-based scents are used, that routes are planned and documented in advance, and that activities are conducted in a way that enables oversight and enforcement. Existing compliant drag hunts could be grandfathered into this framework, provided they meet these standards.
Why is this our recommendation?
The key challenge for legislation is distinguishing between activities that are genuinely lawful and those used as a cover for hunting.
Drag hunting, when conducted properly:
Does not rely on animal scents.
Is structured and predictable.
Can be objectively verified and regulated.
Grandfathering-in legitimate drag hunts allows the banning of scent trails, prevents trail hunts from rebranding without changinng their behaviour, and avoids penalising groups that have always followed the law without harming wildlife.
This approach supports a clear, enforceable ban on hunting with hounds, while allowing genuinely compliant activities to continue within a robust legal framework.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes.
In principle, hounds are capable of deviating, however, the risk is low where drag hunting is properly regulated.
Key factors reducing risk:
Use of non-animal-based scents only.
Pre-planned, transparent routes.
Hunts and hounds with no history of hunting or trail hunting.
The Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association provides an effective regulatory model.
Only genuine, pre-existing drag hunts should be grandfathered-in.
Example answer
The risk is low where drag hunting is conducted properly and under effective regulation.
Genuine drag hunts use non-animal-based scents, follow predetermined routes, and operate in a controlled and transparent manner.
Only established, genuine drag hunts should be permitted to continue, and these should be grandfathered into a statutory regulatory framework. New drag hunts emerging from trail hunting operations would likely represent bad faith attempts to continue hunting under a different name.
The Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association has demonstrated that transparent drag hunting is possible, and its compliance framework could be a starting point for legal regulations.
These should be enshrined in law and include requirements such as:
Draghounds must follow a scent that is not of animal origin. A sample of the scent must be made available to relevant authorities (police, council, Defra officials) upon request, with updated samples provided if the scent is changed.
All routes must be mapped out in advance and clearly communicated to those laying the drag.
Routes should be agreed with landowners and relevant bodies, and designed to avoid wildlife, livestock, crops, and public conflict.
Hounds should be bred and trained specifically for drag hunting.
Any hound demonstrating behaviour that risks illegal hunting must be removed from use and either retired or rehomed.
Drag hunts must provide key information to authorities (in advance or on request), including:
Date, time, and location of meets
Details of organisers, trail layers, and those in control of hounds
Maps of routes
Drag hunts must be subject to inspection without notice by relevant authorities.
Why is this our recommendation?
It’s essential to:
Distinguish clearly between genuine drag hunting and the smokescreen of trail hunting.
Avoid allowing rebranding.
Ensure only activities with a proven track record of compliance are permitted.
Grandfathering-in legitimate drag hunts under strict regulation:
Prevents bad faith actors from re-entering under a different label.
Provides a clear and enforceable boundary for regulators.
By combining strict statutory standards with a closed list of permitted operators, this approach supports a robust, loophole-resistant ban on hunting with hounds.
Question 17
Do you agree that this is an accurate description of ‘clean boot’ hunting?
We understand ‘clean boot’ hunting is an activity where hounds hunt human runners who neither wear nor drag any form of artificial scent enhancement.
More information
We want to ensure that the legislation to ban trail hunting should not inadvertently affect other activities such as drag hunting or ‘clean boot hunting’ where they do not present the same risk to wild mammals as trail hunting.
How to Answer
Points to hit
The definition is sound and broadly accurate.
Clean boot hunting does not rely on laid trails and should not be affected by regulation against trail hunting.
However, it must be underpinned by wider legislative reform
Apply:
Foreseeability test (removing intent),
Entering cover offences,
Clear definition of hunting behaviour,
Removing exemptions.
Example answer
Yes.
The description of clean boot hunting is sound. As an activity, it does not rely on laid trails or scents that mimic wild mammals, and therefore should not be directly affected by strong regulation aimed at banning trail hunting.
However, it is essential that clean boot hunting operates within a strengthened legal framework that addresses the failures of the current law. This includes removing the requirement to prove intent, so that a person commits an offence if, by their conduct, a reasonable person would foresee a risk that a wild mammal would be hunted with a dog, and they nevertheless engage in that conduct.
The law should also prohibit entering dogs into areas likely to contain wild mammals, such as setts, earths, or burrows, where this occurs in circumstances connected with hunting activity.
In addition, the definition of hunting should be clarified to include behaviour that a reasonable person would interpret as searching for, locating, or pursuing a wild mammal, or behaviour that would foreseeably result in a dog doing so, whether or not the dogs are under direct control.
Finally, all exemptions should be removed. These have been widely abused to facilitate illegal hunting under the guise of lawful activity. A clear and consistent ban, without exemptions, is far easier to enforce and avoids the loopholes that have undermined the current system.
Why is this our recommendation?
Clean boot hunting, as described, does not inherently replicate the mechanisms used in trail hunting, particularly the laying of artificial scent trails. As such, it does not present the same structural enforcement challenges.
However, the key issue with the current law is not limited to trail hunting - it is the reliance on intent, exemptions, and narrow definitions, all of which have been repeatedly exploited.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
No - dogs are specifically trained to follow human scent.
Example answer
No.
Dogs used in clean boot hunting are specifically trained to follow human scent rather than the scent of wild mammals. As the activity does not involve animal-based or mimicking scents, there is no inherent risk of hounds deviating from human runners to pursue wildlife.
Why is this our recommendation?
Clean boot hunting differs fundamentally from trail hunting because it:
Relies on human scent only.
Does not condition dogs to follow animal scent.
Does not replicate hunting behaviour.
As a result, it does not present the same risks associated with hounds pursuing wild mammals.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes - a clear legal distinction is essential.
Make it an offence to trail hunt regardless of scent used.
Only exempt genuine drag hunting, not trail hunting rebranded, by grandfathering-in genuine existing drag hunts (e.g. MDBA members).
Introduce strict statutory regulation for drag hunting.
Clean boot hunting does not require specific provisions beyond wider reforms.
Example answer
Yes.
Additional provisions are essential to ensure that a ban on trail hunting is effective and cannot be circumvented.
The law should make it an offence to engage in trail hunting regardless of the scent used. A person should commit 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 the hunting of a wild mammal, unless the activity is an exempt drag hunt.
To prevent abuse, only established drag hunts should be exempted, and these should be grandfathered in where they can demonstrate a history of compliance, for example through membership of recognised bodies such as the Masters of Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association. New drag hunts emerging from trail hunting operations should not be accepted, as they are likely to represent attempts to continue hunting under a different name.
Exempt drag hunts should be subject to strict statutory requirements, including:
Draghounds must follow a scent that is not of animal origin. A sample of the scent must be made available to relevant authorities (police, council, Defra officials) upon request, with updated samples provided if the scent is changed.
All routes must be mapped out in advance and clearly communicated to those laying the drag.
Routes should be agreed with landowners and relevant bodies, and designed to avoid wildlife, livestock, crops, and public conflict.
Hounds should be bred and trained specifically for drag hunting.
Any hound demonstrating behaviour that risks illegal hunting must be removed from use and either retired or rehomed.
Drag hunts must provide key information to authorities (in advance or on request), including:
Date, time, and location of meets
Details of organisers, trail layers, and those in control of hounds
Maps of routes
Drag hunts must be subject to inspection without notice by relevant authorities.
Clean boot hunting, as described, does not involve scent trails and does not require specific provisions beyond the wider legislative reforms needed to ensure all hunting-related activity is properly regulated.
Why is this our recommendation?
The central weakness of the current system is that it attempts to regulate how hunting is claimed to take place, rather than what actually happens in practice.
By:
Making trail hunting unlawful regardless of scent,
Defining it by its function (mimicking hunting with hounds),
Strictly limiting exemptions to proven, compliant drag hunts,
…the law removes the primary loophole that has allowed hunting to continue.
Grandfathering-in legitimate drag hunts while excluding new, unproven entrants:
Prevents bad faith rebranding of trail hunts.
Maintains space for genuinely compliant activities.
Provides clarity for enforcement.
Embedding strict standards in law ensures that any exempt activity continues in a controlled manner.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
No.
Example answer
No.
Point to points can continue without hunting.
Why is this our recommendation?
We have not identified any risks to equestrian activities.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes.
Hunting hounds are domestic dogs, capable of rehoming, and many have already been successfully rehomed as pets.
The current system already sees hounds:
Culled as puppies.
Shot when no longer useful.
Destroyed after seizure in some cases.
A ban would improve welfare overall.
Introduce a legal requirement:
Rehoming or appropriate care only.
No destruction of seized hounds.
Costs borne by offenders.
Example answer
Hunting hounds are domestic dogs. Like other dogs, they have been bred for a particular purpose, but they are entirely capable of being rehomed and have, in many cases, gone on to become successful pets. Even organisations representing hunting interests have acknowledged this.
Claims that hounds cannot adapt are often used to resist reform. In reality, hounds already face horrible outcomes under the current system. They are culled as puppies if not deemed suitable for hunting and then shot if they slow down or become unwell, usually at middle age.
A comprehensive ban on hunting would significantly improve the welfare of these animals. However, the current legal framework is inconsistent, as dogs seized or forfeited following convictions may face uncertain outcomes and, in some cases, destruction.
A law intended to protect animals should not include provisions that result in their unnecessary killing. Therefore, seized or forfeited hounds should be required to be rehomed or placed into appropriate care, and never destroyed. Any associated costs should be borne by those responsible for the offence.
Why is this our recommendation?
Hunting hounds are often presented as a reason not to reform the law, but in reality they are among the primary victims of the current system.
By requiring:
Rehoming or appropriate care in all cases.
No destruction of seized animals.
Costs to fall on offenders.
…the law would align with basic animal welfare principles and ensures that enforcement does not further harm the animals it is intended to protect.
Ultimately, in a world without hunting, these dogs would be far better off—no longer treated as disposable tools, but as animals deserving of care and protection.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
No. But if necessary, keep it short and strictly limited, out of season.
Immediate effect preferable with welfare provisions.
Example answer
Any transition period should be short and strictly limited to practical arrangements, such as rehoming dogs. A prolonged transition risks allowing continued hunting. If necessary, it should take place out of the fox hunting season, between April and August.
Why is this our recommendation?
Long transitions create a window for continued harm and evasion.
Next Page
Question 23
Do you think that the proposed legislation to ban trail hunting in England and Wales will affect people and/or communities more widely?
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes - particularly in rural communities
Only an effective, enforceable ban will deliver meaningful benefits
Current situation leads to:
Road blockages and disruption,
Dogs defecating in public spaces,
Trespass and property damage,
Intimidation of local residents.
Significant strain on rural policing resources.
Example answer
Yes. An effective and enforceable ban on trail hunting would have a positive impact on rural communities.
At present, activities associated with hunting give rise to anti-social behaviour. This can include hunts blocking roads, causing disruption to local residents and businesses, dogs defecating in public spaces, trespass onto private land, and incidents of intimidation directed at members of the public.
These issues create ongoing conflict with rural communities and place a significant burden on already stretched rural policing teams.
An effective ban would reduce these problems.
Why is this our recommendation?
The current system has created a situation where:
Activities linked to hunting continue under legal ambiguity.
Enforcement is difficult and resource-intensive.
Communities are left to deal with the consequences.
An effective ban would:
Provide clarity for all parties.
Reduce the need for constant monitoring and intervention.
Minimise anti-social behaviour and public nuisance.
Allow rural police teams to focus on higher-priority issues.
Next Page
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
An effective ban should lead to the closure of hunts.
By definition, every trail hunt operates outside the law.
Loss of income for such organisations is not a negative outcome.
Closure would bring:
Benefits for wildlife,
Reduction in crime and enforcement burden,
Improvements for rural communities.
Example answer
An effective ban on trail hunting is likely to significantly impact the income and activities of hunts currently involved in this activity. Our expectation is that a properly enforced, loophole-free ban would result in these organisations ceasing to operate.
This should be regarded as a positive outcome. Evidence gathered over many years indicates that trail hunting has been used as a cover for illegal hunting.
The loss of income for such activities should not be treated as a negative consequence of reform. As Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman, the national lead on fox hunting crime, has noted, the appropriate comparison is with other forms of criminal activity, such as drug dealing or burglary. In those cases, the closure of operations and loss of income is rightly seen as a success of enforcement, not a harm to be mitigated.
Ending these activities would deliver clear benefits: improved protection for wildlife, reduced demand on policing resources, and fewer instances of conflict and anti-social behaviour in rural communities.
Why is this our recommendation?
A key weakness in policy discussions is the assumption that the continuation of hunts is a neutral or desirable outcome that must be protected economically.
However:
The activity in question is inherently linked to illegal conduct.
Economic arguments should not override legal and ethical considerations.
Allowing such arguments to shape policy risks undermining enforcement.
By recognising that the closure of non-compliant hunts is a positive and intended outcome, policymakers can:
Focus on effective enforcement rather than mitigation.
Avoid building in unnecessary concessions or loopholes.
Deliver a ban that achieves its stated purpose.
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
Some economic impact likely, but scale is very small.
Even pro-hunting groups estimate around 500 jobs, which is equivalent to a single large shop.
Economic arguments are disproportionately overstated.
Benefits of an effective ban far outweigh impacts:
Wildlife protection.
Reduced crime and policing burden.
Improved rural community relations.
Economic transition is possible into lawful rural activities.
Example answer
The proposed ban may have some impact on businesses directly linked to hunts, but the scale of this impact is relatively small. Even organisations supportive of hunting, such as the Countryside Alliance, have identified approximately 500 jobs as being reliant on trail hunting. This is equivalent to the workforce of a single large retail outlet.
While any economic impact should be acknowledged, it is important to keep it in proportion. The benefits of ending hunting with hounds - including improved wildlife protection, reduced strain on policing resources, and fewer instances of anti-social behaviour in rural communities - far outweigh the limited economic downside.
In addition, businesses and individuals currently linked to hunting activities are capable of transitioning into lawful rural industries and alternative equestrian or land-based activities.
Why is this our recommendation?
Economic arguments are frequently used to resist reform, but in this case:
The scale of impact is modest
The activity itself is linked to unlawful or harmful behaviour
The wider public interest strongly favours reform
Question 26
Do you think that the proposed ban on trail hunting in England and Wales might affect other businesses not directly linked with hunts?
How to Answer
Points to hit
No.
Trail hunting is a small, niche activity
Example answer
No. There is no reason to believe that a ban on trail hunting would have any significant impact on businesses not directly linked to hunts. Any indirect effects are likely to be minimal or negligible.
Why is this our recommendation?
Trail hunting represents a small and highly specific activity, with limited economic reach beyond those directly involved.
Next Page
Question 27
How do you think that the proposed ban on trail hunting could affect the environment or wildlife?
How to Answer
Points to hit
A comprehensive, effective ban would deliver major benefits
Protect a wide range of wildlife from harm:
Foxes, deer, hares, mink, muntjac, otters, etc.
Also protects:
Hunting dogs.
Domestic pets.
Environmental benefits:
Reduction in damage to habitats, crops, and footpaths.
Less disturbance to wildlife.
Public health/environment:
Reduction in dog faeces, which can spread disease.
Emphasise: benefits depend on the ban being effective and enforceable
Example answer
A comprehensive and effective ban on trail hunting would have significant positive impacts on both wildlife and the environment.
It would protect a wide range of wild animals, including foxes, deer, hares, mink, muntjac, and otters, from being pursued, injured, or killed by hounds. It would also improve outcomes for hunting dogs themselves, as well as domestic pets that can be harmed during hunting activity.
Beyond direct animal welfare, there are clear environmental benefits. Hunting activity can cause damage to habitats, crops, and public footpaths through the use of horses, vehicles, and large packs of dogs. It can also disturb wildlife more broadly, disrupting ecosystems.
In addition, the presence of large numbers of dogs can lead to increased faecal contamination in rural environments, which can contribute to the spread of disease.
These benefits, however, depend on the ban being comprehensive and effective.
Why is this our recommendation?
Hunting with hounds has a broad environmental footprint, extending beyond the direct killing of wildlife.
By ending these activities, an effective ban would:
Prevent the pursuit and killing of wild mammals.
Reduce disturbance and damage to ecosystems.
Improve animal welfare across multiple species.
Reduce environmental harms associated with hunting activity.
Next Page
Question 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?
How to Answer
Points to hit
Yes.
Banning trail hunting alone will not meet public expectations of ending hunting.
Hunts will simply adapt and rebrand (as they already have).
No alternative to strong primary legislation
Anything less than structured, comprehensive reform will fail in the same way as the current law.
Example answer
Yes.
The central issue that must be taken into account is that trail hunting is not a real activity - it only exists on paper as a cover for illegal hunting with hounds. As a result, banning trail hunting alone will not meet public expectations of ending hunting with hounds. Without wider reform, hunts will simply adopt alternative loopholes within the existing legislation, as they have done repeatedly since the Hunting Act 2004 came into force.
The current legal framework contains numerous exemptions and relies heavily on proving intent, both of which have made it ineffective and easy to circumvent. If these issues are not addressed, any new legislation risks replicating the same failures.
There is no viable alternative to strong primary legislation that closes these loopholes. This must include removing exemptions, eliminating the need to prove intent, and focusing on observable behaviour and outcomes.
Anything less than this will not deliver a meaningful ban and will fall short of both public expectations and the stated aims of reform.
Why is this our recommendation?
The past 20 years have demonstrated that:
Hunts adapt quickly to legal changes.
They will not respond in good faith.
Weak or partial reforms will be ineffective in practice.
Trail hunting itself is the clearest example of this dynamic - it was introduced as a supposed alternative but has functioned as a mechanism to continue illegal hunting.
A narrow ban on trail hunting risks creating new loopholes and allowing hunting to continue under different labels.
A structured, comprehensive approach is therefore essential.
Question 29
Is there any other evidence you would like us to consider?
How to Answer
Example answer
Yes. We would strongly encourage consideration of The New Hunting Ban’s legislative recommendations, which set out a comprehensive and workable framework for delivering a full and enforceable ban on hunting with hounds.
These recommendations are based on extensive evidence, including frontline experience from anti-hunt activists, expert legal input, engagement with parliamentarians, and consultation with organisations working on wildlife protection and rural crime.
They directly address the key failures of the current system - particularly the reliance on proving intent, the presence of multiple exemptions, and the use of trail hunting as a smokescreen - and provide clear, practical solutions to ensure the law is enforceable in real-world conditions.
The full recommendations can be found here:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/67c1e73f48ca3d3134445a54/t/69652ebb002a814f24293880/1768238779214/The+New+Hunting+Ban+Legislative+Recommendations.pdf
Finish
Well done!
That’s it.
You did it.
Thanks for submitting your opinion on the promised trail hunting ban.
But there’s more to do to help ensure hunting with dogs is ended for good…
Next steps:
Share this page on social media, asking your followers to submit a response to the consultation. Every response helps inform the government of the will of the public - a full and final ban on hunting with hounds.
Contact your MP and ask them to share these recommended answers, as well as push for the adoption of our legislative recommendations.
Sign up to our mailing list to receive campaign updates, and steps you can take as our work progresses.