Consultation continued…
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.