For us animal lovers, the 26th March could have been a monumental day. It was the day the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) opened their public consultation on banning 'trail hunting' - or, as it’s better known to most of us, ‘fox hunting’ - over a year from the announcement. But, reading the introduction brought the exact same sinking feeling campaigners must have felt when reviewing the original Hunting Act 2004.
Hunting mammals with dogs has been illegal in England,Scotland and Wales since 2005. However, due to the poor drafting of the law andthe difficulty of enforcing it, the blood sport has continued essentially unabated until now. To be clear: if you witnessed a hunt before the law changed and then fell into a coma until you were awoken at a hunt in 2026, you would have a hard time noticing any difference until someone pulled an iPhone out.
Before the Hunting Act came into effect, hunters spoke openly about how they would ignore it. The Countryside Alliance decided on a public position of treating it as a temporary inconvenience that would soon be repealed. ‘Trail hunting’ was invented to keep their hounds practiced and exercised, and to keep the funds flowing in from those who continued to ride with the hunt. It was a reluctant PR exercise, laced with winks and nudges, that enabled everyone to move on from the bitter debates that had raged over hunting in the years prior. Indeed, from the first hunting season after the ban's implementation, it became clear that nothing had changed – fox (and stag, hare and mink) hunting continued. When the police were called, the hunt would claim they’d laid a scent trail at some point, and the police would leave. Eventually they lost interest in working out the legalities, but the hunting continued.
Over 20 years of evidence has stacked up; and while the occasional successful conviction gives cause for celebration, each one is outweighed by a factor of hundreds or thousands of uninterrupted hunts. Hunts stopped bothering even going through the charade of pretending to lay a trail. Indeed, the League Against Cruel Sports found, in an analysis of 4000 reports on hunting events, a trail was only possibly laid in around 3%. Every time a fox was killed, the act was denied or obscured; if the evidence of deliberate hunting was undeniable, it was dismissed as the actions of a few bad apples.
The smoking gun came in 2020, with the leak of recorded training webinars hosted by the Hunting Office - a precursor to the BritishHound Sports Association. In these sessions, senior huntsmen openly discussed how to evade the law, and how various pretences could make lawyers’ jobs easier by providing plausible deniability if hunts ended up in court.
Phil Davies, the Countryside Alliance police liaisonofficer, was recorded telling the 200+ hunt staff watching:
“Now you know more about hunting than the saboteurs or courts will know but what it will do is create that smokescreen or that element of doubt that we haven’t deliberately hunted a fox, so if nothing else you need to record that, and it will help us provide a defence to huntsman.”
If you’ve heard trail hunting being referred to as a ‘smokescreen’, this is the origin of that expression, when Mark Hankinson, Masters of Foxhounds Association director, said:“It’s a lot easier to create a smokescreen if you’ve got more than one trail layer operating, and that is what it’s all about, trying to portray to the people watching that you’re going about your legitimate business.”
One might be charitable and at least attendees credit for leaking the footage, but alas, no, those watching must have felt there was nothing unusual enough about their governing body telling them how to get away with breaking the law – the leak came from an infiltrating hunt saboteur.
So, in summary, trail hunting is a lie. It does not exist in2026, if it ever did, outside of a theory. It’s a fairytale. This is not a fringe view – it’s the only conclusion one can sensibly reach when considering the evidence. The League Against Cruel Sports states:
“Trail hunting is a deception which was invented by hunts after the foxhunting ban to hide the fact they are still chasing and killing foxes.”
Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman, who leads on hunting for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, refers to the time since the Hunting Act 2004 as “possibly one of the most farcical eras in criminal justice history.”
Again, for those at the back – trail hunting does not exist. Trail hunting does not exist.
So on the 26th March 2026, a day that should have been the beginning of the end for hunting with dogs – why were we disappointed?
Because upon reading the introduction to the consultation, it became clear that Defra, for the most part, had fallen for the lies of the hunters – that trail hunting is a real, if badly designed sport, and that the suffering of wildlife is usually a complete accident.
Their text begins:
“Trail hunting is an activity which has grown in popularity following the enactment of the Hunting Act in 2004 as an alternative to hunting wild mammals.It entails laying an animal-based scent trail for dogs to follow. This carries an inherent risk of the dogs picking up the scent of a live wild mammal and then pursuing it, instead of keeping to the laid trail.”
Concerning the hunting fraternity’s commitment to defy theban, the 20 years of evidence showing that they did exactly that, the outraged statements by senior police officers, and the recordings of hunts chatting casually about how to get away with using trail hunting as a “smokescreen”, Defra had this to say:
“In addition, concerns persist that trail hunting can be used as a “smokescreen” to facilitate illegal hunting as it helps to obscure any intention to hunt wild mammals with dogs.”
There’s that sinking feeling again.
While the government is obliged to consult widely, in practice, some voices may carry far more weight than others - particularly when they come in clipped accents and expensive suits, rather than from activists previously dismissed as fringe or conspiratorial.
But the data doesn’t support the idea that being anti-hunting is a fringe view. In fact, there are very few positions that the country is more united around. YouGov have found a consistent 80%of people support hunting remaining illegal, with only around 10% in favour of legalisation. More recently, Survation polling found that 62% of the public specifically think trail hunting should be illegal, and this level of support barely changes between urban and rural voters. In terms of political leanings, an end to blood sport isn’t right wing or left wing – while voters for every major party are in favour of a trail hunting ban, Reform voters are actually more supportive than Labour voters.
Despite being framed as a niche issue, our research suggests otherwise. Social media posts about a hunting ban generate significantly higher engagement. Comparing these with MPs’ typical posts, we found that content referencing trail hunting received, on average, 4.6 times more reactions and over 22 times more comments than baseline posts.
So, this is a very popular, very engaging issue. What needs to be done and why do we think this government is unlikely to do it?
If, as Defra seems to, one believes that trail hunting is a real sport, then one would also believe that the trails laid smell like fox. Under these circumstances, it would be easy for dogs to accidentally get onto the scent of a real fox. So, if we just ban using the scent of a fox while trail hunting and instead have hunts use aniseed or clove oil alternatives – job done! No more confused hounds - no more dead foxes.
Except there is no trail, so there is no scent, so having them use aniseed doesn’t change anything except allowing Emma Reynolds to tick the box next to the manifesto commitment ‘ban trail hunting’. She could mandate that trails smelt like aniseed, or birthday cake, or Chanel No 5 - this narrow, naïve path would allow the killing to carry on.
Hunting happens out of sight, in fields and woods that are unobserved; and if witnessed, needs an expert eye to know what’s happening. It’s organised by people who have had 20 years to hone their craft and get their story straight, and who have no qualms about misleading the public and the police - the best story tellers and liars - the crème de la crème of bastards. We can only begin with the premise that they will not engage with the law in good faith – and will use any loophole that they find.
So, structural, radical change to the law is required, and that’s what The New Hunting Ban is all about. As a campaign, we’ve been bringing the voices of experts into parliament to brief MPs and escorting MPs with us on unannounced visits, to see how they behave when they’re not hosting stage-managed PR stunts (hint: they hunt). Currently, we’re asking for anyone who’s against hunting to respond to the consultation asking for bold and structural change to the law. You can find our question-by-question response guide here.
We’ve worked hard to get this far. It was one of our first supporting MPs - Perran Moon - who called the debate that concluded with the government’s commitment to bring about this consultation. Now we need to finish the fight.
While the consultation is important in providing a direct line from the public to Defra, you can see why we have our doubts that it will be enough. So, we’ve also developed our own Legislative Recommendations – the gold standard in hunting law – that we know, if implemented, would end hunting forever. These have now been adapted into a Private Members’ Bill by Neil Duncan-Jordan MP which will stand as an example to guide and inspire meaningful change to the law. During this critical period, we’ll be asking parliamentarians to speak in support of the principles that Neil’s Hunting Act 2004(Amendment) Bill contains.
If the government doesn’t act decisively, then this opportunity will be missed, and it could be another 20 before we get a third chance. British people have a deep love for animals, and taking care of innocent creatures is a tradition that runs through our veins with more vigour than blood sports ever could. If, on the day after a weak government bill becomes law, we look out of our kitchen windows to see hounds chasing down and killing another terrified animal, the backlash will be immense.
We know better now than we did in 2004. We’re less starry eyed and we’ve learned what needs to be done. This government must do better.
Consultation Response Guide - https://thenewhuntingban.com/trail-hunting-consultation
Mailing List - https://thenewhuntingban.com/mailinglist
---
Rhys Giles is Director of The New Hunting Ban.
All blog posts represent the views of the author alone and not necessarily those of Mainstream.
