The Definition of Hunting with Dogs
The issue of accurately defining ‘hunting with dogs’ has been raised following
correspondence between a West Country landowner and DEFRA and the acquittal of a
hunt master accused of breaking the Scottish anti-hunting legislation. This paper explains
some of the situations that are likely to occur after the Hunting Act comes into force on
February 18th 2005 in England and Wales and the difficulties in distinguishing between
actions that are legal and illegal.
Hunting with dogs has never been properly defined. The original Mike Foster Bill to ban
hunting in 1997 attempted a series of definitions, such as ‘to pursue, harry, catch etc.’,
but these definitions were removed due to a failure to come to an agreed form of words
that properly described the offence. Since then, a simplified version has been used in
Bills and relies upon the courts to show intention to hunt.
The offence stated in Clause 1 of the Hunting Act is “A person commits an offence if he
hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt”. However, the Act does
not define ‘hunting with dogs’ and, since it is the dog that hunts, it is unclear exactly what
the human has to do in order to commit an offence. Other actions, such as ‘flushing’ out
of ‘cover’, are also not defined. To add to the confusion, DEFRA added another phrase ‘chasing away’ of wild mammals with dogs- though again such a definition is not
included by the Hunting Act.
The League Against Cruel Sports holds the view that merely chasing a wild mammal
with dogs accurately defines hunting, but can the offence be that simple, given that there
is a range of actions that involve the use of dogs, some pursuing wild mammals?
1. Illegal Hunting
Even if it can be shown that it was the intention of the person or persons in control of the
dogs to deliberately hunt a wild mammal (other than those exempt species), there will be
further problems. Combating rural crime is already a very difficult problem and without
proper definitions of the offence, policing a ban will be almost impossible.

Exactly who is committing the offence? The Huntsman? The Master? Anyone in
control of the dogs? Anyone following the hunt (bearing in mind that any follower
can point to where an animal has run and thereby could be argued to be taking part in
the hunt)?

At what point in the hunt is the offence committed?

Are the Police prepared to seize 40 or 50 dogs and any number of horses used in a
hunt, as they are permitted to do in Clause 8 of the Act?

Will a wild mammal have to be produced to show that an offence has been
committed?
e.g.(1) -
Often hunts have a ‘blank day’ with no animal caught.
Will this be an offence?
e.g.(2) -
Often, the hunt follows the scent of the fox in the wrong direction.
Will this be an offence?
2. Exempt Hunting
Some hunts have stated that they will continue operating in very much the same way as
before the ban was introduced but, instead, will be hunting one or both of the exempt
species, i.e. rats and rabbits included in Schedule I of the Hunting Act. To the observer,
however, the whole operation may look exactly the same as a traditional hunt.
3. Drag Hunting
Drag hunts look and operate in very much the same way as traditional quarry hunts, with
the exception that the hounds are following a scent trail laid by a human. Once again, the
observer would find the difference between a drag hunt and a quarry hunt very difficult.
4. Exercising Hounds
Certain hunts will not wish to dispose of their hounds and have stated that they will
continue to keep their packs to preserve the bloodlines. These animals will continue to be
exercised and the Hunting Act does not prevent those in control of the hounds from
riding or wearing red coats. Once again, to the observer, this will be extremely difficult to
distinguish from other forms of organised hunting, unless it can be shown that a wild
mammal is being intentionally hunted.
5. Chasing Away
Initially, DEFRA has stated that a landowner who uses his four dogs to frighten foxes and
deer off his land would be committing an offence under the Hunting Act. These animals
attack his livestock and damage his woodland and he has been undertaking this effective,
but non-lethal, form of pest control for the past six years. However, the Act makes it an
offence for anyone to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless it is ‘exempt hunting’
(which permits the flushing to guns of an animal by 2 dogs only). This obliged the
landowner to use only two of his four dogs at any one time. It also put him in the
ridiculous position of being legally obliged to purchase a high-powered rifle and to shoot
any animal ‘flushed’ by his dogs.
Faced with the landowners complaint about this ridiculous situation, a DEFRA lawyer
then advised that he was merely ‘chasing away unwanted animals’ from his land and that
this was not, in fact, hunting as described in the Hunting Act 2004. Therefore, this was
not an offence.
Following numerous media reports on this apparently enormous loophole in the Act,
DEFRA officials have changed theirs minds yet again. Despite the landowner clearly
stating in numerous e-mails and telephone conversations that his four dogs ‘chase’ away
the foxes and deer, DEFRA have written to him saying that they were under the
impression that there was no chase involve and that dogs were only barking at the wild
mammals. The landowner is naturally exasperated at this latest view and disputes that
DEFRA did not know that his dogs were involved in a chase.
By any normal use of the word ‘chase’, one would understand this to mean a pursuit of
some kind (dictionary definitions: pursue, run after, hunt, hound, follow, trail, track, look
for, search for, go after, go in pursuit of).
6. Searching
Following the introduction of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, a
high-profile test case was brought against the master of the Buccleuch Fox Hounds for
hunting a fox. The master was acquitted, with the judge stating that he had not broken the
law and had been ‘searching’ for a fox with the intention to shoot it, as permitted under
the Act. The case added yet another version, albeit under the Scottish legislation, to a
growing list of activities involving the chasing of wild mammals with dogs in one form
or another.
7. Unintentional Hunting
In any of the above scenarios, a wild mammal could be unintentionally hunted. The
DEFRA website explains what will happen if dogs taking part in a drag hunt kill a fox.
DEFRA states that this will not be an offence ‘because people will only be hunting when
they, themselves, intend to pursue the quarry animal’. In other words, if there is no
intention to hunt then there is no crime. However, this can equally apply to any of the
other forms of chasing wild mammals mentioned above.
End