This booklet aims to explain what activities are illegal under the Hunting Act and what points need to be proved in order to substantiate claims that an offence took place. It also provides advice to investigators, including questions that will assist with an investigation. This booklet should be used in conjunction with the Hunting Act.

 

   Part 1: The Hunting Act

• Section 1 - Hunting Wild Mammals with Dogs

  • S.1 - It is an offence to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless the hunting is exempt

    A wild mammal includes mammals that have:

    - Been bred or tamed
    - Kept in captivity or confinement
    - Escaped or been released from captivity or confinement
    - Or are living wild

    Hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, where a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal and one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit. Hunting should be understood in its ordinary English meaning, which includes searching for wild mammals, chasing them, or pursuing them with the intention of catching or killing them (see http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/brief_guide.htm).

    Remember, this section also covers the use of dogs underground (terrier-work, for example).

    Points to Prove

    The following elements of the offence must be proved to win a conviction:

    - That a wild mammal (but not a rat, rabbit, or a shot and injured hare) was hunted. In practice it may be necessary to show that a wild mammal was present to prove this, unless other compelling evidence is available such as an admission. Note that it is not necessary for the wild mammal to have been killed.
    - One or more dogs were used to hunt the wild mammal.
    
    - The defendant was involved in the hunting of the wild mammal. The question will usually be: was that person “engaging or participating” in the pursuit of the wild mammal? It is not necessary to show that the person was actually using a dog, or had a dog under his or her control or direction. But a person will not be convicted of an offence under s.1 if his or her involvement was purely accidental or inadvertent.
    - Where the accused person can raise a credible argument that the hunting was exempt under Schedule 1, then in order to prove an offence under s. 1 the prosecution would be well advised to be in a position to show that the hunting was not exempt. However, where the defendant relies on the section 4 “reasonable belief” defence, it is for him to show that he or she reasonably believed his or her hunting was exempt.

    Advice to investigators

    As a defence alleged hunters may claim that they were engaged in ‘trail hunting’. Trail hunting did not exist before the Hunting Act 2004. It is a new activity meant to involve the pursuit of an artificial or animal-based scent by a pack of dogs and a mounted field of riders. The trail should be laid by someone in front of the hunt with a ‘duster’ such as a scented sock tied to the end of a whip. Hunts claim that they are trying to replicate pre-ban hunting as closely as possible. Many did not want to convert to drag hunting as they wanted their dogs to retain the scenting ability for wild quarry in the hope that the Hunting Act would be repealed.

    Those investigating alleged reports of illegal hunting need to consider whether genuine trail hunting is taking place or whether this activity is being used as a guise for illegal activities. The following points should be considered (though please note this list is not exhaustive):

    Laying a trail – Does the footage or reports show/describe a trail being laid? Was there trail laying equipment at the scene? Was the trail laid before any animal was seen? Do the dogs follow the line of the trail or the line of scent left by a wild mammal? Could a trail have been laid in the habitat where the alleged offence took place? Has the hunt trespassed onto land or traversed roads where a trail would not have been laid?

    Voice commands and horn calls – If there is a report of a wild mammal being pursued is there evidence to show that the dogs were called off, either by a voice command, a horn call or by physically intervening (see horn calls and voice commands section for more information)? Is there any evidence that voice commands or horn calls were used to encourage the dogs to pursue the animals? Is there any evidence that anyone from the hunt indicated the presence of a wild mammal to the hunters? (this could be done via a “holloa” or by putting a cap on a stick. See Voice Commands for more information).

    Terriermen - Terriermen before the ban were responsible for flushing out foxes that could be chased for a prolonged period by the hunt and retrieving and killing any foxes that went below ground. They were also responsible for ensuring that badger and fox setts remained blocked throughout the days hunting, in order that foxes could not escape below ground. Terriermen can still flush foxes from cover under the gamekeepers exemption, however they would have no role at a genuine trail hunt. Is there evidence of terriermen present at the scene of the alleged offence? Terriermen are usually found on quad bikes or on foot with spades to dig out foxes and block setts or earths and with terriers often in boxes on the back of a quad bike.

    Badger setts or fox earths blocked – There is no need for a genuine trail hunt to ‘stop’ or block badgers’ setts or fox earths, indeed it is illegal now to stop up badger setts. Is there any evidence of badgers’ setts or fox earths being stopped the night before or on the day of the hunt?

    Searching- Is there evidence of the hunt searching through areas of wild mammal habitat, for foxes this would include hedgerows and woods? Is a wild mammal subsequently flushed from cover? Is this animal chased by one or more dogs? If the wild mammal was killed was this reported to the police, and if so was the hunt aware it had been monitored?

    ‘Accidents’ – Some hunts are claiming that any kills which take place are accidents. Is the hunt in question reporting all ‘accidents’ to the police when they happen or when an independent person has witnessed the kill? Does the hunt have a history of having repeated ‘accidents’? Has the hunt switched to an artificial scent to avoid the likelihood of this happening? Has the hunt taken other measures to avoid coming into contact with a wild mammal (such as ensuring they do not search through areas of fox habitat)?

• Section 2 - Exempt Hunting

  • S.2 - Hunting is exempt if it is within a class specified in Schedule 1

    For points to prove and points to consider when carrying out an investigation in relation to cases where the defence claim their hunting is exempt see Part 2.

• Section 3 - Hunting Assistance

  • S.3(1) - It is an offence knowingly for a person to permit land which he owns to be entered or used for hunting unless the hunting is exempt

    Land belongs to a person if he:

    - Owns an interest in it
    - Manages or controls it
    - The hunting is exempt
    

    Points to Prove

    The following elements of the offence must be proved to win a conviction:

    - That a wild mammal (but not a rat, rabbit, or a shot and injured hare) was hunted. In practice it may be necessary to show that a wild mammal was present to prove this, unless other compelling evidence is available such as an admission. Note that it is not necessary for the wild mammal to have been killed.
    - One or more dogs were used to hunt the wild mammal.
    - In the course of that pursuit, someone involved in it entered or used land belonging to the defendant.
    - The defendant gave someone permission to enter or use the land, knowing that the purpose of using or entering it was to carry out that pursuit.
    - Where the accused person can raise a credible argument that the hunting was exempt under Schedule 1, then in order to prove an offence under s. 1 the prosecution would be well advised to be in a position to show that the hunting was not exempt. However, where the defendant relies on the section 4 “reasonable belief” defence, it is for him to show that he or she reasonably believed his or her hunting was exempt.

    S.3(2) - It is an offence for a person, knowingly, to permit a dog that belongs to him to be used for hunting unless the hunting is exempt

    A dog belongs to a person if he:

    - Owns it
    - Is in charge of it
    - Has control of it
    

    Points to Prove

    The following elements of the offence must be proved to win a conviction:

    - That a wild mammal (but not a rat, rabbit, or a shot and injured hare) was hunted. In practice it may be necessary to show that a wild mammal was present to prove this, unless other compelling evidence is available such as an admission. Note that it is not necessary for the wild mammal to have been killed.
    - One or more dogs were used to hunt the wild mammal.
    - In the course of that pursuit, someone involved in it used a dog belonging to the defendant
    - The defendant gave someone permission to use the dog, knowing that the purpose of using it was to carry out that pursuit.
    - Where the accused person can raise a credible argument that the hunting was exempt under Schedule 1, then in order to prove an offence under s. 1 the prosecution would be well advised to be in a position to show that the hunting was not exempt. However, where the defendant relies on the section 4 “reasonable belief” defence, it is for him to show that he or she reasonably believed his or her hunting was exempt.

• Section 4 - Hunting Defence

  • S.4 - It is an defence in respect of Section 1 for a person to show that he reasonably believed the hunting to be exempt.

• Section 5 - Hare Coursing

  • S.5(1) - It is an offence to participate in, attend or knowingly facilitate a hare coursing event or permit land that you own to be used for hare coursing

    It is important to note that ALL hare coursing in illegal under the Hunting Act, where as before only certain types of hare coursing were outlawed.

    Points to Prove

    The following elements of the offence must be proved to win a conviction:

    - That a competition took place in which dogs were assessed as to their hunting skills by the use of live hares
    - That the defendant participated in or knowingly facilitated the event, or
    - permitted land that belonged to him to be used for the event.
    

    - Owns an interest in it.
    - Manages or controls it.
    - Occupies it.

    S.5(2) - It is an offence to enter or permit a dog to be entered in a coursing event, or control or handle a dog for the purpose of such an event

    Points to Prove

    It is necessary to prove the following points:

    - A competition took place in which dogs were assessed as to their hunting skills by the use of live hares.
    - The defendant entered a dog or permitted one be entered, or permitted land that belonged to him to be used for the event, or
    - the defendant controlled or handled a dog for the purpose of hare coursing at the event.

    S.5(3) - A hare coursing event is a competition in which dogs are, by the use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares

    Advice to Investigators

    Hare coursing is the pursuit of hares by two dogs, predominantly greyhounds. The dogs are released from leads by a man called a ‘slipper’ to chase the hare, and judges assess their skill in making the hare ‘turn’ as it flees.

    Those investigating alleged reports of hare coursing need to consider whether the activities mentioned resemble pre-ban hunting. The following points should be considered (though please note this list is not exhaustive):

    Shy – was a shy erected? A shy is a structure which hides the ‘slipper’, the person holding the two greyhounds on leads, from the hare as it is urged forward into the field.

    Beaters – are there ‘beaters’, people walking on foot usually holding objects that serve to scare the hare, such as plastic bags, moving line by line through a field driving hares towards the shy?

    Greyhounds - are the dogs chasing the hare greyhounds, or a similar breed traditionally bred for the purpose of coursing?

    Slipper – is there a person stood in the shy with two dogs on a slip lead? Does he release the dogs after the hare has run past the shy?

    Spectators – are there spectators watching the event? Are some of the spectators betting on which dog will win the course?

    Finish line – is there a clear finish line where the course ends?

    Judges – is there one or more judges who are assessing the skill of the grey hounds in coursing the hare?

    Please note that hare coursing is not a field trialling activity. Please see the field trail exemption for further information on field trailing.

    Be careful not to confuse hare coursing with other illegal activities such as Section 1 hunting or poaching.

• Section 6 - Penalty

  • The penalty for committing an offence under this Act is a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

    This is a summary offence and is therefore subject to a six month statutory period by when a decision must be made on whether to charge or summon the defendant.

• Section 7 - Power of Arrest

  • S.7 - A constable, without warrant, may arrest a person whom he reasonably suspects to have committed, or be committing or about to commit an offence under S.1 or S.5(1)(a), (b) or (c)

    Repealed by Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applies.

• Section 8 - Search & Seizure

  • S.8(1),(2), and (3) - Where a constable reasonably suspects that a person is committing or has committed an offence under Sections 1, 3 or 5 he may stop and search that person if he reasonably believes evidence of the offence is likely to be found on him.In addition, the constable may also stop and search any vehicle, animal or other thing which that person appears to be in possession or control of.

    S.8(4) - A constable may seize and detain a vehicle, animal or other thing if he reasonably believes that it may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 1, 3 or 5, or may be made subject of an order under Section 9

    S.8(5) - For the purposes of exercising a power under Section 8 a constable may enter land, premises other than a dwelling, or a vehicle without a warrant

• Section 9 - Forfeiture

  • S.9(1) - A court which convicts a person under Part 1 may order the forfeiture of any dog or hunting article which was used in the commission of the offence, or was in the possession of the person at the time of his arrest

    S.9(2) - A court which convicts a person under Part 1 may order the forfeiture of any vehicle which was used in the commission of the offence

    S.9(3) - Hunting article means anything designed or adapted for use in connection with hunting a wild mammal or hare coursing

• Section 10 - Offence by Body Corporate

  • S.10(1) and (2) - Where an offence is committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body the officer, as well as the body, shall be guilty of an offence

    S.10(3) - An officer of a body corporate includes: a director, manager or secretary; or a person purporting to act as such, and, if the affairs of the body are managed by its members, a member

    Advice to investigators

    It is advisable to check whether a hunt is a corporate body. One way this can be done is by looking at their constitution.

    In order for a prosecution to succeed, it would be necessary to show that an officer of the company consented or connived in the commission of the offence. The knowledge would have to be proved in relation to a company, or a person acting on behalf of a company, in the same way as it would in relation to an individual. Official Report, Standing Committee F, 25/2/03, col 1185

    Connivance requires more than mere specificity. It requires an active knowledge and some other act to show that there was implicit consent to use the land or someone's dogs. Connivance is about an offence for which knowledge plus something else is required. Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6/2/01, col 345

Schedule 1: Exempt Hunting


• Stalking and flushing out

  • Stalking and flushing to hounds is lawful provided ALL the following conditions apply:

    Condition 1

    A) it is done for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to:

    • Livestock
    • Game or wild birds (as defined by S.27 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981)
    • Food for livestock
    • Crops
    • Growing timber
    • Fisheries
    • Other property
    • The biological diversity of an area

    or

    B) it is done to obtain meat to be used for human or animal consumption

    or

    C) it is in the participation of a field trial i.e. a competition other than hare coursing in which dogs flush animals out of cover or retrieve animals that have been shot and are assessed as to their likely usefulness in connection with shooting. Dogs traditionally used in field trials include pointers and retrievers.

    Condition 2

    The stalking or flushing out takes place on land which belongs to the person doing the stalking or flushing out or permission to use the land for that purpose has been given by the owner or occupier.

    Land belongs to a person if he:

    • owns an interest in it
    • manages or controls it
    • occupies it

    Condition 3

    The stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of more than two dogs.

    Condition 4

    The stalking or flushing out does not involve the use of a dog below ground otherwise than in accordance with paragraph 2 below.

    Condition 5

    Reasonable steps are taken to ensure that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person and, in particular, each dog used is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure it does not prevent or obstruct the achievement of this.

    Note: The flushing must be done from cover (woodland, scrub etc.) and the guns must be positioned so that the wild mammal is shot dead as soon as possible. The dogs must not continue to pursue the wild mammal after it has left cover.

    If any of these five conditions are not satisfied the exemption cannot be claimed so the hunting will be illegal.

    Advice to Investigators

    If hunters claim they are hunting under an exemption the following points should be considered (though please note this list is not exhaustive):

    Pursuit – Was the animal pursued after it was flushed from cover (i.e. was it pursued in the open)? Was there a long pursuit? Was it possible for the animal to escape from the cover (n.b. cub hunting activities are designed to prevent the animal escaping from cover)?

    Dogs – Are more than two dogs being used? Are some of the dogs being replaced by others from the pack effectively leading to relays of pairs of hounds so that it appeared only two dogs were being used? Is/are the dog/s under close control?

    Guns – Are there enough/any guns placed near enough to ensure the wild mammal will be shot as soon as possible? Is the fire arm used able to kill the mammal so it will be shot dead as soon as possible?

    Purpose of the event – Is it possible to demonstrate that the purpose of the event was pest control or another exemption? Was there evidence that the animal had caused serious damage to crops? Was the purpose of the event for sport and recreation? Was the hunt advertised?

• Use of dogs below ground to protect birds for shooting

  • Dogs may be used below ground in the course of stalking or flushing out for this purpose provided the following conditions are satisfied:

    Condition 1

    Must be only be done for the purpose of preventing or reducing serious damage to game birds or wild birds (as defined by S.27 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) that are being kept or preserved for shooting.

    Condition 2

    1. The person doing the stalking or flushing out:

    Has with him written evidence that

    a. the land belongs to him, or
    b. he has been given permission by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by the landowner.

    2. Must make the evidence immediately available for inspection by a constable on demand.

    Note: Land belongs to a person if he:

    • owns an interest in it
    • manages or controls it
    • occupies it

    Condition 3

    Only one dog to be used underground at any one time.

    Condition 4

    • Reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the wild mammal is flushed out as soon as possible after being found
    • Reasonable steps are taken to ensure the wild mammal is shot dead by a competent person as soon as possible after being flushed out
    • In particular, the dog is brought under sufficiently close control to ensure it does not prevent or obstruct the mammal being shot as soon as possible
    • Reasonable steps are taken to prevent injury to the dog, and
    • The manner in which the dog is used complies with any code of practice issued or approved by the Secretary of State.

    Note: The wild mammal must not be pursued by the dog that flushed it out or any other dog.

    If any of these four conditions are not satisfied the exemption cannot be claimed so the hunting will be illegal.

    Advice to Investigators

    If hunter claims they are trail hunting or hunting under an exemption the following points should be considered (though please note this list is not exhaustive):

    Trail hunting activity – Is this activity taking place in conjunction with a trail hunt (i.e. are there terriermen at a trail hunt with terriers and spades)? N.B. This activity is completely independent of trail hunts.

    Pursuit – Was the animal pursued after it was flushed from cover (i.e. was it pursued in the open)? Was there a long pursuit?

    Dogs – Is there more than one dog being used? Is the dog under close control?

    Guns – Are there enough/any guns placed near enough to ensure the animal will be shot as soon as possible?

    Purpose of the event – Is it possible to demonstrate that the purpose of the event was pest control? Is there evidence of prior serious damage to game birds being kept for shooting?

• Rats, rabbits and the retrieval of hares

  • The hunting of rats and rabbits or a hare that has been shot is exempt provided it takes place on land that:

    • belongs to the hunter, or
    • he has been given permission by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by the landowner.

    Note: Land belongs to a person if he:

    • owns an interest in it
    • manages or controls it
    • occupies it

    Note: there is no limitation to the number of dogs that may be used.

    Advice to Investigators

    If hunters claim they are hunting under an exemption the following points should be considered (though please note this list is not exhaustive):

    Type hunting activity – Do the activities taking place resemble any pre-ban hunting activities, such as mink hunting, hare coursing or hare hunting? Is their evidence of a long pursuit (rabbits tend to drive back to their warrens rather than try to out run their pursuer)?

    Retrieving hares – If hunters claim they are retrieving a shot hare is there evidence of a shoot taking place at the time?

• Falconry

  • The flushing of a wild mammal from cover is exempt hunting provided it is undertaken for the purpose of enabling a bird of prey to hunt the wild mammal, and the land:

    • belongs to the hunter, or
    • he has been given permission by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by the landowner.

    Note: Land belongs to a person if he:

    • owns an interest in it
    • manages or controls it
    • occupies it

    Note: there is no limitation to the number of dogs that may be used.

    Advice to Investigators

    If hunters claim they are hunting under an exemption the following points should be considered (though please note this list is not exhaustive):

    Type Bird used – Is the bird of prey capable of hunting the target animal?

    Use of the bird – Is the bird in a position where it could hunt the target animal? Is the bird engaged in the hunt/or in a state of readiness (i.e. not kept in a box or on its handlers arm wearing its hood)?

    N.B. It is important to ensure that the bird is kept in conditions that are in line with Animal Welfare Act 2006.

• Recapture of a wild mammal

  • The hunting of a wild mammal that has escaped or been released from captivity or confinement is exempt if the following conditions are satisfied:

    Condition 1

    The hunting takes place on land that belongs to the hunter, on land which the hunter has been given permission by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by the landowner.

    Note: Land belongs to a person if he:

    • owns an interest in it
    • manages or controls it
    • occupies it

    Condition 2

    • Reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found the wild mammal is recaptured or shot dead by a competent person, and
    • in particular, each dog used is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct this.

    Condition 3

    The wild mammal

    • was not released for the purpose of being hunted, and
    • was not permitted to escape for this purpose.

    Note there is no limitation to the number of dogs that may be used.

    If any of these three conditions are not satisfied the exemption cannot be claimed so the hunting will be illegal.

    Advice to Investigators

    If hunter claims they are hunting under an exemption the following points should be considered (though please note this list is not exhaustive):

    Pursuit – Was the animal pursued after it was flushed from cover (i.e. was it pursued in the open)? Was there a long pursuit?

    Dogs –Is/are the dog/s under close control

    Guns – Are there enough/any guns placed near enough to ensure the animal will be shot as soon as possible? Is the fire arm used able to kill the animal so it will be shot dead as soon as possible

    Purpose of the event – Is there evidence of where the wild mammal has escaped from? Was the purpose of the event for sport and recreation? Was the hunt advertised

    Terriermen – Are there terriermen present? N.B. there would be no role for traditional terriermen in the recapture of a wild animal.

• Rescue of a wild mammal

  • Hunting for the purpose of rescuing a wild mammal is exempt if the following conditions are satisfied

    Condition 1

    The hunter reasonably believes the wild mammal is or may be injured.

    Condition 2

    The hunting is done for the purpose of relieving the animals suffering.

    Condition 3

    The hunting does not involve the use of more than two dogs.

    Condition 4

    The hunting does not involve the use of a dog below ground.

    Condition 5

    The hunting takes place on land that

    • belongs to the hunter, or
    • he has been given permission by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by the landowner.

    Note: Land belongs to a person if he

    • owns an interest in it
    • manages or controls it
    • occupies it

    Condition 6

    • Reasonable steps are taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after the animal is found appropriate action (if any) is taken to relieve its suffering, and
    • in particular, each dog used is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it does not prevent or obstruct this.

    Condition 7

    The wild mammal was not harmed for the purpose of enabling it to be hunted under this paragraph.

    If any of these seven conditions are not satisfied the exemption cannot be claimed so the hunting will be illegal.

    Advice to Investigators

    If hunter claims they are hunting under an exemption the following points should be considered (though please note this list is not exhaustive):

    Pursuit – Was the animal pursued after it was flushed from cover (i.e. was it pursued in the open)? Was there a long pursuit

    Dogs –Is/are the dog/s under close control

    Guns – Are there enough/any guns placed near enough to ensure the animal will be shot as soon as possible? Is the fire arm used able to kill the animal so it will be shot dead as soon as possible

    Purpose of the event – Is there evidence of that the animal was injured? Was the purpose of the event for sport and recreation? Was the hunt advertised?

    Terriermen – Are there terriermen present? N.B. there would be no role for traditional terriermen in the rescue of a wild animal.

• Research and observation

  • The hunting of a wild mammal for research or observation is exempt if the following conditions are satisfied:

    Condition 1

    The hunting is undertaken for the purpose of or in connection with the observation or study of the wild mammal.

    Condition 2

    The hunting does not involve the use of more than two dogs.

    Condition 3

    The hunting does not involve the use of a dog below ground.

    Condition 4

    The hunting takes place on land that:

    • Belongs to the hunter, or
    • he has been given permission by the occupier or, in the case of unoccupied land, by the landowner.

    Note: Land belongs to a person if he:

    • owns an interest in it,
    • manages or controls it, or
    • occupies it.

    Condition 5

    Each dog used is kept under sufficiently close control to ensure it does not injure the wild mammal.

    If any of these four conditions are not satisfied the exemption cannot be claimed so the hunting will be illegal.

    Advice to Investigators

    If hunter claims they are hunting under an exemption the following points should be considered (though please note this list is not exhaustive):

    Pursuit – Was the animal pursued after it was flushed from cover (i.e. was it pursued in the open)? Was there a long pursuit

    Dogs – Are more than two dogs being used? Are some of the dogs being replaced by others from the pack effectively leading to relays of pairs of hounds so that it appeared only two dogs were being used? Is/are the dog/s under close control

    Guns – Are there enough/any guns placed near enough to ensure the animal will be shot as soon as possible? Is the fire arm used able to kill the animal so it will be shot dead as soon as possible

    Purpose of the event – Is there evidence of a research project being carried out at the time? Was the purpose of the event for sport and recreation? Was the hunt advertised? Are there hunt followers present? Is there a kill and if so is this celebrated (i.e. by celebratory calls)?

    Terriermen – Are there terriermen present? N.B. there would be no role for traditional terriermen in a research project.

• Consequential amendments

  • The following amendments to other enactments have been made:

    Game Act 1831

    In S. 35 of the Game Act 1831 the provision allowing trespass has been amended such that the words “to any person hunting or coursing upon any lands with hounds or greyhounds, and being in fresh pursuit of any deer, hare or fox already started upon any other land, nor” cease to have effect.

    Game Licences Act 1860

    S. 5 exceptions 3 and 4 (hares and deer) cease to have effect.

    Protection of Animals Act 1911

    In S. 1(3)(b) (offences of cruelty) a reference to hare coursing or hunting does not now include reference to

    • Participation in a hare coursing event, or
    • The coursing or hunting of a wild mammal with a dog.

    Protection of Badgers Act 1992

    S. 8(4) to (9), the exemption allowing badger setts to be blocked in the course of fox hunting, ceases to have effect.

    Wild Mammals Protection Act 1996

    S.2 the hunting of a wild mammal with a dog is now only lawful if and only if it is exempt hunting.

 

 

Hunting Act 2004 (PDF)

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 (PDF)

British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) Code of Practice (PDF)