Stiffer penalties may be imposed on fox hunters under new plans aimed at strengthening regulations and cracking down on rule-breakers. Following traditional Boxing Day gatherings, the Labour government has reaffirmed its pledge to ban trail hunting. Plympith Live readers have been having their say in our comments section.
Anti-hunting advocates are urging ministers to deliver on their manifesto promise to outlaw the practice, which mimics a traditional fox hunt with dogs. They are calling for harsher penalties, including imprisonment, to be made available to judges to “deter people from this sickening activity”.
Trail hunting involves laying an animal-based scent trail, such as fox urine, and should not involve chasing, injuring, or killing animals. However, these events often occur in areas where foxes or hares are present, and dogs may end up tracking a real fox’s scent.
Campaigners warn that hunters claim they were unaware their hound was pursuing a real animal’s scent to evade prosecution. Ministers are being urged to amend the law to penalize hunters who accidentally kill foxes.
Currently, it must be proven that there was a “deliberate” attempt to kill an animal, but this may be changed to include those who kill through “recklessness”. Stricter punishments, such as increased fines, for those who break existing hunting laws are also being considered.
Activists are advocating for the legislation to be bolstered, aligning it with other laws such as the Protection of Badgers Act and Wild Mammals Protection Act, which carry maximum penalties of six months imprisonment. Research carried out by the League Against Cruel Sports suggests that since August, there have been 186 reported instances of foxes being pursued by hunts and 220 reports related to suspected illegal hunting incidents. They say: “We are committed to a ban on trail hunting, which is being exploited as a smokescreen to cruelly kill foxes and hares.”
Commenter Jeanearl asks: “If you are not enforcing the current law then what will stronger penalties achieve?”
AJGreen replies: “Make it a total ban on fox hunting. Allow a registered hunter to shoot foxes that become a nuisance. Failure to comply should result in the removal and destruction of the dogs, and red coats, of course.”
Davey suggests: “A huge fine would be the way to go.”
Lsam6 replies: “ They are all super wealthy and can afford to purchase and maintain animals. Financial penalties won’t affect them.”
NuffSaid adds: “They think they have a right to let dogs rip apart a live animal. They even attack cats if they come across one. This week people have been seriously assaulted by these people because they protested against their barbaric practice. Slapping fines on them doesn’t work. It’s organised crime and trail hunting is a smokescreen.”
Timmo says: “Cats rip apart mice, birds and anything they can catch. As do some pet dogs.”
Albertgate agrees: “Surely it’s only a sport and it is traditional? Man hunt foxes, foxes hunt chickens?”
Suadi adds: “Foxes are vicious animals who maul hens for fun. They cause a huge problem for farmers.”
AJGreen points out: “Indeed, they do. Nature can be cruel, without doubt. The difference here is that humans can choose not to kill, animals only have instincts. And they don’t have riders in silly red coats urging them on, do they? If foxes are successful in taking chickens from a farm, then the farm owner is negligent in not protecting the chickens. Better fences and chicken enclosures would make it impossible for foxes to gain entry. This is just an excuse designed to justify the fox hunts. It’s a cruel sport and the tradition has passed its time, like sending children up chimneys. I get the impression that they allow it to continue to falsely justify their cruelty.”
Rebel_ray thinks: “It will be hard to ban, as it’s generally a well to do crowd of barristers, judges, solicitors, civil servants etc who participate in such brutality.”
How do you feel about fox hunting? Is it an old British tradition that should be upheld or an outdated, cruel sport? Have your say in our comments section.