Labour has no excuse for banning trail hunting

Twenty years ago, when the Hunting Act was passed, most of us thought that hunting as we knew it would end. That was wrong. Hunts changed, adapting to trail hunting and exempt hunting. The former involves laying a scent – a trail – for hounds to follow, but with no killing of live quarry. Today, hunting is still flourishing and is as popular as ever.

The hunting community realised that it needed a strong regulatory body and created the British Hound Sports Association, BHSA, bringing together 247 packs of hounds, representing fox hounds, beagles, harriers, bassets, stag hounds and mink hounds, as well as fell packs. A disciplinary body, the Hound Sports Regulatory Authority, was also created, chaired by a retired High Court judge.

But we are now under threat from a Labour government. We had hoped that Labour would have realised that it need not be at war with the rural community. Sadly that has not proven to be the case, and we now see that Sir Keir Starmer leads not a new Labour Party, but one still entrenched in so-called class warfare with an anti-rural agenda. The party’s manifesto includes a commitment to end trail hunting.

All is not lost. We must show a Labour government that it should address what really matters to rural areas. We must show – indeed, prove – that trail hunting properly conducted under strict rules, set by the BHSA, is a legal sport and should not be subject to new legislation.

Trail hunting is not, as has been claimed by some – including the chief superintendent in charge of wildlife crime – a loophole. That is nonsense. Tony Blair’s bill to ban hunting live quarry was a piece of government legislation, passed by an administration with a huge majority. Parliament spent many hours debating the bill in both the Commons and Lords. Moreover, when Labour MPs argued for the original ban, many insisted that they were not opposed to chasing an inanimate object, such as a scented rag. They said they were not trying to ban the act of hunting with hounds, only the pursuit of live quarry. Why the change of mind now?

When the bill became an Act, it represented the clear will of Parliament. It’s a bit rich for any police commander to suggest that it contains loopholes. The police should look at their own rules, where police under investigation for serious misdemeanours and possible crimes have been known to retire early and avoid any sanction. That’s a serious loophole.

Hunting has a good record. Last season, there were about 12,000 days of hunting, often with police following by car or observing by drone, and with anti-hunt activists taking hours of videos. The result was only one successful prosecution, and that is subject to appeal. Since the ban, there have been about 250,000 days hunting with hounds and only 23 successful prosecutions. It’s a better record than most other sports.

Hunting with hounds brings together the rural community, offering a sense of social cohesion. It encourages conservation, the planting of hedges, the mending of walls and the creation of woodland. On Boxing Day, many thousands of people turn out to support hunts in their area.

The hunting community has adapted since the ban and operates within the law of the land. We have not been as robust as we should have been in explaining how trail hunting works. So, on September 14, we will put on a National Trail Hunting Day at 30 venues around the country. We want new MPs, the press, and the public to come and see for themselves how we operate. If a Labour government wants rural support, it has no need or excuse to ban a legal sport enjoyed by many thousands throughout the country.

A ban on trail hunting would mean the end of hunting with hounds. Hounds are pack animals, difficult to rehome. They are more likely to eat a sofa than sit on one. Does an incoming Labour government really want to be responsible for the unnecessary euthanasia of 12,000 animals?

Viscount Astor is chair of the British Hound Sports Association