A comfortable Yes win came out of a debate that kept returning to one question: can the existing law be enforced, or is trail hunting the loophole that defeats it?
The most-respected Yes case was a witness account. Its author said the hunting community is “hell bent on continuing to hunt foxes with hounds”, and that police are not properly manned or trained to deal with it. Others made the same charge shorter: one called it “a smokescreen to bypass the 2004 Hunting Act”, another said trail hunting is “always just going to be a cover for real hunting”. One Yes voter suggested drag hunting should be enough.
The most-respected No case answered with logic rather than outrage. Banning on the basis that something bad might happen, it argued, would mean banning cars, and “If a hunt breaks the law, investigate and prosecute it.” A second No voter said they hadn't seen the evidence that foxes are being killed, and one conceded they oppose all hunting with dogs for sport but would hold organisers accountable for any harm. Other No voters argued from rural jobs and tradition, and some turned to politics, claiming the left is obsessed with hunting.
The two sides did meet on enforcement. Yes voters said the law is not being enforced against hunts; No voters said the remedy is more enforcement, though one worried it would be expensive. Neither side's central claim was settled by the other's.
The temperature ran from disgust (“It's barbaric”) to impatience with what one No voter called “Puritanical control freakery”.
52 Opinions
The 'hunting community' is hell bent on continuing to hunt foxes with hounds in opposition to the law. They use trail hunting as a cover for their criminal activities all the time. I have frequently seen this happen The police are not properly manned or trained to deal with this. The current law is an ass on this topic and needs to be changed. Edited
No. Ban trail hunting because something bad might happen? By that logic, we'd ban cars because crashes happen every day. Risk alone is not proof of wrongdoing. Trail hunting is lawful; hunting wild mammals with dogs is already prohibited. If a hunt breaks the law, investigate and prosecute it. If accidental harm occurs, examine the evidence and improve safeguards. Enforce the law against actual offences rather than banning an entire countryside activity on suspicion.
Of course not. If there’s evidence that a hunt is targeting foxes then prosecute them. Most hunts stay within the law though, and it’s not fair to punish them.
And video games are making psychopaths. Meantime the real psychopaths are the ones that are creating the nanny state.
It's barbaric.
It does no harm and creates and sustains thousands of jobs within the rural community. The ban on fox hunting has been an unmitigated disaster. Rural foxes are now shot as vermin at anytime of year and has lead to a massive drop in population. At least hunting was controlled to avoid the breeding season and it was largely the old or infirm foxes that were caught.
No, this is legal activity and supports rural communities. Its opponents are largely doing so on political grounds & are largely dishonest. Where unlawful hunts are occurring they should be treated in an accordance with the law. Trail hunting should be left alone.
I think there are more serious concerns than a bunch of horsey folk that like to gallop around the countryside.
I voted no, but I oppose all hunting with dogs for "sport". I would let trail hunting continue but I would hold all those involved accountable for any pain, injury or death caused to foxes, badgers or any other wildlife. They should be able to organise the events so that no "accidental" harm occurs, it's not rocket science.
Oh but it does. There are more than a few hunts that totally abuse this & break the law. Notbing is done about this.it's a vile 'sport' that should be completely banned.