Adopt
Donate
Shop

The Hunting Act 2004

In force since 18 February 2005, the Hunting Act 2004 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which bans the hunting of most wild mammals (notably foxes, deer, hares and mink) with dogs in England and Wales.

The Act does not cover the use of dogs in the process of flushing out an unidentified wild mammal, nor does it affect so-called ‘trail hunting’ and drag hunting where hounds follow an artificial scent (in the former case animals are often hunted illegally, in the latter no animals are harmed).

While intended to ban hunting with dogs altogether, the Act contains a number of exemptions inserted by pro-hunt politicians as it made its way through Parliament which considerably weakened it.

 

(Also see Protectors pages on > Assault and the Law, > Deer and the Law,  > Foxes and the Law, > Hare Coursing and the Law, > The Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill 2023)

Under the Hunting Act 2004, it is an offence to hunt wild mammals with dogs (unless that hunting is exempt). If a person has with him or her a dog and is hunting a wild mammal he is guilty of an offence.

The Act creates five offences:

  • Hunting a wild mammal with a dog,
  • Permitting land to be used for hunting a wild mammal with a dog,
  • Permitting a dog to be used for hunting a wild mammal,
  • Participating in, attending, facilitating or permitting land to be used for the purposes of a hare-coursing event,
  • Entering/permitting/handling a dog in a hare-coursing event.

Under the Hunting Act 2004, “wild mammal” includes, in particular:

  • a wild mammal which has been bred or tamed for any purpose,
  • a wild mammal which is in captivity or confinement,
  • a wild mammal which has escaped or been released from captivity or confinement,
  • any mammal which is living wild.

Certain forms of exempt hunting are very closely defined in Schedule 1 of the Hunting Act 2004 (as so often, a number of these protect the shooting industry):

  • Stalking and flushing out a wild mammal for certain purposes, with a view to its being shot forthwith, and not using more than two dogs.
  • Use of not more than one dog at a time below ground in the course of stalking or flushing to protect birds for shooting.
  • Hunting rats.
  • Hunting rabbits.
  • Retrieval of shot hares.
  • Flushing a wild mammal from cover in connection with falconry.
  • Recapture of an accidentally escaped wild mammal.
  • Rescue of a wild mammal believed injured using not more than two dogs and no dog below ground.
  • Observation and study of a wild mammal, using not more than two dogs and no dog below ground.  

The Hunting Act 2004 makes it illegal to hunt foxes with a pack of dogs. Dogs can be used to simulate hunting, for example ‘drag’ or ‘trail’ hunting, and up to two dogs can be used to chase (‘flush’ or ‘stalk’) foxes out of hiding if the fox is causing damage to property or the environment.

Dogs can’t go underground to find the foxes unless they’re threatening wild birds or birds kept for shooting – only one dog can go underground at any time.

A person must:

  • shoot the fox quickly after the animal has been found

  • carry proof you own the land you’re shooting on or have written permission from the landowner.

According to legal guidance published by the Crown Prosecution Service excuses used by hunts to evade prosecution include:

  • Trail hunting

    Defendants claim that they were trail hunting and that an accident occurred where the dogs chased a wild mammal out of their control.

    Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on proving that the accused ought to be aware their hounds were pursuing the scent of a wild mammal scent, and they did not do anything to stop them (or even did something to encourage them) when he had the opportunity to do so.

  • Exempt hunting

    Defendants claim that they were hunting under one of the exemptions provided by Schedule 1 of the Act and therefore they were not committing any offence.

    Examples of exemptions that have been used in this type of defence are the “flushing to guns” exemption and the similar ‘falconry’ exemption. These involve arguing that the dogs were simply being used to flush out the prey so that it can be hunted by a bird of prey or shot.

    The “observation and research” exemption is another example and is often used in stag hunting cases, since stag hunts do not do trail hunting.

    Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on proving that any of the conditions needed to be able to claim a particular exempt hunting were not abided with (for example, the condition that the mammal needs to shot as soon as it is flushed out).

  • Temporary lapse

    Defendants claim that they were hunting legally all day (so-called ‘trail hunting’) and for a moment they had a temporary lapse when they saw the hounds chasing a fox and they did not do as much as they could to stop them.

    Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on showing a modus operandi from the beginning of the hunt which is more consistent with illegal hunting than with trail hunting, for example hunts searching for the scent for a long time in copses or woods which are unlikely to be the areas where a scent has been laid.

  • Wrong identification

    Defendants claim that they were not the offenders identified in video evidence.

    Those involved in hunts, for example the Huntsman and the Whipper-in, may wear the same type of clothes. If one of them is charged and the other not, they may claim this defence.

    Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on providing additional recognition from the eye witnesses, or by detailed forensic analysis of the footage that allows the elimination of alternative suspects for example, only the Huntsman uses the horn.

  • No intent proven

    Defendants claim that although their dogs may indeed have hunted a wild mammal, there has not been proof that they intended their dogs to do so, or that they could have done anything to stop them since they were far away from the dogs when the chase took place.

    This defence relies on a 1969 ruling by the House of Lords that guilty intent is important in criminal acts in establishing guilt in all ordinary cases.

    Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on proving that the actions of the defendant equated to encouraging his dogs to chase a wild mammal, for example by the use of the hunting horn, or that the defendants deliberately allowed the dogs to be out of control when they realised that they were on the scent of a wild mammal.

  • No connection with offenders

    Defendants claim that they were not aware that someone else was committing an offence under the Hunting Act, and the fact they may have been recorded together with the offender is coincidental.

    This is sometimes used when the offender is a terrierman. Prior to the Hunting Act, terriermen would follow the hunt and, where a mammal had gone underground, they would use dogs to flush it out enabling the chase to continue.

    The Act places stipulations on flushing out mammals as part of the exemptions under Schedule 1. A terrierman may be prosecuted if they do not abide by these stipulations.

    There is no real role for the terriermen in trail hunting and, where terriermen still follow hunts, the hunts may claim that they are not connected with their activities.

    Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on proving that the terrierman had been summoned to the scene of the crime by the defendant, and that the crime could not have been committed without the collaboration of the defendant.

  • No specified mammal was hunted

    The Administrative Court in the joined cases of DPP (Crown Prosecution Service CCU South West) v Anthony Wright; and The Queen on the Application of Maurice Scott, Peter Heard & Donald Summersgill vTaunton Deane Magistrates Court [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin) ruled that the term ‘hunts’ under the Act does not include the mere searching for an as yet unidentified wild mammal.

    Defendants may claim therefore that there is no evidence that their dogs were chasing a wild mammal.

    Successful prosecutions against such a defence are based on proving that the mammal is specified, for example by footage that can identify the wild mammal, and that because the mammal can be specified, the offence started with the earlier searching for it.

The Hunting Act 2004 allows what has become known as ‘trail hunting’ – allegedly following an animal-based scent laid in advance of a hunt. It is widely recognised as the exemption under which most illegal hunting takes place, and the most widely used to confuse police and the courts.

‘Trail hunting’ supposedly involves people on foot or horseback following a scent (typically fox-based, which of course means dogs will not know an artificial scent from a real one) along a pre-determined route (of any length) with hounds or beagles. It is supposed to effectively replicate a traditional hunt but without a fox being chased, injured or killed.

Hunts are supposed to have a ‘trail layer’ (usually on a quad bike) who goes ahead of the hunt to ‘lay the trail’, but witnesses on the ground say any ‘trail layers’ rarely if ever ‘trail lay’ for more than a few hundred metres and it’s impossible to know both where a ‘trail’ is allegedly being laid or (which is far more likely) a rag is merely being dragged along the ground to give the illusion of ‘laying a trail’.

‘Trail layers’ won’t notify those in control of the hounds where the trail is, allowing the hunt to claim ignorance if the hounds ‘leave the trail’ and an animal does get killed.

Hunts are legally supposed to immediately call off dogs if they start hunting a wild mammal, but it is very difficult to prove or disprove in court whether they have actually done this.

  • ‘Trail hunting’ is a sham. While many hunts now promote their ‘hunting’ as following a scent, the truth is that the vast majority of hunts are using ‘trail hunting’ as a disguise for illegal hunting and are hunting wild animals as they have always done.

No. The Administrative Court in the joined cases of DPP (Crown Prosecution Service CCU South West)  v Anthony Wright; and The Queen on the Application of Maurice Scott, Peter Heard & Donald Summersgill v Taunton Deane Magistrates Court (2009) ruled that the term ‘hunts’ under the Hunting Act 2004 does not include the mere searching for an unidentified and unidentifiable wild mammal.

Section 3(2) of the Hunting Act 2004 says that a person commits an offence if he knowingly permits a dog which belongs to him to be used in the course of the commission of a section 1 offence.

Section 11(4) provides that for the purposes of the Act a dog ‘belongs to someone’ if they:

  • own the dog,
  • is in charge of the dog,
  • has control of the dog.
 

This is similar to the terminology used in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Yes, the Hunting Act removed an exemption in the Protection of Badgers Act that allowed hunts to block setts.

Before the Hunting Act 2004 came into force a conditional exemption in Section 8 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 allowed hunts to earth stop and sett block to prevent a fox ‘going to ground’ in a badger sett (the Act says “obstructing any entrance of a badger sett for the purpose of hunting foxes with hounds”).  This exemption was withdrawn when the Hunting Act came into force.

Schedule 2, Section 13 of the Hunting Act legislation says “Section 8(4) to (9) of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (exception for hunting) shall cease to have effect“.

Exemptions were inserted into the Hunting Act 2004 to allow hunting to continue in much the same way as it did pre the Hunting Act 2004. These exemptions are repeatedly used by hunts to excuse illegal hunting.

  • Stalking and flushing to guns: Two dogs may be used to flush a fox from cover so it can be shot for the purpose of protecting livestock, ‘gamebirds’ or biodiversity. The dogs must be kept under close control and the fox must be shot as soon as it breaks from cover – no further chasing is allowed. (Easily exploited and the ‘rules’ broken by hunts with no interest in ‘protecting biodiversity’).
  • Rescue of an injured mammal: Two dogs may be used to capture a fox if the hunt believes it is injured and the hunting is undertaken to relieve its suffering. (In other words, illegally hunt a fox, injure it, and then ‘legally’ continue the hunt on welfare grounds…)
  • Research and observation: Two dogs are allowed to be used for the purpose of or in connection with the observation or study of a wild mammal. (This exemption is widley used by stag hunts – NO peer-reviewed science has ever been produced by them.)
  • Flushing to a bird of prey: An unlimited number of dogs can be used to flush a fox from cover to a bird of prey which will catch and kill it. (Used as an excuse for illegal hunting, and ususally involves hunts carrying a miserable-looking tethered Eagle Owl or small eagle.)
  • Recapture of escaped wild mammal: An unlimited number of dogs can be used to capture a fox that has escaped from captivity (which will inevitably be a fox reared by the hunt and illegally released to a pack of hounds).
  • Use of a dog below ground (terrier work): One terrier may be used below ground to flush out a fox to be shot for the purpose of ‘protecting’ birds being reared for shooting. (A terrier man must carry written permission from the landowner, but this is rarely (if ever?) enforced by police officers, and terrier men routinely accompany hunts well away from land used for shooting.)

All of these exemptions allow hunting with dogs to continue. The only solution is a proper ban on hunting that bans all hunting with dogs with no exemptions or exceptions.

 

No, they do not. In so-called traditional fox hunting one or more terriermen were employed by the hunt to kill foxes that had sought refuge underground (“gone to ground”), but terriermen have no legitimate role in a so-called ‘trail hunt’ as the hunt is not supposed to be chasing foxes at all.

Terriermen are still permitted to use a dog below ground but only to prevent or reduce serious damage to game birds or wild birds kept for shooting, livestock, or biodiversity (known widely as the so-called ‘Gamekeeper exemption’).

The Hunting Act 2004 creates a number of offences of hunting wild mammals with dogs, with some very closely defined exemptions.

The term “hunt” means:

  • to pursue and kill (a wild animal) for sport or food,
  • to try to find by diligent searching and to pursue and capture,
  • to pursue or approach stealthily or to move silently through,
  • to drive (a bird or animal, especially a game bird) from cover.  

In England and Wales the Hunting Act 2004 allows only one dog to be used below ground and only in respect of foxes. In Scotland the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act is similar but also allows dogs to hunt mink underground.

The dog must be

  • under control
  • fitted with a device to allow tracking of the position of the dog below ground.

The Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act requires that once flushed, a fox must be shot or killed by a bird of prey. If an attempt to kill a fox results in the fox being injured but not killed, reasonable steps must be taken to kill the fox in a way (other than by using a dog) that causes the minimum possible suffering. The Act bans using a dog to search for, or flush a rabbit from below ground. 

Section 5(1) of the Hunting Act 2004 says that ‘A person commits an offence if he: Participates, attends, knowingly participates in a hare coursing event or permits land which belongs to him to be used for the purpose of a hare coursing event. A hare coursing event is a competition in which dogs are, by use of live hares, assessed as to skill in hunting hares.’

Section 5(2) creates offences relating to involvement with a dog which participates in a hare coursing event:

Each of the following persons commits an offence if a dog participates in a hare coursing event:

  1. any person who enters the dog for an event;
  2. any person who permits the dog to be entered;
  3. any person who controls or handles the dog in the course of or for the purposes of the event.

 

It is important to note that the issue of ownership of the dog does not arise in the definition of these offences.

(For more go to Protectors page > Hare Coursing and the Law)

Yes. Because rabbits are considered to be ‘pests’ they are not currently protected in the UK by Acts that ban hunting of wild mammals with dogs.

When the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023 comes into force in summer/autumn 2023 it will longer be permissible to use a dog to search for, or flush a rabbit from below ground in Scotland. Under the new Scotland Act a dog may be used to find an injured rabbit but must not kill it.

No, it is not. The Hunting Act 2004 applies to deer. Stag and hind hunts rely on loopholes in the Act though:

  • A mammal can be ‘flushed’ out by a maximum of two hounds and shot, or to relieve it of suffering.
  • Stags are killed under the Hunting Act’s research and observation loophole – research that has yet to produce any public results more than a decade later.
  • Latterly hunts have been claiming the hunted deer ‘has bovine TB’ – exploiting Schedule 1.2(a) of the Hunting Act, through which the hunt can use two hounds to flush out a mammal that might cause “serious damage” to livestock.
 
 

None of these ‘reasons’ are valid (and any deer suspected of having bTB shouldn’t be chased across the countryside anyway), but they are technically permissible in law provided hunts do not use more than two dogs – and stag hunts will typically use pairs of dogs in ‘relay’, meaning that a single deer will eventually be chased by many dogs but not by more than two dogs at any one time.

(For more go to Protectors page > Deer and the Law)

A falconry exemption is written in to the Hunting Act 2004, and some hunts do indeed go out with a miserable looking bird of prey (usually a small eagle or Eagle Owl) in a box attached to a quad bike.

If the falconry exemption is used, however, the bird of prey must be capable of pursuing the wild mammal that it is flushing and only two dogs are permitted at any one time to carry out the flushing.

In a clarification in 2005 Defra said that “”Employing (whether or not released to hunt) a bird of prey which does not ordinarily hunt that particular wild mammal [would be illegal], because, in our view, it suggests that the flushing was not for the purpose of enabling the bird of prey to hunt the mammal.”
 
Defra also said that the falconry exemption allowed dogs to flush out wild mammals for the birds to hunt but not for the dogs to “run after, chase or pursue the wild mammal after it has been flushed out. Nor does the exemption allow the dog(s) to kill the wild mammal.” 

A 1969 ruling by the House of Lords said that ‘guilty intent’ in criminal acts is important in establishing guilt in all ordinary cases.

Successful Hunting Act prosecutions against such an ‘intent’ defence would be based on proving that the actions of the defendant equated to encouraging his dogs to chase a wild mammal, for example by the use of the hunting horn, or that the defendants deliberately allowed the dogs to be out of control when they realised that they were on the scent of a wild mammal.

The Crown Prosecution Service highlight a case where defendants were able to claim that “although their dogs may indeed have hunted a wild mammal, there has not been proof that they intended their dogs to do so, or that they could have done anything to stop them since they were far away from the dogs when the chase took place”. (The answer to the question of whether the ‘defendants’ should have allowed the dogs to be so far ahead of them that they were effectively ‘out of control’ was not provided.)

It seems ludicrous to suggest that the Hunting Act 2004 might breach the Human Rights Act,  but then the Countryside Alliance is home to  some ludicrous thinking. (Our thanks to James Hart for the following excellent summary for the argument the CA put forward and the rejections of the case made by the court.)

 

Human Rights and the Hunting Act 2004

It is necessary to look at case law to see if Human Rights are inconsistent with the EC Treaty or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. 

For reference the relevant Articles are outlined below.

Article 1 – Obligation to respect Human Rights

1- The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

 Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life.

1- Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2- There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 Article 11 – Right of freedom of assembly and association.

1- Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2- No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

 Article 14 – Prohibition of Discrimination.

1- The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

 

 Case law and Judgments

The case to look at is that of R (on the application of Countryside Alliance and others and others (Appellants)) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General and another (Respondents)R (on the application of Countryside Alliance and others (Appellants) and others) v Her Majesty’s Attorney General and another (Respondents).

 

Facts – An appeal was brought against a decision that the Hunting Act 2004 was not inconsistent with the EC Treaty, or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The focus of the appeal via the appellants to whom argued that the Act was incompatible with the right to a private and family life; and the right of freedom of assembly and association. (Articles 8 and 11 of the Human Rights Act) Furthermore, along with Articles 1 and 14 of the Act, the right to a peaceful enjoyment of property rights, and prohibition on discrimination.

 

Held – The Appeal was Rejected by the House of Lords to whom had said that Articles 8 and 11 were not engaged, and that if they had been, the Hunting act 2004 was proportionate to the end it had sought to achieve and necessary in a democratic society. 

Despite the applicants’ efforts, they were unable to persuade the Court that their situation was analogous to other Strasbourg cases relating to private life, personal autonomy, loss of livelihood and the concept of a home (the Court in this case was concerned about stretching the concept of home to include public activities on private land. The fact that hunting is a public activity was central to the Court’s conclusion that the ban did not interfere with the applicants’ private lives).

The Lords also made it clear that hunting does not amount to a personal characteristic nor a status on grounds of which a person can be discriminated against under Article 14, as such the right to not be discriminated against does not apply.

 

Wildlife crime is defined as any action which contravenes current legislation governing the protection of the UK’s wild flora and fauna, including species traded in the UK.

Note that wildlife crime does NOT include:

  • Incidents involving domestic or companion animals such as dogs (other than dogs being used to hunt mammals), cats, rabbits, domesticated birds, etc.
  • Wild animals that have been involved (killed or injured etc) in road traffic accidents.

Road accidents with wild animals do not need to be reported to the police, but note that domestic animals (as well as goats, horses, cattle, asses, mules, sheep and pigs) come within the remit of the Road Traffic Act.
If you have a road accident involving these animals you are required by law to report it to the police. If the wild animal is so badly injured in a road accident that there is no chance of recovery or the animal can not be returned to the wild then he or she may be euthanised, providing there is no appropriate long-term captive or semi-captive accommodation or when treatment would involve undue suffering or distress.

If we come across a wildlife crime scene or a dead bird/object that may be related to a wildlife crime every piece of information is – or might be – important, but it needs to be recorded properly and accurately for the authorities to have a chance of prosecuting an offender.

  • Before we do anything else it is very important that we do NOT approach anyone we suspect of committing a crime – they may be violent and/or aggressive. This is especially true of badger baiters and hare coursers who are typically extremely violent. This must be a first priority!
 
What do we need to record?
  • What we can see happening – what sort of crime is being committed
  • Are any firearms involved, could we or the public be in danger?
  • The exact location. Most smartphones have map apps or download the free What3Words app. If in open countryside look for obvious landmarks or fence lines, a tall or isolated tree, a wind turbine, any streams or brooks etc. Think about what would you need to re find a remote location.
  • It is important to record if at all possible whether we are on or near public land as this will determine the type of police response.
  • Never put ourselves in danger, but can we see who is involved and what they look like (e.g. number of people, their gender(s), age(s), the clothing worn, tools being carried)? Can we hear them – if so what are they saying, are they using any names etc?
  • If any dogs are involved how many are there, what colour are they, do we know what breed they are (even information like ‘terriers’ or ‘lurcher-types’ can be very useful).
  • The make, colour and registration number of any vehicle (we can take photos of a car if we think it is being used or might be used to commit a crime). Does it have any obvious dents, branding or markings, spotlights, bullbars etc.

 

DO and DO NOT

  • Do NOT disturb the scene by walking around unnecessarily – small pieces of evidence (cigarette ends, footprints, the marks left by a spade etc) may be lost or trampled into the mud or grass.
  • If photographing an object do try to use eg a coin or a notebook/field guide for scale – providing it won’t disturb the crime scene.
  • If in the countryside take wide angle photographs of any landmarks (a tree, a distinctive fenceline, a hill) that might help officers relocate the crime scene. DO NOT mark a site with eg a white plastic bag though. Being able to see a marker from a distance might sound like a good idea, but it will also alert an offender that someone has been at the site: they may go back and remove the evidence.
  • Do NOT move any items at the scene – the exception being if they are likely to disappear before the police arrive when we can collect them as evidence.
  • Do NOT touch any dead birds or animals with bare hands. They may be poisoned baits or victims of poisoning. Many poisons (eg Carbofuran) are extremely dangerous in even very small amounts and can be absorbed through the skin.
  • Do NOT do anything illegal ourselves – that might mean our evidence is not admissible.
 If we see a wildlife crime taking place (or someone is at risk of getting injured or is being threatened) call 999 immediately.
They will want to know what we can see happening:
  • What sort of crime is being committed
  • Are any firearms involved
  • Could we or the public be in danger
  • Do we have photos or video footage which may be used as evidence
  • Tell whoever you REPORT the crime to exactly what you have RECORDED as described in the section above.
 
To report a historic crime – that is, a crime that is no longer taking place – use 101 or a local organisation instead.
  • If calling the police ask to speak to a Wildlife Crime Officer and make sure to get an Incident Report number.
  • Please always follow any advice given and – if they are not available – insist that a Wildlife Crime Officer is made aware of your report.
  •  Our options are wider if the event is over, and it may be preferable to talk first to a charity or NGO to get advice. Crimestoppers (an independent charity) can be contacted in complete confidence on 0800 555 111
  • When thinking about reporting a crime it’s worth noting that only the police have statutory powers to make an arrest. RSPCA and RSPB investigation officers work with the police for successful prosecutions.
 
Reporting a wildlife crime (or even a suspected wildlife crime) is important for two reasons.
  • If the event is still happening it may enable the authorities to catch the criminals ‘in the act’ (which means a higher chance of prosecution),
  • and if the event is over a report can still help to build up a more accurate picture of what might be happening in a specific location or across the country as a whole.
Our help is always welcomed
  • Whoever we decide to contact we have been assured that our help is welcomed and that if we’re in any doubt that what we’re seeing is a crime we should report it anyway. Remember, if what we see ‘feels’ wrong, it probably is!
  • Even if we’re not sure about what we’re seeing, we can take a photograph and email it to the police or an investigations officer – they are trained to quickly recognise for example when a snare is illegally placed, whether a trap is being used illegally, or whether a crime is being committed or not.
  • We may help stop or solve future crimes by helping build up a pattern of behaviour in an area.

Have you ever wondered what UK law says about hunting with dogs, shooting, or collecting bird eggs? Or what protection foxes, badgers, bats, and birds of prey have? Whether a gamekeeper is using a snare, spring trap, or a cage trap legally? Wanted to know more about operating drones, using airguns, or driving quad bikes legally? What the different forms of trespass are, what constitutes assault, or what we should do if we’re arrested?

And have you ever been unimpressed with having to search hunting and shooting websites to find some of the information you need?

Us too! Which is why we have developed ‘Protectors of the Wild‘ and laid out the information we need in over thirty simple, mobile-friendly pages just like this one.

‘Protectors of the Wild‘ is a free resource to help us all become ‘eyes in the field’ by learning how to recognise, record, and report wildlife crime and wildlife persecution.

After all, the more we know, the more any potential criminal will have to be looking over their shoulder wondering if we know enough to Recognise, Record, and Report what they’re up to.

And the more we can all do to help protect the wild.

To access all Protectors information please go to Protectors of the Wild

Have you ever wondered what UK law says about hunting with dogs, shooting, or collecting bird eggs? Or what protection foxes, badgers, bats, and birds of prey have? Whether a gamekeeper is using a snare, spring trap, or a cage trap legally? Wanted to know more about operating drones, using airguns, or driving quad bikes legally? What the different forms of trespass are, what constitutes assault or harassment, or what we should do if we’re stopped and searched or even arrested?

And have you ever been unimpressed with having to search hunting and shooting websites to find some of the information you need?

Us too! Which is why we have developed ‘Protectors of the Wild‘ and laid out the information we need in forty-one simple, mobile-friendly pages and over 500 FAQs just like this one.

‘Protectors of the Wild‘ is a free resource with two aims: to help us all become ‘eyes in the field’ by learning how to recognise, record, and report wildlife crime and wildlife persecution; and to provide a ‘quick guide’ to anyone interacting with hunts, hunt supporters, or the police.

After all, the more we know, the more any potential criminal will have to be looking over their shoulder wondering if we know enough to Recognise, Record, and Report what they’re up to, and the more we know our rights the better we can protect ourselves.

And the more we can all do to help protect the wild.

The National Wildlife Crime Unit currently has seven priority offences for wildlife crime.

Badger persecution

It is illegal to interfere with or block a badger’s home or ‘sett’. Badger baiting is a centuries-old now illegal blood sport, where small dogs such as terriers or lurchers seek badgers out of their setts before fighting and killing them.

Bat persecution

Bats and their homes are legally protected, so disturbing or removing them is an offence. If bats roost in your roof, you need to obtain a special ‘bat mitigation licence’ from Natural England to be allowed to disturb them. They are hugely important to our ecosystem.

Trade of endangered species

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) sets out which endangered animals and plants have protected status. It is illegal to remove any of them from their natural habitat, possess, or sell them. Currently, the top priorities are European eels, birds of prey, ivory, medicinal and health products, reptiles, rhino horns, and timber.

Freshwater pearl mussel offences

These Endangered mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) are only found in rivers in Scotland and small parts of England. They can live for more than 130 years but are extremely sensitive to water pollution and have been illegally farmed for years. It is illegal to damage or destroy their habitat or to take, injure or kill them.

Poaching

Fox, deer, and hare hunting are all illegal under the Hunting Act 2004. Poaching offences also cover illegal fishing – when anglers do not obtain a licence or remove protected fish from lakes and rivers without returning them.

Raptor persecution

Birds of prey are often targeted on shooting estates. Their eggs are also traded illegally. It is an offence to target, poison, or kill them, with a particular focus on Golden Sagles, Goshawks, Hen Harriers, Peregrines, Red Kites, and White-tailed Eagles. Disturbing or taking their eggs or chicks is also illegal.

Cyber-enabled wildlife crime

Social media is often used to promote wildlife crime and recruit people to take part in it. Endangered plants and animals are also traded illegally online.

  • Punishment must fit the crime. Conditional discharges and paltry fines are not a disincentive for criminals.

A common complaint is that even if wildlife criminals are brought to court the fines or sentences they get are pathetic and not a disincentive. In most cases judges are giving out the penalties they are allowed to under the law. Changes can be made though. In 2022 the maximum sentence for ‘causing uneccesary suffering’ went from six months to five years. That was the result of targeted public pressure and campaigning. We need to identify where changes should be made and push hard for them.

 

  • Wildlife crime must be notifiable and statistics accurately compiled so that resources can be properly targeted.

Police forces are required by law to inform the Home Office of any notifiable offences, which then uses the reports to compile the crime statistics known as ‘recorded crime’. Currently, wildlife crimes are not ‘notifiable’ though (and wildlife crime involving firearms are also not recorded as firearms offences by the Police).  Without them being notifiable, no one knows how many wildlife crimes are being committed across the UK and where the hotspots are (though ‘grouse moors’ is one obvious response). As we have stated many times on this website, law and legislative enforcement is hugely underfunded and under-resourced. Some of this has undoubtedly been through political choice, but if we at least know which crimes are being committed and where, the resources that are available can be placed where they are needed most.

 

  • There must be changes to make it far easier for all of us to play our part in ‘Recognising, Reporting, Recording’ wildlife cime.

As even a quick glance at the Protectors pages makes clear, laws protecting wildlife are hard to understand. Major pieces of legislation like the Hunting Act 2004  and other laws are riddled with exemptions which strongly favour the hunting, shooting, and agricultural industries. Some date from a century or more ago and don’t reflect the modern world. These need to be updated. While there has undoubtedly been efforts made by successive governmants to use ‘plain english’ to explain legislation, any government wanting to tackle wildlife crime needs to make understanding what is and what isn’t a crime far more easily understood and put resources into a reporting system that the public feel confident using. Crucially, the public need to be sure that if they do report a crime it will be acted upon.

 

  • We have to protect the environment and wildlife properly.

Laws protecting wildlife and the environment need to be revised to reflect the 21st century and the biodiversity and climate crises we are in. Animals (and plants) are not an add-on or a ‘nice to have’ – they have shaped the systems that life depends on, and our laws need to reflect how critically important they are.

 

If you’d like to support just one legislative change, Protect the Wild has launched ‘The Hunting of Mammals Bill: A Proper Ban on Hunting‘ – please sign our petition calling for a proper ban on hunting with dogs.

We would like Protectors of the Wild to be the ‘go to’ free resource, packed with the kind of information that really does help all of us become ‘eyes in the field. But we can’t possibly think of every question that might need answering or every situation someone might find themselves in! And while the information in these pages is largely taken from Government online advice and was compiled in 2023 (and constantlyy updated), perhaps we’ve missed something out.

If you could provide us with legal advice get in touch. Or if you find a mistake or a gap please let us know. That way we can continually improve Protectors of the Wild – for the benefit of animals and all of us. Thanks.

‘Protectors of the Wild’ is a project of Protect the Wild. We have a dedicated email address for anyone wishing to get in touch with a specific Protectors query or with additional information etc. Please use the form on our Contact Protectors page or email protectors@protectthewild.org.uk. Thank you.

Much of the information we give in these pages is very technical or to do with legislation which can be revised without much notice. While we have worked very hard on these pages and we take keeping our information accurate and up-to-date very seriously, Protect the Wild are not legal professionals. Just to make sure no-one thinks we’re offering professional legal advice, we feel obliged to include the following disclaimer on every page.

  • Please think of the ‘Protectors of the Wild’ pages as a ‘first stop’ before seeking legal advice. We provide detailed information but not professional advice. The information provided by Protect the Wild should NOT be considered or relied on as legal advice and is for general informational purposes only. Any of the material on our website may be out of date at any given time, and we are under no legal obligation to update such material. While we update and revise as often as we can, Protect the Wild assumes no responsibility for the accuracy and correctness of any information, or for any consequences of relying on it. Please do not act or refrain from acting upon this information without seeking professional legal advice.

Support

Quick Links

Facebook-f Tiktok Youtube Instagram Linkedin-in Icon-Threads Icon-Substack Icon-X
© 2024 Protect the Wild | All Rights Reserved