Caroline Dinenage

The Hunting Act has been successful and popular. It should now be made even better.

It’s hard to believe a whole decade has passed since the Hunting Act was passed on 18 November 2004. This legislation, undeniably one of the most contentious seen in modern political times, outlawed the killing of foxes, hares, mink and deer by dogs, ending centuries of cruelty.

Over that period of time we have seen governments and Prime Ministers come and go, and yet the same arguments and political tensions over the Act persist. Just this year the Government abandoned any plans to weaken the Act, since it was clear they didn’t have sufficient Parliamentary support to proceed.

The recent debate gave an opportunity for the pro-repeal lobby to make their case about the Act’s supposed ineffectiveness. However, a decisive indicator of enforceability is a law’s conviction rate, and in terms of convictions the Act has been a marked success. Ministry of Justice figures show the Act out-performs all other wild mammal legislation in England and Wales, having the highest number of convictions since it was introduced (341 between 2005 and 2013).

People sometimes argue the ban was wrong because it ended centuries of tradition. One might have said the same thing about sending small boys up chimneys, yet of course we don’t have the same sentimentality about that! There is, of course, one enduring tradition to keep in mind, the tradition of Britain being a national of animal lovers.

Then there is the claim that hunting was ‘a way of managing the countryside’. Let’s be clear, traditional hunting was never about pest control, but bloodsports – pure and simple. Foxes are territorial animals and, where one fox is taken out, another will often take its place within days.

Already a subscriber? Log in

Keep reading with a free trial

Subscribe and get your first month of online and app access for free. After that it’s just £1 a week.

There’s no commitment, you can cancel any time.


Unlock more articles



Don't miss out

Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.

Already a subscriber? Log in