On 13 February 2002 the Scottish Parliament decides by eighty three votes to thirty six to pass legislation to ban hunting with dogs. The bill was introduced in 1999 by Mike Watson MSP of the Labour party with support from Tricia Marwick MSP of the Scottish National Party. An attempt by the Scottish Countryside Alliance to block the introduction of the legislation was rejected by the Court of Session in Edinburgh and the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act came into effect on 1 August 2002.

Out of the ten Scottish hunts that existed prior to the law coming into effect, nine survived the ban, by using an exemption which allows the use of packs of hounds to flush foxes to guns. Two new hunts, the Strathappin and the Dumfriesshire and Stewartry were formed.

A number of cases have been brought under the legislation. Reference to the records shows that two of those were for fox hunting and ten for hare coursing. The only case of members of a ‘traditional’ mounted fox hunt being prosecuted ended in a not guilty verdict but did go some way to clarifying the law as it relates to the ‘flushing to guns’ exemption. In Procurator Fiscal, Jedburgh v Adams Sheriff T.A.K.Drummond Q.C. said hunting “will require to be accompanied by realistic and one would expect, effective arrangements for the shooting of pest species. The use of what might be termed “token guns” or what was described by the Crown as paying lip service to the legislation is not available … as a justification for the continuation of what was referred to in the evidence before me as traditional fox hunting.”

Following on from Scotland’s efforts the Hunting Act 2004 was introduced in England and Wales. It is generally agreed that in both jurisdictions the law is unsatisfactory. Hunters say it unfairly prevents them following a traditional countryside activity, those concerned with animal welfare feel it does not prevent cruelty and enforcers find it extremely difficult to enforce.   

In Scotland hunts have generally continued as ‘pest control’ operations using the ‘flush to guns’ exemption while in England and Wales they have mainly opted for ‘trail hunting’. ‘Trail hunting’ involves the prior setting of an artificial trail for the hounds to follow so that where a fox is caught by hounds it is entirely by accident. In both jurisdictions the number of reports from hunt monitors and members of the public of foxes being ripped apart by hounds give serious cause for concern. With ‘trail hunting’ the number of occasions when hunts seem to be in areas where only a madman would lay a trail (railway lines, major roads, animal sanctuaries, graveyards etc) does lead many to wonder just what is going on. The recent publication of Hunting Office Zoom meetings on social media have seriously damaged the reputation of hunts and led to suggestions that ‘trail hunting’ is a simply a smokescreen to facilitate law breaking. A police investigation is under way and it would be inappropriate to speculate on what it might conclude but it seems unlikely that it will produce sufficient evidence for a prosecution. It is clear however that the police will in future need to maintain a distinct distance between themselves and organisations involved with the Hunting Office if they wish to avoid suggestions of partiality in enforcement. The impression that police officers or ex-police officers were in some way colluding with law breakers would do serious damage to public confidence.

There is no doubt that Scotland led the way in attempting to prevent the cruelty involved in hunting with dogs but few fair minded people could call the present situation a success. Perhaps this is an example of the problem a country faces when a small group of powerful people are determined to challenge public opinion and the will of Parliament when it suits them to do so?