Poole MP Neil Duncan-Jordan putting pressure on the government to close loopholes in hunting legislation.
More than two decades after the passage of the Hunting Act 2004, the hunting of mammals with dogs remains illegal in principle, yet in practice, it continues. That contradiction lies at the heart of mounting concern among animal welfare campaigners and the public who argue that the law is riddled with loopholes that undermine its intent. Chief among those is the so-called falconry exemption, increasingly described by critics as a smokescreen that allows traditional fox hunts to operate under the veneer of legality.
The exemption permits the use of dogs to flush a wild mammal from cover for the purpose of being hunted by a bird of prey. On paper, this sounds like a tightly defined activity rooted in legitimate falconry practice. In reality, campaigners argue, it has become a convenient cover. You would not fox hunt with a falcon, something the British Hawk Board itself has warned against. Falconry birds are not suited to pursuing and dispatching foxes in the manner traditional hunts are accused of doing. Yet, under the exemption, hunts can claim they are operating within the law while packs of hounds continue to chase mammals across the countryside.
The cynicism of the loophole was laid bare when a hunter was reportedly recorded describing the exemption as “a good wheeze”, an admission that, for some, it functions less as a legitimate sporting provision and more as a legal fig leaf. For those who believed the 2004 legislation would draw a clear and final line under hunting with dogs, such revelations are deeply troubling. If a ban exists only on paper while workarounds flourish in practice, the credibility of the law itself is called into question.
Concerns have now been raised directly with ministers amid fears that the government is not currently looking to close the falconry exemption as part of wider reforms. Campaigners argue that focusing narrowly on so-called trail hunting, another contentious practice long suspected of masking illegal hunts, will not be enough. Unless all viable exemptions are examined and tightened, they say, enforcement will remain fraught and prosecutions rare.
At stake is more than a technical legal amendment. The government’s broader Animal Welfare Strategy has enjoyed huge public support, reflecting a shift in societal attitudes towards stronger protections for wildlife. Strengthening anti-hunting laws was a clear manifesto commitment and remains popular with voters across party lines. But popularity can quickly sour if promised reforms fail to deliver meaningful change. If exemptions remain and hunting continues in all but name, critics warn that a major political strength could become a self-inflicted wound.
Animal welfare campaigners are particularly sensitive to what they see as half-measures. Having waited years for tougher enforcement and clearer legislation, they view this moment as a rare opportunity to make the ban genuinely watertight. Losing their trust would not simply be a policy misstep; it would be seen as a betrayal of explicit promises. In a political landscape where authenticity and follow-through matter more than ever, that is not a risk to be taken lightly.
The call, therefore, is not for symbolic reform but for substantive change. Remove the loopholes. Close the falconry exemption if it is being misused. Ensure that the law cannot be twisted into a shield for the very activities it was designed to prohibit. Ministers are being urged to engage constructively and act decisively.
Opportunities to correct longstanding legislative weaknesses do not come often. When they do, they must not be wasted. If the ban on hunting mammals with dogs is to command respect from campaigners, from rural communities, and from the wider public, it must be real, enforceable, and beyond manipulation. Anything less risks leaving Britain with a ban that exists in statute but fails in the field.
