Exempt hunting – what is it?

Exempt hunting came into play as a result of the 2004 Hunting Act. Although the Act banned hunting with dogs for sport, exemptions were put into place allowing the hunts to use loopholes to continue hunting just as they did prior to 2004.

Flushing to guns

An exemption was included that allowed for the use of two dogs to flush out and kill deer for the purpose of wildlife management. This exemption permits registered hunts to continue using staghounds to control deer populations under certain conditions and regulations.The current regulations state that this should be carried out for the purpose of preventing serious damage to agriculture, forestry, or other property, or to protect public health or safety. It must also comply with the conditions specified in the Act, including that it must be carried out by a registered hunt and that reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the animal is killed as quickly and humanely as possible.

Unfortunately, it is not unusual to see stags forced to run over difficult terrain, such as the Quantock Hills, for hours upon hours. There have also been many incidents where hunt staff have had ample opportunity to kill a stag but instead have chosen to continue the pursuit.

Part of this exemption is that a stag may have an illness, such as tuberculosis. However, killing for this purpose is often contradictory when hunt staff carve the dead stag and distribute parts of his body for trophies or consumption. If an animal has tuberculosis, then there are strict biosecurity measures that must be adhered to for the safety of other local wildlife and the general public.

Observation and study

The other exemption is the observation and study of a wild mammal, using not more than two dogs. This exemption does not go into any greater detail, and there is no evidence to support claims that they are killing for this purpose. There is a lack of transparency and no centralised point where people can go to find out the hypothesis of a study. Hunts have convinced the police that they are doing some kind of research by taking a blood sample from the dead stag, and police are (astonishingly) satisfied with this. Police do not ask what happens to the blood sample, which is probably binned immediately.

The exemptions put into place have provided loopholes for the continuation of hunting practices from before the ban under the guise of wildlife management or research.  As we have seen on numerous occasions, exempt hunting can be extremely difficult to regulate and monitor. Hunts frequently use the broad criteria to justify their actions, and this raises concerns about the legitimacy and transparency of exempt hunting. Also, by continuing to allow the use of hounds, there is no doubt that a chase will ensue, therefore subjecting the hunted animal to a prolonged chase and unnecessary stress.

Generally speaking, the hunts believe that if they use only two dogs to hunt the stag, then that means it’s legal. However, they do use more than two dogs by replacing two tired dogs with two more dogs that have been kept in their van. They use pairs of dogs in relay, which is, of course, cheating. Additionally, the hunts pay little attention to the other ‘conditions’ that must be fulfilled before the hunting can be considered ‘exempt’ under ‘flushing to guns’.

Most researchers, conducting animal research, are Government compliant – they have licences, research objectives, reported findings, peer reviews, and conclusions. The hunts have none of these. They have conducted the same ‘research’ several times a week for twenty years, and don’t appear to have come to any conclusions whatsoever. They also sell tickets to their followers to watch the pursuit and death of an animal. All this clearly shows that their hunting is for sport (as they see it) and nothing else. Take a look at Red Stag Safari’s website, where they justify traditional hunting. They say this of the Hunting Act: “The current hunting act allows flushing of wild mammals to guns and hunting for observation and study using two hounds only and the red deer hunts use these exemptions to continue. As is often the case when legislation is brought by people who have not been brought up in the countryside, not been involved in wildlife management and have no knowledge on the subject based on real experience the end result has the opposite effect than that intended.” [NB We have not corrected Red Stag’s poor English. Hopefully the meaning can be fathomed anyway]. 

The fact remains that there is mounting evidence to demonstrate that hunts are continuing to engage in hunting practices that are primarily for sport rather than any of the exemptions listed in the 2004 Hunting Act.

Further reading – The Hunting Act – Schedule 1 – Exempt Hunting