Trail hunting a ‘smokescreen' for illegal fox hunts, MP says in jail terms plea
Trail hunting is being used as a 'smokescreen' for illegal fox hunting, a Labour MP has warned as he called for jail terms if organisers flout the rules.
Perran Moon called for a ban on the practice, when hunt organisers lay a trail using animal urine or a carcass for hounds and their followers to track.
Environment minister Daniel Zeichner said the Government would launch a consultation on banning trail hunting later this year, in line with Labour's 2024 manifesto.
'I strongly believe it is time for us to come together and close this loophole once and for all,' Mr Moon told the Commons.
He said: 'Banning trail hunting would be a positive step in safeguarding the UK's wildlife and habitats.
'We need to strengthen the Hunting Act 2004 to make sure it delivers the protection animals need, that means banning trail hunting, removing exemptions that enable illegal hunting, and introducing custodial sentences for those who break the law.'
The MP for Camborne and Redruth later added: 'We must extend the time available for charge in illegal hunting cases, reverse the burden of proof of compliance with exemptions, and make hunting a notifiable offence (counted in crime statistics)'.
He said these measures would 'make it easier to enforce the law and ensure that those who break it face the consequences', in response to Labour MP for Poole Neil Duncan-Jordan, who warned that 'effective reform must go beyond symbolic bans and address the entire framework enabling illegal hunting to carry on'.
Mr Duncan-Jordan said: 'Whilst a pledge to ban trail hunting is welcome, I fear it could be insufficient.
'If legislation focuses solely on this term alone, hunts may adopt new euphemisms to exploit existing loopholes to continue their activities.'
Earlier in the debate, Mr Moon said 'trail hunting has been used as a defence' when hunts and their organisers land in the criminal justice system, accused of hunting a wild mammal with a dog, as he described a 'disturbing reality – trail hunting is providing a smokescreen for illegal fox hunting'.
Sir Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP for New Forest East, intervened in Mr Moon's speech and asked: 'Would it not then be possible for drag hunting to be used in some way as a cover once again for illegal fox hunting?'
Mr Moon replied that he has 'no issue with drag hunting', when hunt organisers lay trails using artificial scents.
He said 'the likelihood that there will be wild animals included in drag hunting is much, much smaller', because it does not use real animal urine or carcasses.
Mr Zeichner told MPs that a consultation is due later this year, but he could not say when a ban would come into effect.
'I want to assure members that we are working to move this forward, and we will deliver a thorough consultation later this year to ensure that legislation brought forward is effective in practice and we understand its impact,' he said at the despatch box.
The minister quoted figures from the League Against Cruel Sports, who found from November 2023 to March 2024, there were 526 reports of incidents of suspected illegal hunting, and 870 incidents of 'hunt havoc'.
He added: 'We have heard that there are people in this house who will not welcome a change in the law, and I want to reassure members here today the Government recognises the contribution made to the rural economy by supporting professions such as farriers, vets and feed merchants, we will of course look closely at the impact any changes may make.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
42 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Chinese hackers and user lapses turn smartphones into a 'mobile security crisis'
WASHINGTON — Cybersecurity investigators noticed a highly unusual software crash — it was affecting a small number of smartphones belonging to people who worked in government, politics, tech and journalism. The crashes, which began late last year and carried into 2025, were the tipoff to a sophisticated cyberattack that may have allowed hackers to infiltrate a phone without a single click from the user.

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ventura County government pay practices benefited CEO employees, audit shows
Employees of the top administrative office in the Ventura County government won substantial pay increases at disparate rates during the last few years of ex-CEO Mike Powers' tenure, an audit shows. Ventura County Auditor-Controller Jeff Burgh released a report on the audit of pay practices in May, three years after ordering the investigation from the Washington, D.C., law firm of FordHarrison. He has tied the delay to the complexity of making comparisons between the County Executive Office and dozens of other county departments and more recently the departure of Consuela Pinto, the firm partner in charge of the audit. Pinto informed him she was leaving the firm and that no other staff members were familiar with the audit, Burgh said. Reached via email, Pinto declined to comment. The county paid FordHarrison $82,000 before the auditor's office took over the audit in April 2024 and completed it, Burgh said. The audit examined a four-year period when Powers was the top executive for the county government, from January 2018 until he was forced out by the Board of Supervisors in March 2022 over a harassment claim filed by a female manager. Powers, who served as CEO for 11 years in all, denied any wrongdoing and filed a wrongful termination lawsuit that is still pending. The audit looked at whether employees of the CEO's Office received reclassifications of their positions into higher paying ones more often, started employment at higher points on the county pay scale, and won merit raises above 5% at a higher rate than people in several other departments. The query compared the pattern for employees of the CEO's Office with those in the General Services Agency, Information Technology Services, the Public Works Agency and the Auditor-Controller's Office. Burgh had initially said the analysis would compare compensation decisions for the CEO's Office with roughly two dozen other agencies in the large county government, but that it was narrowed down to four due to the volume of documents that needed to be gathered. The findings showed: Of 38 people whose jobs were reclassified, 20, or more than half, worked in the CEO's Office. Part of the paperwork was missing to support the reclassifications for 16 of the 20 CEO employees, but no omissions were cited for workers in the other departments. Typically, reclassification results in a 5% pay bump and a higher salary range. It's allowed for a variety of reasons including when someone's job duties change. Significantly more employees in the CEO's Office were eligible for and received merit increases above 5% than employees in the other four agencies. Three received the highest possible merit increase of 10%. CEO staff were hired above the midpoint of the salary range at a significantly higher rate than new hires in the other four agencies selected for the comparison. Almost half of 54 new hires in the CEO's Office got the benefit during the four-year period covered by the audit compared with a quarter in the auditor's and information technology offices and about 10% in the general services and public works agencies. Neither Powers or an attorney representing him in his lawsuit against the county could be reached for comment. In her response to the audit, current CEO Sevet Johnson said the audit report did not provide any evidence of preferential treatment, much less actual abuse of the personnel system for the benefit of the CEO's office. Nor did it show any violations of personnel rules, regulations or policies, she said. When he ordered the audit in 2022, Burgh said he did so after some county employees and managers expressed concerns about the appearance of disparate treatment for employees in the CEO's Office. Burgh said staff in his office had previously considered doing an audit of personnel decisions in the CEO's office, but that the "tipping point" came when former CEO public information officer Ashley Bautista was promoted to senior deputy executive officer three months after being hired. At the time, county officials tied the promotion to an expansion in her job duties. They appeared to grow dramatically during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Burgh said in 2022 that pay decisions benefiting other employees of the CEO's Office had also come to his attention. No specific employees including Bautista are mentioned in the audit report. Burgh said that's because they are personnel matters. The county's human resources department is a division of the County Executive's Office, an arrangement that the report suggested was too cozy. That structure and what was called "lack of independent oversight" appeared to result in more favorable personnel actions affecting compensation of CEO employees than the other four agencies reviewed, the report said. Reclassification of jobs in the CEO's office appeared to encounter fewer obstacles than in the other agencies, was not always supported with complete documentation, and was approved at a higher rate, the report said. The analysis called for additional safeguards to improve accountability for salary and other decisions for positions in the office. Human Resources should report directly to the Board of Supervisors and be moved out of the CEO's Office, the report advised. Johnson took strong exception to the audit findings even though she was not in charge of the CEO's Office at the time covered by the investigation. Johnson said Burgh does not possess the necessary expertise in employment practices to perform the audit himself, questioned whether he could be impartial, wanted to know why the law firm was no longer involved in the project and faulted the sample of agencies in the comparison. Still, she said the human resources division would endeavor to make improvements in cases where the findings clearly support such a change. Burgh said he expected any corrections to be completed by the end of next year. Kathleen Wilson covers courts, mental health and local government issues for the Ventura County Star. Reach her at This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Ventura County pay practices benefited CEO employees, audit shows
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kristi Noem's Net Worth—How the Homeland Security Secretary Built Her Wealth
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has an estimated net worth of $5 million, according to Forbes. Noem's government salary is an estimated $235,100 per year. Noem Insurance, owned by Noem's husband, Bryon, is valued between $1 million and $5 million, per her latest financial of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has a multimillion-dollar fortune through her time in government, as an author, and via her husband's insurance business. Prior to her latest role in President Donald Trump's administration, Noem was the first female governor of South Dakota, her home state. Before she was elected governor, Noem represented South Dakota in the House of Representatives from 2011 to 2019. Noem and her husband, Bryon, have an estimated net worth of $5 million, according to Forbes. Here's how Noem made those millions. Noem's salary as the Secretary of Homeland Security is an estimated $235,100 per year, according to Forbes. Noem's most recent financial disclosure showed $241,519 in salary as governor of South Dakota, or about $121,000 annually. She likely earned about $174,000 per year as a member of Congress. Noem Insurance, owned by Noem's husband, Bryon, is valued between $1 million and $5 million, per her 2024 financial disclosure. Bryon also owns commercial real estate in Pierre, S.D., valued at over $1 million, according to the disclosure. Noem's disclosure shows that she owns livestock and equipment worth up to $100,000. The couple owns pasture land in Castlewood, S.D., valued at between $250,001 and $500,000, which has brought in up to $50,000 in rent or royalties. Noem, an author, has written several books. She reported a $40,000 advance for her book "Not My First Rodeo: Lessons from the Heartland" on her financial disclosure, as well as a nearly $140,000 advance for her book "No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong With Politics and How We Move America Forward." Read the original article on Investopedia