FROM PROTECT THE WILD — MOST SIGNED FOR SCOTTISH VOTERS TO END GUGA HUNT

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Petition to end Guga hunt becomes one of the most signed in Scottish Parliament history PROTECT THE WILD JAN 16 READ IN APP Image taken by Craig O’Donnell If you receive our emails, you will already know that we have been completely obsessed with pushing Rachel Bigsby’s petition to end the Guga hunt. From the moment it launched, we had our sights set on one clear goal, to make it one of the most signed petitions in the history of the Scottish Parliament petition site. Not for bragging rights, but because numbers matter. They show politicians when something can no longer be ignored. And now, it has happened. Rachel’s petition has officially become the 5th most signed petition since the Scottish Parliament’s petition system launched in 2004. It has now passed 60,000 signatures. That is an extraordinary achievement, and it belongs to everyone who signed, shared, talked about it, and refused to let this issue fade quietly into the background. Since the release of our latest animation (narrated by the Brilliant Rachel Bigsby who set up the petiton), now seen by over 3 million people, the petition has exploded in popularity. Thousands of people have learned, often for the first time, that the Guga hunt is still being licensed in modern Scotland, and they have responded with disbelief and a clear demand for change. Sign Rachel's petition At the same time, the campaign to end the Guga hunt has continued to gain momentum beyond our own channels, with further coverage from The National newspaper and Oceanographic Magazine. Piece by piece, this issue is being dragged into the light, exactly where it belongs. A brief reminder of what is at stake The Guga hunt involves the licensed killing of gannet chicks on Sula Sgeir, birds taken just weeks before they would fledge. It is defended on the grounds of tradition, despite no longer being necessary for survival and taking place against a backdrop of growing pressure on seabird populations from disease, climate change, and food scarcity. The decision to grant a licence in 2025, even while avian influenza was affecting the colony, has only sharpened public concern and raised serious questions about welfare, biosecurity, and judgement. Wednesday matters On Wednesday 21 January, Rachel’s petition will be formally considered by the Scottish Parliament. This is the moment when all of the work, the signatures, the awareness, and the pressure, is placed directly in front of the Government. We have done everything we possibly can to get this issue noticed and to demonstrate the huge public support for ending this cruel and outdated practice. When the petition goes before Parliament on Wednesday, MSPs will see clearly that this is not a niche concern. More than 60,000 people have made their views known. We will be heading back to the Scottish Parliament on the day to physically watch the petition be considered and to mark the moment with a visible, respectful presence outside Holyrood. We will have placards and banners, and we would love to see you there if you are based nearby and would like to join us. 📍Scottish Parliament, 8:30am - Midday, Wednesday 21st January You can RSVP to the event on Facebook here. May be an image of vulture, swan and text that says "ect DO GUCE CUCS HUNY END THE MUINT ENDTIE END CUCA HUNT MIKE THS HUNT CUCA HUNT GUCA HUNT CUCA HUNT GUCA HUNT DONT CИCKMИKT TRAKTN CRCOSE HE de END THE END THE ENDTHE END THE GUGA HUNT GUCA HUNT 수화한 PAOO ገር C cиcaHbй" Image taken by Craig O’Donnell Above all else, this campaign has shown something important. People care. Awareness is spreading. Pressure is building. And the assumption that this practice can continue unchallenged is starting to crack. Support Protect the Wild with a small monthly donation We only ask for a few pounds a month because our strength isn’t big donors or hidden backers. It’s thousands of ordinary people chipping in small amounts. Together, that becomes unstoppable. Your support powers everything we do to defend British wildlife: undercover investigations, hard-hitting animations, fearless journalism, detailed reports, equipment and mental health support for activists, protests, and pressure campaigns that hold the powerful to account. Our goal is 200 new monthly supporters. We’re currently at 145 Support Protect the Wild SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2026 Protect the Wild Protect the Wild, 71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden, London, W2CH 9JQ Unsubscribe Start writing

FROM PROTECT THE WILD. THE COMMONS VOTED THREE TO ONE — BUT WILL THE HOUSE OF LORDS AGREE

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more MPs approve expansion of anti-protest powers covering animal testing sites PROTECT THE WILD JAN 14 READ IN APP I’m standing outside Parliament today because something serious just happened inside it. The House of Commons has voted 301 FOR 110 AGAINST in favour of a controversial amendment to the Public Order Act that reclassifies life sciences infrastructure, including animal testing facilities, as “key national infrastructure”. That change matters more than it sounds. By redefining private laboratories as critical national assets alongside airports, power stations, and transport networks, the government has expanded its power to restrict protest. Peaceful demonstrations near any site linked to animal testing could now carry conditions, bans, or even prison sentences of up to a year. This is not about safety. It is about control. Why this is such a dangerous expansion Animal testing does not take place in isolated buildings. Licences are held by universities, hospitals, and major research campuses, all surrounded by everyday public space. By stretching the definition of key national infrastructure this far, the government risks bringing huge areas of public space under protest restrictions, even when protests have nothing to do with laboratory work itself. Campaigners have warned for years that expanding public order powers in this way would criminalise lawful, peaceful protest. Today’s vote proves those warnings were justified. Standing With a Sign Shouldn't Mean Prison: Why We Took Action Yesterday - Protect the Wild This vote is not the end This amendment has not yet become law. It now goes to the House of Lords, which acts as Parliament’s final check. Peers can approve it, or they can oppose it and send it back to the Commons. This matters. The Lords have a strong history of pushing back when governments overreach on civil liberties and protest rights. If they intervene, this can still be stopped or forced back into debate. We have launched a tool that allows you to contact peers directly and urge them to oppose this amendment before it becomes law. Contact the Lords Peers are expected to act independently and to defend fundamental rights when the Commons fails to do so. Many take that responsibility seriously, but only if they hear from the public. If you believe peaceful protest should not carry the risk of prison, now is the moment to act. 👉 Use our tool to contact the House of Lords and demand they oppose this amendment. Silence is exactly what this legislation is designed to produce. Let’s make sure it does not work. SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2026 Protect the Wild Protect the Wild, 71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden, London, W2CH 9JQ Unsubscribe Start writing

PROTECT THE WILD EXPOSES THE UNTRUTHS THAT OUR BRITISH BROADCASTING COPORATION HAVE TOLD

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more BBC covers the campaign to end the Guga hunt That visibility is already making a real difference. PROTECT THE WILD JAN 13 READ IN APP Following Saturday’s peaceful protest outside the Scottish Parliament, it’s been brilliant to see the issue reach a much wider audience. BBC Alba covered the protest on national television last night, BBC News published an online piece as well as coverage from Scotland’s biggest paper The Herald, helping bring national attention to the growing call to end the Guga hunt. That visibility is already making a real difference. Since the protest, Rachel Bigsby’s Scottish Government petition has surged, gaining 2,500 signatures in just the last two days. It is now firmly on track to become the most signed petition in the history of the platform. To get there, we need 6,000 more signatures in the next eight days, and at the current pace, that goal is absolutely within reach. You can sign it from any country and it only takes a few seconds (remember to confirm your signature via your emails once signed) Sign Rachel's petition Saturday’s protest wasn’t about shouting or spectacle. Around 60 people stood calmly and respectfully outside Holyrood, holding banners and placards, making one clear point. The Scottish Government must scrap Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and bring the Guga hunt to an end. BBC - Scotland - The Guga Hunters of Ness: creating the programme The hunt targets gannet chicks just weeks before they would fledge, birds taken from nesting sites and killed during a tightly controlled annual window. That this practice is still licensed (by NatureScot) in modern Scotland, even amid ongoing avian influenza concerns, is deeply troubling. What Saturday showed above all else is this. People care. Awareness is growing, scrutiny is increasing, and the idea that this hunt should continue unchallenged is starting to unravel. If you haven’t already, please sign the petition today. History is within reach, but only if we push together in the days ahead. Sign Rachel's petition Protest at Holyrood Urges Scottish Government to End the Guga Hunt Petition starter and wildlife photographer Rachel Bigsby at Saturday’s Holyrood Protest Support Protect the Wild with a small monthly donation We only ask for a few pounds a month because our strength isn’t big donors or hidden backers. It’s thousands of ordinary people chipping in small amounts. Together, that becomes unstoppable. Your support powers everything we do to defend British wildlife: undercover investigations, hard-hitting animations, fearless journalism, detailed reports, equipment and mental health support for activists, protests, and pressure campaigns that hold the powerful to account. Our goal is 200 new monthly supporters. We’re currently at 135 Support Protect the Wild SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2026 Protect the Wild Protect the Wild, 71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden, London, W2CH 9JQ Unsubscribe Start writing

FROM WILD JUSTICE ON BREACHES OF LAW ON GAME BIRD RELEASES IN SUFFOLK

Good morning! Today’s newsletter is a special edition, bringing you an update on our ongoing investigations into the world of gamebird releases. We’ve been busy, both on the ground and digitally, scrutinising the complex and somewhat murky world of gamebird (Pheasant and Red-legged Partridge) releases around protected sites. Today we can tell you we’ve found another case of unlawful gamebird release, as well as associated non-compliance with mandatory biosecurity measures, at a site that might be familiar to many of you... You can read a full-length blog about our findings here, complete with more photo evidence and maps. Read on for a shorter summary of this case. The beginning 2020: Wild Justice wins a legal challenge against Defra, forcing it to introduce a licensing scheme for the release of gamebirds near sites protected for wildlife (Natura 2000 sites). 2021: General Licence 43 (GL43) is introduced for shoot operators wishing to release gamebirds on or near (within a 500m buffer zone) Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). Shoot operators wanting to release birds on Special Protection Areas (SPAs) still require individual licences. 2023: Wild Justice wins a legal challenge, after showing that individual licences granted by Defra Ministers for gamebird releases on or near the Deben Estuary SPA in Suffolk and the Breckland SPA in Norfolk was contrary to Natural England’s (NE) formal advice. 2024: General Licence 45 (GL45) is introduced for shoot operators wanting to release gamebirds on or close to Special Protection Areas (SPAs). March 2025: Defra announced it would not be issuing General Licence 45 for the 2025 shooting season, meaning shoots wanting to release gamebirds on or near SPAs in 2025 would require individual licences once again. This was because of the heightened risk of transmitting Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). April 2025: Natural England take this a step further and advise that some licences are likely to only be permitted with a delayed release date for gamebirds, if permitted at all. August 2025: The UK’s Chief Veterinary Officer announces new mandatory biosecurity measures to counter the heightened risk of HPAI in England. These measures include requirements such as disinfectant regimes, cleaning and hygiene of feeding and water stations, pens and apparatus, removal of dead gamebirds and reporting of dead wild birds. Back to the Deben Estuary - a tip off In August 2025, Wild Justice received a tip off from a supporter at Ramsholt, next to the Deben Estuary in Suffolk. He was familiar with our case in 2023, and so alarm bells started ringing when he saw lots of young Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges running around the site. After seeing his photos and a grid reference of a Red-legged Partridge release pen, we reckoned the gamebirds were being released within 500m of the Deben Estuary SPA. Asking questions: Curious, we got in touch with Natural England, asking them a few questions, including: Had an individual licence to release gamebirds on or near this SPA been issued for the 2025/26 shooting season? If so, on what grounds had it been approved? Could NE provide us with copies of any licence applications for 2025 at this site, and any subsequent licences issued. And then we waited. Heading into the field Whilst waiting for a reply from NE, Wild Justice headed into the field. Over several visits to Ramsholt in August and September, we found: A second Red-legged Partridge (RLP) release pen (about 1km away from the one reported by our supporter). A huge open-topped Pheasant release pen. Four different gamebird feeding stations. Lots and lots of free-roaming gamebirds. No evidence of disinfection procedures (e.g. for vehicles using the site). Dirty water stations at the release pens, as well as spilled food which remained present between our visits. A decomposing RLP in the second release pen. Suspicious findings: Recording grid references for each of our findings, we headed back to our desks, and discovered: The first RLP release pen was within the 500m buffer zone of the SPA. Conclusion:licence required. The second RLP release pen was 20m outside the 500m buffer zone. Conclusion: No licence required. The large Pheasant release pen straddled the 500m SPA buffer zone. Conclusion:licence required. We also reported our findings about the apparent non-compliance with biosecurity regulations to Suffolk County Council Trading Standards team (responsible for biosecurity investigation and enforcement), who subsequently assigned an officer to investigate this case. Some answers! On 10th September 2025, we received some answers from Natural England. They told us that two applications for individual licences to release gamebirds on or near the Deben Estuary SPA had been made – and it made for a very interesting timeline: 23rd April 2025: The first licence application was submitted to NE, for 2,450 gamebirds across several pens, to be released between July and August 2025. 14th May 2025: Natural England REJECTED this application, concluding it wasn’t possible to rule out adverse effects on the SPA. 16th May 2025: The same applicant submitted another licence application, hoping to change NE’s mind. In supplementary documents submitted with this application, the applicant said: “Before the end of February 2025 all my Days shooting at [REDACTED] had been sold for this season, with some deposits paid and the pheasant and partridge poults ordered from the game farm. Without a licence I'm going to be in a very embarrasing [sic] business situation”. Unknown date: Natural England REJECTED this second licence application (likely to have informed the applicant on or before 6th June 2025). Asking more questions Now we knew two things: Individual licences to permit the release of gamebirds on or close to the Deben Estuary SPA had been refused by NE. We’d seen evidence, and witnessed ourselves, gamebirds having been released within the 500m buffer zone of the Deben Estuary SPA. Naturally, we had more questions for NE and asked them what enforcement action they would be taking to address these unlawful releases. NE told us: “Where a licence has not been issued, wildlife offences are a matter for the police to investigate. Natural England will support the police in any investigation they undertake. Our recommendation is that in this instance, as you hold the relevant evidence, you should report it direct to Suffolk Constabulary”. We submitted an online report to Suffolk Constabulary the same day. Some unsatisfying answers: On 13th October 2025, we received correspondence from Suffolk County Council Trading Standards Department, letting us know that a Trading Standards Officer had visited the site. We were told the officer had provided verbal advice to the shoot operator relating to breaches of the mandatory biosecurity regulations. Asking yet more questions: Unsatisfied, we wrote back to Trading Standards and asked them: For specific detail of the verbal advice provided. Why no stronger enforcement action had been taken. Yet more unsatisfying answers: Trading Standards told us that ‘In the first instance we would always look to engage with, and provide advice to, businesses and individuals engaged in potential breaches’ and that ‘….we would also look to progress this in a positive way without resorting to immediate formal action such as prosecution.’. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they also told us ‘We are unable to share specifics of the verbal guidance provided to the responsible person in this instance, as these matters are confidential’. On 14th October 2025 we heard back from Suffolk Constabulary. They told us a Police Rural Crime Officer had visited the site (at the same time as the Trading Standards Officer) and had issued the shoot with a Community Resolution Order (CRO). We asked for details of this CRO, and of the officer’s visit, and were told: The CRO is disclosable in enhanced DBS checks, and the shoot operator won’t be given the chance to receive another CRO for any future offences. The CRO advises the shoot operator to work with Trading Standards and adhere to their advice. The current shoot operator was new and so was not the same person who applied for the licence from NE (hmm…). The original applicant and the new shoot operator weren’t linked to each other (another hmm…). That it was quite plausible that the new shoot operator was completely unaware of the restrictions (a very sceptical hmmm…) This new shoot owner was very remorseful and fully admitted his part in the offences. Our thoughts: Offences under the Animal Health Act 1981 and the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 can attract penalties of unlimited fines and/or custodial sentences. In our opinion, the low level of enforcement action in this case does not reflect the seriousness of the offences, nor does it offer a deterrent to other shoot operators who might be thinking of ignoring the legislation, and nor does it engender public confidence in the authorities’ ability to manage and control disease outbreak, especially HPAI. We consider it utterly implausible that the shoot operator was “not linked” to the licence applicant, as Suffolk Constabulary were led to believe. The timeline outlined above would provide only a matter of weeks (a tiny window) for a ‘new operator’ to start up, establish infrastructure, acquire birds and then release them, all supposedly without communicating with the previous shoot operator/licence applicant. In our opinion, it seems an easy loophole to exploit to avoid prosecution, and it’ll be interesting to see whether a similar explanation of a supposed change of shoot operators is used in other cases. You can read the full report on this case on our blog – click here. This is a detailed and complex case, and we don’t know how widespread this sort of offending might be. Wild Justice believes the release of millions of non-native gamebirds into the UK’s countryside each year is detrimental to wildlife and the environment. When rules attempting to reduce the impact of this damaging industry can be flouted, circumvented or ignored, with minimal sanction, it shows that enforcement isn’t up to scratch. We’ll be keeping an eye on this subject and will update you on it soon. Wild Justice relies entirely on donations to fund our work. If you think what we do is important and feel able to support us with a donation, however small, you can do so by clicking here. That's it for now, but we hope to be back soon with news of a new court date for our Badger legal challenge. Thank you once again, Wild Justice (CEO: Bob Elliot. Directors: Chris Packham and Ruth Tingay). This is the 260th Wild Justice newsletter. This email was sent to you because you subscribed to it through the Wild Justice website or through an e-action or a petition where you ticked a box. Thank you. We will only use your personal details to send you the Wild Justice newsletter. We will not give or sell your details to anyone else. You can unsubscribe at any time: there is an unsubscribe button at the foot of this email or you can reply to this email and ask us to remove you from the list (the former will happen immediately, the latter might take a few days). 124, City Road London Greater London EC1V 2NX UNITED KINGDOM Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

FROM PROTECT THE WILD — END THE GUGA HUNT

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more URGENT, I need your help! We urgently need email confirmation from MPs who have agreed and reassured their constituents that they will vote NO on this amendment. CHARLOTTE SMITH JAN 12 READ IN APP This week is crunch time on whether MPs vote through the proposal to designate animal testing sites as “key national infrastructure”. I’m in Parliament today to speak to my MP alongside other Protect the Wild supporters. My request is urgent and simple. Please contact your MP and ask them to vote No to the proposals when they are voted on in Parliament this Wednesday by using our petition or seeing your MP in person. Contact your MP And if you have already received an email reply from your MP on how they intend to vote please forward this to us asap. We need an accurate list of planned objections to this absurd law change. Email any MP correspondence to - mp@protectthewild.org.uk Thank you Click here to read more about why we are against these proposals and how you can help us speak out against it. Contact your MP SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2026 Protect the Wild Protect the Wild, 71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden, London, W2CH 9JQ Unsubscribe Start writing

FROM PROTECT THE WILD — FOXHOUNDS ARE RE-HOMEABLE

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Foxhounds are rehomeable: The case for compassion, responsibility, and truth Hunts need to stop using foxhounds as political leverage! CHARLOTTE SMITH JAN 12 READ IN APP Hunts frequently claim that foxhounds cannot be rehomed and that killing them is an unavoidable necessity, particularly as a trail hunting ban becomes an increasingly realistic prospect. This narrative is not merely misleading, it is fundamentally dishonest. Foxhounds are rehomeable. They have been rehomed successfully for decades, and continuing to deny them that chance is a profound failure of responsibility, accountability, and compassion. If hunts claim to care about their hounds, then mercy must extend beyond usefulness. A working dog does not lose their right to life the moment they are no longer required for sport, whether they be old or young. Meet Alfred, one of the lucky ones! Rehomed with a smaller dog. Foxhounds Are Not “Different” Dogs Foxhounds are routinely portrayed as uniquely difficult, aggressive, or incapable of adapting to domestic life. From a behavioural, training, and canine cognition perspective, this claim simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Foxhounds are a working breed, no different in principle from spaniels, collies, pointers, huskies, beagles, or greyhounds. Like all working breeds, they require active and enriched homes. These are homes that can provide regular exercise, mental stimulation, scent based enrichment, tracking games, hiking, running, or activities such as canicross. The suggestion that foxhounds are incompatible with domestic life ignores both science and real world experience. These dogs are not inherently more aggressive, less trainable, or less adaptable than other breeds. They are individuals, with their own personalities, needs, and the ability to bond, settle, and thrive when given patience and care. The Evidence Is Clear: Foxhounds Are Rehomed The claim that foxhounds cannot be rehomed is directly contradicted by overwhelming and well established evidence. Foxhound Welfare UK, a rescue that has worked directly with hunts, has confirmed that since opening they have successfully rehomed more than 7,000 foxhounds. Across the country, foxhounds are rehomed every year in pairs, alongside other dogs, or as single dogs in carefully matched homes. These are not rare exceptions. They represent a consistent, long standing pattern of successful rehoming. Ex-hunt Foxhounds up for adoption from other rescues, two of the above have been rehomed successfully already. Even organisations aligned with hunting interests have acknowledged this reality. The British Hound Sports Association and the Countryside Alliance have both publicly referenced foxhounds being retired. This alone dismantles the claim that killing is the only option available. The BSHA and the Countryside alliance speak of a handful of hounds whoa re lucky enough to get retired. Hunts Already Kill Foxhounds But, it is vital to be honest about what is really happening. Hunts are not suddenly facing the prospect of killing foxhounds for the first time. They already kill foxhounds every single year. Hounds who are injured, elderly, surplus, or who “do not make the grade” are routinely shot rather than rehomed, despite being healthy, some of them young, and rehomeable. The idea that a ban would force hunts into an impossible moral dilemma is false. The killing is already happening. What has changed is that hunts are now openly using foxhounds as leverage, weaponising their lives to resist scrutiny, reform, and accountability. Foxhounds are not at risk because rehoming is impossible. They are at risk because hunts choose killing the majority of foxhounds rather than trying to rehome them already, and have done for 20 years. Responsible Rehoming Is Standard Practice Another common claim made by hunt supporters is that foxhounds would be rehomed into unsuitable homes. This argument collapses under even the most basic scrutiny. Reputable rescues do not place dogs carelessly. They carry out thorough home checks, assess each dog’s individual needs, match them carefully to appropriate families, and provide ongoing support. The suggestion that foxhounds would be abandoned to unsuitable homes ignores how modern rescue actually works. Hunts could work directly with rescues right now. Some hounds could remain temporarily at hunt kennels while assessments are carried out and homes found. Hunts could share their knowledge of individual dogs, reduce pressure on rescue spaces, and actively support responsible rehoming. But they do not. Instead, even with the possibility of a ban, most hunts are likely to continue breeding foxhounds, while quietly culling those deemed surplus or inconvenient, just as they always have. Early Socialisation Strengthens the Case for Rehoming Ironically, many foxhounds have a stronger foundation for domestic life than other rescued breeds. Most foxhounds are sent to puppy walkers from a young age. During this time, they live in homes, learn their names, develop basic skills such as lead walking and simple commands, and experience everyday household environments. Although they are later returned to kennels, at around 10-12months old, this early socialisation does not disappear. This makes comparisons with greyhounds particularly revealing. Greyhounds typically do not receive this level of early home exposure, yet they are widely and successfully rehomed. For years, the same arguments were used to claim greyhounds could not be rehomed. They were described as too institutionalised, too driven, and too different. Today, those claims are rightly recognised as self serving attempts to protect an industry, not reflections of canine reality. BSHA and cheshire hunt show how hounds are even more rehomeable than greyhounds… Blanket Assumptions Cost Lives It is neither ethical nor honest to argue that because some foxhounds may take longer to rehome, all foxhounds should be denied the chance to live. Every foxhound should be assessed as an individual, not written off through crude and convenient breed stereotypes. This is standard practice in animal welfare, and foxhounds deserve the same consideration as any other dog. Denying thousands of healthy foxhounds the opportunity to live because of convenience, tradition, or refusal to change is not animal welfare. It is neglect framed as inevitability. Changing the Narrative Around Foxhounds The narrative around foxhounds must change. Foxhounds are not more aggressive than other breeds. They are not less trainable. They are not uniquely difficult. They are not disposable. They are dogs bred by hunts, used by hunts, and therefore owed responsibility by hunts. Rehoming foxhounds is not a radical demand. It is a proven, practical, and compassionate solution that already exists, already works, and already saves lives. If hunts insist they care about their hounds, then the measure of that care is simple. Give them a chance to live. Show them mercy. Begin being more transparent and open about what happens to hounds, and work with rescues to rehome all those you can. Hunts, if they cared, should rehome foxhounds instead of killing them and weaponising their lives for political leverage. Alfred, an ex hunt hound, lives it up happily after settling in his new life. Support Protect the Wild with a small monthly donation We only ask for a few pounds a month because our strength isn’t big donors or hidden backers. It’s thousands of ordinary people chipping in small amounts. Together, that becomes unstoppable. Your support powers everything we do to defend British wildlife: undercover investigations, hard-hitting animations, fearless journalism, detailed reports, equipment and mental health support for activists, protests, and pressure campaigns that hold the powerful to account. Our goal is 200 new monthly supporters. We’re currently at 127 Support Protect the Wild SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2026 Protect the Wild Protect the Wild, 71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden, London, W2CH 9JQ Unsubscribe Start writing

FROM THE HUNT SABOTEURS ON THE END OF HUNTING

View this email in your browser Hi, Supporter Witness The End Of Hunting: Expanding The Definition Of ‘Hunting’ The Hunt Saboteurs Association has produced a booklet titled ‘Witness The End Of Hunting’ which outlines our plans to stop hunters in their tracks or – at least – get them into court with a high chance of prosecution. In this fifth article, the HSA looks at our proposal to expand the definition of hunting to include the act of “searching for a scent or animal.” One of the main errors of the original Hunting Act was a weak definition which did not address the realities of organised hunts. Fox hunter searching for foxes in a wood. © Mendip Hunt Sabs For the purposes of this Act a reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where: a) a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal, and b) one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction) The Act therefore makes clear that hunting with dogs includes engaging alone or participating with others in the pursuit of a wild mammal where a dog is used in that pursuit. Hunting is an intentional activity and there can be no such thing as unintentional hunting. This excludes the searching and flushing of wildlife which is a clear and essential part of hunting animals and means that most hunts are allowed to proceed as they did before the Hunting Act, until an animal is actually chased. Leadon Vale Bassets search for a scent in classic hare habitat. We suggest the following definition to include in addition to the above: ‘Hunting’ is the activity of searching for, chasing, pursuing, or killing a wild mammal with dogs, where the activity is carried out for sport or recreation. This includes the use of dogs to flush or pursue wild mammals from their habitats or coverts. This would enable the police, CPS and the courts to more easily recognise illegal hunting and prosecute accordingly. Join the Hunt Saboteurs Association! Support our vital work by becoming a member. Join The HSA Spread the word! Please share our news Share via email Facebook icon Instagram icon Twitter icon Logo Copyright (C) 2026 Hunt Saboteurs Association. All rights reserved. You were subscribed to the newsletter from Hunt Saboteurs Association. Our mailing address is: BM HSA, London, WC1N 3XX, U.K. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe