That was the hunting I was referring to. It isn’t “illegal” as you state. It’s illegal as a “sport” but not as pest control.
They can legally use dogs to flush a fox out with the intent of shooting them - should the unfortunate fox end up being killed by the dog - so long as the intent to shoot was there - it’s ok.
I believe in Scotland there is no limit on the number of dogs that can be used for flushing in England it’s 2 (I think).
For sport you can use scented trails but of course “accidents” happen, really the law falls somewhat short of stopping anything except the most blatant flouting of it.
You are talking past me, you don't need to clarify something that is implied in my previous posts.
Yes, except that different types of dogs are used for flushing and hunting. And you probably know this anyway. A short-legged small terrier is unsuited to pursue a fox across open areas.
A long legged and less nimble foxhound or foxhound/beagle mix is incapable of getting down foxholes.
This article claims that you can't legally use more than one terrier, and it shouldn't habitually fight.
Laws
www.wildlifeguardian.co.uk
Flushing with a terrier is also the start of a "fox hunt", nocturnal animals aren't usually out in the fields during the daylight hours when hunts take place.
What you are highlighting is that when the laws were made there was pushback and compromise to make sure that people who accidentally killed a fox wouldn't fall foul of the law. And then toffs can pay for legal advice that creatively unpicks the enforceability of the Act.
Why do trail hunters need to use fox piss or synthetic piss if the aim is not to hunt foxes by accident. Why not use a unique chemical compound produced in the lab and not train foxes to be anymore aggressive to foxes that they would naturally be?
As you have alluded to, trail hunts are in most cases just a smokescreen for live hunts.
Hunt saboteurs insist trailhunting is used to cover up continued illegal foxhunting
www.google.com