BOXING DAY CAMPAIGN 2025

Last year (2024), AAF succeeded in stopping Ludlow Castle from allowing the Ludlow Hunt to begin their Boxing Day parade in the Castle. Instead, the Hunt began and ended their meet in Ludlow Town Centre, without involving the Castle at all.

For the 2024 meet, Shropshire Council allowed the hunt a road closure for the event. The road closure order was made using the ancient, and inappropriate Town Police and Clauses Act 1847. This was the first road closure the hunt had applied for. Up until AAF’s involvement, the Hunt blocked the roads without permission.

In Shropshire, there is a Public Space Protection Order, preventing dogs from running freely in public places. Last year, Shropshire Council reminded residents of their responsibilities in this FB post.

However, Shropshire Council refuses to apply the PSPO to hunt dogs belonging to the Ludlow Hunt. Their most recent communication contained fundamental factual errors. They justified exempting the Ludlow Hunt from the PSPO by telling us that it is a humane drag hunt, that uses artificial scent and does not chase wild mammals. This is incorrect. The Ludlow Hunt is a controversial trail hunt, that openly states on its website that it openly uses fox scent. This was not the only error.

On 25/09/25, we asked a question at Shropshire Council’s full meeting. (We have asked a question previously — details below).

“The Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for Shropshire prohibits dogs from running freely in public streets, with a £100 fine for non-compliance. Unlike other PSPOs, there is no exemption for hunt dogs. Yet on Boxing Day, the Ludlow Hunt brings a large pack into town, all running loose. Any ordinary dog owner would be fined.
There are also serious hygiene and health & safety concerns, documented on the AAF website, when hounds interact with children. We asked why the hunt is given privileges denied to others. The council’s response claimed that farming activity, livestock movement, hunts, and possibly shoots could be exempt, despite hunts not being farms and hounds not being farm animals. This reasoning was muddled, particularly as it suggested exemptions might apply to “organised and timed events, for example hunts.”
Our requests for clarification, supported by evidence regarding road closures and PSPO law, were ignored for months. After formal complaints, the council replied but made a fundamental error, incorrectly stating the Ludlow Hunt is a humane drag hunt. It is not; it is a controversial trail hunt, which will soon be illegal. The council also admitted it unofficially allows the hunt to ignore the PSPO because of who they are and because of tradition.
This is scandalous. Everyone must obey the PSPO; the council has a duty to enforce it fairly and consistently. The PSPO exists to protect the public, and tradition should never override this legal duty. Granting exemptions undermines safety, the rule of law, and public trust.”

Response from Councillor David Vasmer, Portfolio Holder for Highways and Environment

“Shropshire Council’s position remains the same as previously stated. The Order exists to address persistent antisocial behaviour such as drug use, vandalism, or dangerous dogs and dog fouling. There is no evidence to suggest any antisocial behaviour associated with this organised event by those taking part or attending. Trail hunt hounds are not “dogs at large” in a public space, they are under professional control and are brought into the area briefly and with advance notice and planning. Trail hunt hounds are professionally trained, monitored, and vet-checked, with high welfare standards. We note your concerns with safety, however the Ludlow Boxing Day has meet peacefully and successfully for many years, and there is no evidence of harm from large numbers of dogs being at this organised event. In the UK, trail hunt hounds (like foxhounds used in trail hunting or other working packs) don’t fall under pet dog regulations – their welfare is mainly overseen through self-regulation by hunting organisations rather than direct statutory law.5. 6. Shropshire Council affords all communities and groups the same entitlement to hold public events within our area of responsibility with each application assessed on a case-by-case bases.”

As this response was unsubstantiated, and contained factual errors, we replied (26/09/25):

Thank you for responding to Ms. Wedlock’s question yesterday. However, there were several omissions, contradictions, and errors in your reply.
You stated: “Trail hunt hounds are professionally trained, monitored, and vet-checked, with high welfare standards.”
and then:
“In the UK, trail hunt hounds (like foxhounds used in trail hunting or other working packs) don’t fall under pet dog regulations – their welfare is mainly overseen through self-regulation by hunting organisations rather than direct statutory law.”

These statements are contradictory. If hounds are self-regulated and lack statutory oversight, how can you be sure they are “vet-checked, with high welfare standards”? In addition, you appear confused about the breed. Trail hunt hounds arefoxhounds.

You also imply that trail hounds are exempt from the PSPO. Where in law is this exemption stated? The PSPO applies to all dogs, and Shropshire’s PSPO does not provide any exemption for trail hounds. To what specific “pet dog legislation” are you referring?

You further claimed:

“There is no evidence of harm from large numbers of dogs being at this organised event.”

This is inaccurate. At last year’s Boxing Day meet, hound faeces tested positive for salmonella. I can provide details on request. Hounds are known to carry pathogens, and since you acknowledge that they are not pet dogs and are “self-regulated,” this increases the risk to children and the public. They cannot be guaranteed disease-free. This year, a pack with kennel cough was brought to a county show, risking all other dogs present. Please see the following evidence:

• • https://www.actionagainstfoxhunting.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Hunt-Hygiene-Failures-Children-and-Hounds.pdf
  • https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13463569/urgent-warning-families-petting-farm-visits-children-hospitalised.html
  • https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/hunt-kennels-the-infectious-timebombs-waiting-to-go-off/

You say there is “no evidence of harm” — but absence of evidence does not mean harm has not occurred, nor that it won’t in the future. Importantly, hunts are not insured against transmitting diseases at public events. This could leave Shropshire Council liable, especially since we have now formally raised these risks:

• • https://www.actionagainstfoxhunting.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Battle-ESRM-Public-Liability-Insurance-compressed-1.pdf
  • https://www.actionagainstfoxhunting.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/TPCA-Insurance-1.docx

Up until our 2024 challenge, the Ludlow Hunt did not apply for road closures. Previous meets took place in the town centre without permission, blocking roads and creating unsafe conditions. The Council failed to act — suggesting the Hunt is being treated as above the law. This bias appears to extend to the PSPO.

You describe the Ludlow Hunt as a “community organisation,” yet it is a commercial company, listed on Companies House:

• • Ludlow Hunt Ltd – Co. No. 08169901

Why, then, is this company allowed to breach the PSPO?

You also have not addressed the inaccurate and misleading email sent by Mr. Wilde regarding drag hunts. Drag hunts and trail hunts are not the same, and the information provided was false. If this had been sent to an uninformed member of the public, they could easily have been misled. We expected either an apology or at least an explanation.

It appears you are granting the Hunt special treatment because of who they are. The majority of the public opposes hunting. No other “community organisation” generates such widespread opposition. If this were truly a drag hunt, we would not object. But trail hunting is controversial, and the Government has signalled its intention to outlaw it. Most councils we have approached either remain neutral (e.g., Crewkerne, Somerset; Camelford, Cornwall) or oppose Boxing Day meets (e.g., Keswick, Wymondham). Very few have actively supported them.

Finally, I have received credible information that the Ludlow Hunt are “prolific badger sett blockers,” with police investigating several incidents. Blocking badger setts is illegal. I can provide incident numbers and further details on request.

I respectfully request a detailed, evidence-based response to the points raised in this email. To date, our concerns have been met with vague, unsupported statements. Before we decide whether to escalate this matter to the Ombudsman or pursue a judicial review, we require a full and substantiated reply.

Thank you for your attention.

We are now waiting for a response from the council.

previous details of our 2024/5 campaign

On 12 December 2024, we asked Shropshire Council:

 “There is a Dog Control Order for Shropshire, with no exemption for hounds. Please also confirm that hounds will not be allowed to roam without a lead, and that any faeces left by a dog owned by the hunt, and not cleared up, will be subject to a fine, like everybody else. Can you confirm you will not permit them to meet in the town without a road closure & adequate control measures.”

This was the response from Cllr Dan Morris:

We have issues with this too. So, we emailed Cllr Morris to ask this:

• • That you will ask the hunt to adhere to the PSPO and keep their dogs on leads while they are not working.
  • That you will fine the persons in control of the hounds if they do not pick up the faeces immediately and
  • That you will fine the persons in control of the hounds if they deposit the faeces in an inappropriate place

Months later, we received this  Reply re PSPO April 25  The reply showed that the council were clearly treating hunt dogs in a different way from any other dog and allowing the hunt privileges that no one else had (NB – see the FB post from Shropshire Council above).

As the reply made very little sense, and (oddly, seemed to state that hunting is farming, and therefore the dogs should be treated in the same way as sheep dogs), we responded (see below). We were ignored, and despite a reminder and a complaint, we have received no further contact.

I have several points and questions.

1. 1. 1. You state “Farming activity will be mostly confined to private property accept [sic] where movement is required for livestock, hunts, and possibly shoots. In these circumstances it would be reasonable to exempt working animals albeit for organised and timed events, for example hunts to avoid abuse and to enable enforcement should it be necessary”.

Hunting is not “farming activity. It is a “sport’, and hunts are private businesses. Hunts are not farms. Unlike farms, hunts produce nothing. Their activities relate solely to the pleasure of the participants and the profit of the business. It is illogical to treat a hunt as if it were a farm.

Exempting hounds as ‘working animals’ is tenuous even when they are actually hunting. Unlike other genuine working animals, they are not providing a necessary service. Their services are for the pleasure of the hunts. Compare a hound with a sheep dog, and the difference is clear. The hounds are not providing any kind of a service on Boxing Day. They are behaving like any other dog. My questions:

• • • Why are you putting hunts in the came category as farms, when their activities are entirely different?
    • Can ALL dogs, attending the Boxing Day meet, can be off the lead? 
    • Are you allowing hounds privileges that others cannot have?
    • If another business asked for a road closure, which involved allowing thirty dogs to run about freely, would you prevent them on the grounds of the PSPO? 

1. 1. 2.  I don’t understand what this means “it would be reasonable to exempt working animals albeit for organised and timed events, for example hunts to avoid abuse and to enable enforcement should it be necessary.” 

• • • What “abuse” are you referring to?
    • And who is enforcing what?

1. 1. 3.  You state that the PSPO is in force when the dogs’ activities have or are “likely to have, a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, be persistent or continuing in nature.” With hounds running freely in the street, children will be interacting with them (in fact this is encouraged). There are many reasons why loose hounds are likely to have a ‘detrimental effect’ on those in the locality. Here are the reasons:

• • • Hounds are fed on a diet of raw meat, taken from farmed animals that have died of unknown causes. Hound kennels are rarely inspected (if ever) and veterinary records are kept secret.
    • On Boxing Day in Tiverton, Devon, a sample of hound faeces was collected by a local councillor. The sample was tested and it was found to contain Salmonella. I can provide the evidence for that on request.
    • A few days ago, children were infected by Cryptosporidium at a petting zoo. Hounds carry all sorts of parasites – including cryptosporidium. With no hand washing facilities (NB hand sanitiser does not kill parasite eggs), it would be astonishing if children petting hounds didn’t pick up parasites of some kind. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/suspected-parasite-infection-outbreak
    • Additionally, a hunt kennel has recently lost a number of hounds due to an “unknown infectious disease”. The circumstances and the images of their deaths are horrific. Even if this disease isn’t zoonotic (no one knows what it was), people’s dogs will be put at risk. https://www.huntsabs.org.uk/hunt-kennels-the-infectious-timebombs-waiting-to-go-off/
    • The treatment of hounds is often appalling. This report shows their illnesses, diseases and indicates the insanitary conditions in which they are kept https://www.actionagainstfoxhunting.org/the-lives-and-deaths-of-dogs-used-in-hunting-2/

For an event involving dogs running freely in the streets, interacting with children and with domestic dogs, it is essential that each and every hound is tested for diseases – both parasites and infections – beforehand. As testing is extremely unlikely, then no hound should be permitted to interact with a child, meaning that it should be kept on a lead and away from children. 

All this indicates that the hounds are “likely to have a detrimental effect on those in the locality”.

1. 1. 4. The next point relates to the type of road closure. If you are treating hounds at a Boxing Day meet as ‘working dogs” – ie being used for a sporting purpose, the type of road closure must be a TTRO, and not a TPCA. Here is my reasoning (plus some extra information):

Road Traffic Regulation Order (Special Events) Act 1994 Section 16A

1/ Section 16A of the RTRA (as amended by the Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Act 1994) gives local authorities powers to make orders (including TTROs) to close or restrict access to roads in order to facilitate, to allow members of the public to attend, or to reduce traffic disruption as a result of a “relevant event”.

A relevant event is defined as “any sporting event, social event or entertainment which is held on a road”.

2/ The order may “restrict or prohibit temporarily the use of that road, or any part of it, by vehicles or vehicles of any class or by pedestrians, to such extent and subject to such conditions or exceptions as they may consider necessary or expedient”

3/ Section 16A specifies the type of traffic control requirements that can be contained within an order under this section. They include

• • • a requirement for vehicular traffic, or vehicular traffic of any class specified in the order, to proceed in a specified direction or prohibiting it so proceeding
    • specifying that the part of the carriageway to be used by such traffic proceeding in a specified direction
    • a prohibition or restriction on the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles
    • a restriction on the speed of vehicles
    • a prohibition or restriction on the use of a road by pedestrians
    • a power to place relevant signage on the road for directing traffic
    • Application of TPCA v Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Section 16 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/11/section/1
    • Hunting Hounds Exemptions Road Traffic Act Section 27 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/27
    • Control of Dogs Act 1992   https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/901/contents/mad

Finally, it looks as if you are allowing hunts privileges you do not allow others. If a hunt is allowed to bring 30 unleashed dogs into the town centre, then so should everyone else. When not hunting, hounds are just dogs. The road closure and lack of traffic is only one element of the problem, and it does not mean that the dogs should not be controlled at all times. The risk of disease is significant, and the council cannot, as a public body, ignore that.

As we are still being ignored, we are now asking another question at the next full Shropshire Council Meeting – 25th September 2025. Shropshire Council Question Sept 2025 

2024 CAMPAIGN – update – successful!

Ludlow Castle in Shropshire, is  “One of the finest medieval ruins in England”.  On Boxing Day,  “the Master [of the Ludlow Hunt]  and dogs…congregate[d] inside the castle with all followers remaining outside and on Castle Square”. Yet the Castle claim[d] that it  “does not host the hunt.”

When the Meet was about to start, other redcoats rode their horses into the Castle, collected the hounds, and swept out through the Castle gate, horn tootling etc. They then rode to the Square, where their admiring public was waiting.

So the Castle provided the backdrop, and the pageantry for the hunt’s entrance to the meet. Whatever the Castle said, they were most definitely involved. It was high time they stopped. 

After our campaign, Ludlow Castle  dropped out of any involvement with the Boxing Day meet. The event is now advertised as “The Market Square” rather than Ludlow Castle.

However, there are still many issues.

We contacted Shropshire Council about a road closure (the Hunt clearly needed one, but haven’t had one  before), and we know they have received one for the event. They are “holding the traffic” and closing roads at different points for short periods between 10.30 ad 11.45. The affected roads are: Castle Street, Castle Square and High Street. Marshals will be in attendance.

These are the issues:

We know that Shropshire Council make no charge for road closures. However, as this is a “rolling road closure”,, marshals will need to be in attendance. To be a road traffic marshal, you must be trained and qualified. The questions to ask are as follows:

• Are the marshals part of the hunt?
• Are they suitably qualified?
• Who is paying for them?
• How much has this event cost the Council?

We asked an additional question at Shropshire Council meeting on 12 December:

 “There is a Dog Control Order for Shropshire, with no exemption for hounds. Please also confirm that hounds will not be allowed to roam without a lead, and that any faeces left by a dog owned by the hunt, and not cleared up, will be subject to a fine, like everybody else. Can you confirm you will not permit them to meet in the town without a road closure & adequate control measures.”

This was the response from Cllr Dan Morris:

We have issues with this too. So, we have emailed Cllr Morris to ask this:

• • That you will ask the hunt to adhere to the PSPO and keep their dogs on leads while they are not working.
  • That you will fine the persons in control of the hounds if they do not pick up the faeces immediately and
  • That you will fine the persons in control of the hounds if they deposit the faeces in an inappropriate place

template letter to Ludlow Castle – it worked!!

 It took us a while to get to the bottom of Ludlow Castle’s involvement in the Boxing Day meet. They seemed very reluctant to admit it. This suggests that they were fully aware how damaging it is to be associated with a hunt. The full story can be read by scrolling down. 

Our job now is to ask the Castle to put an end to all their involvement with the hunt. Here is a template letter you might want to send to Jack Tavernor at this email address jack@powis.org.uk

Just copy and paste the letter and send it to Mr T. Be polite!

Dear Mr Tavernor

I am writing to ask you to reconsider Ludlow Castle’s involvement in the Boxing Day Hunt meet of the Ludlow Hunt.

We  know that your involvement is voluntary, and, if the Hunt were to apply for and receive a road closure (as advised by the Council), unnecessary. 

As we know, the Castle allow the hounds inside the Outer Bailey before the Boxing Day meet, with a Hunt member. When the Meet is about to start, other redcoats ride their horses into the Castle, collect the hounds, and sweep out through the Castle gate, blowing their horn. They then ride to the Square, where their admiring public is waiting. The Castle plays a key part in the meet, allowing the Hunt to arrive in style, with the Castle as a backdrop.

Associating yourselves with the Hunt is problematical, as you are aware. Hunts are controversial organisations and most people do not support them. It is universally accepted that hunts like the Ludlow Hunt have been fox hunting for the last twenty years (despite the ban) and using trail hunting as a “smokescreen”. The Government has committed to changing the Hunting Act and closing all the loopholes. Fox hunting is cruel.

Your concern is the Castle, of course. Hunts have a very bad reputation indeed, and it is a pity that the Castle’s own reputation is suffering as a consequence.

I am asking you not to allow the Hunt inside the Castle at all on Boxing Day. Please keep me posted as to your decision. 

Thank you.

Emails from Ludlow Castle to a member of the public and to AAF

A member of the public forwarded this email from Ludlow Castle. The Castle said that they did not host the Hunt on Boxing Day, but they do have this function:

Email from Ludlow Castle, 10 September 2024 to a member of the public

 

In order to support the member of the public, we also email the Castle – very politely – and ask what “the H&S managment” is

And the puzzling response is this. “The local resident is clearly scaremongering and trying to interfere and I’d suggest should try and ascertain correct facts. The estate is not linked with the hunt and certainly do not provide operational assistance for it  – a point I have made clear to ‘local residents’ many times before”

It goes on like this for a while, with the person from the Castle failing to provide any sort of an explanation and becoming increasingly rude.  In the end, we find out from a different member of staff at the Castle that the meet DOES take place in the Castle, but the people don’t get to see it as they aren’t allowed in. “For the safety of the general public, participants and animals we have agreed that only the Master and dogs should congregate inside the castle with all followers remaining outside and on Castle Square (which is not within our control)”.

The public  have to wait until the Hunt sweep out of the Castle (beautiful backdrop, providing legitimacy etc) before they get to see them. We email the original person again and ask him (politely) why he didn’t say this in the first place. His answer is astonishing. He continues to deny the Castle’s involvment and then says “The reality is that it would have been better had you made a polite request for information”. (Please see above polite request).

If anyone would like to see all of the emails that passed between us and the Castle, please just ask info@actionagainstfoxhunting.org

Our Freedom of Information Requests can be seen here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/boxing_day_meet_ludlow_hunt

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/hunt_boxing_day_meet_ludlow

WE’LL PUBLISH THE NEXT EXCITING EPISODE WHEN WE HAVE RECEIVED REPLIES TO OUR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE HUNT HAS NO PERMISSION TO USE THE TOWN SQUARE, NO ROAD CLOSURE, AND NO RISK ASSESSMENTS.

26 October 2024

We have now established the Castle’s involvement in the Boxing Day Meet.Firstly, the Countryside Alliance advertises the meet as taking place in the Castle.

This is because having the Castle as a venue is very important to the Hunt. The purpose of a Boxing Day meet is to parade the hunt to the people – many festive meets are actually called “parades”. Having a local landmark as a backdrop matters.

This what happens on Boxing Day. The Castle allow the hounds inside the Outer Bailey before the Boxing Day meet, with Hunt member. When the Meet is about to start, the other redcoats ride their horses into the Castle, collect the hounds, and sweep out through the Castle gate, horn tootling etc. They then ride to the Square, where their admiring public is waiting.So the Castle provides the backdrop, and the pageantry for the hunt’s entrance to the meet. Whatever the Castle says, they are most definitely involved.

The Castle is open, and any paying visitors will be spectators.  But, they exclude anyone who hasn’t paid.

A video of their exit in 2023 can be seen here: Ludlow Castle, Boxing Day 2023

The Hunt then proceeds to the Castle Square – Ludlow Town Council property – and remain stationary for around 50 minutes, with the spectator crowd blocking up at least two roads to watch them.

Unlike every other organisation who wants to use the Square as an event, the Hunt make no Event Application to the Town Council. In fact, the Town Council don’t even seem to be aware that the hunt uses their property. This email from the Town Council confirms this:

We are, of course, following this up with the Council.

The Highways Department seem unaware of the the road blocking that happens on Boxing Day. This email confirms it:

We have, of course, followed this up with the Highways Dept to ask them why the hunt, unlike everyone else, does not apply for a road closure.

This photo from Boxing Day 2023 confirms that a) the Hunt cordon off and use the Square (without permission) and b) block the road (without a road closure).

 So, what next? We wait for replies from the Highways Dept and Town Council. And take it from there. With no permissions, no safety arrangements, no applications, the Hunt should not be meeting in Castle Square. As for the Castle, it was very easy to work out what is going on there – yes, they do allow the Hunt to meet in the Castle on Boxing Day and no, they don’t want to admit it. Why? Is it that they KNOW they’ll be taken to task for it? Probably. Watch this space for more news.

If you’d like to help, here are the relevant email addresses:

Ludlow Castle – jack@powis.org.uk  PLEASE BE ULTRA-POLITE. Jack considers any contact about the Hunt as some sort of insult, accuses everyone of being rude (no matter how courteous the email) and uses this as an excuse not to give a sensible answer.  If you receive a reply from him, you’ll immediately realise who is the rude person here.

Ludlow Town Council – customer.services@ludlow.gov.uk Please be gentle with them – they seem to have been taken in by the Hunt too. That said, if they’d looked a bit harder at what was going on, they would have known. 

Shropshire Council Highways – southshropshirehighways@shropshire.gov.uk  This department appear to have no idea what is going on, and have (possibly innocently) given out the wrong information about whether the Hunt needs a road closure. 

Update 28th October 2024

Ludlow Castle is now on Protect the Wild’s Database – Blood Business

Entry for Ludlow Castle

Update 29th October 2024

In response to our enquiry, Shropshire Council Highways Department confirmed that they have advised the Ludlow Hunt to apply for a road closure for their event. This is good news, for several reasons:

1) The Hunt is being forced to follow the same procedures as everyone else. However, they could ignore the advice and show up anyway with no road closure.

2) As Ludlow Castle has said that they allow the hounds inside for health and safety reasons relating to the public highway, this does away with the “need” for them to be involved at all. 

I have written to Ludlow Castle and asked them for their response.

Open letter 29th October 2024

Dear Mr Tavernor

I write to update you on the situation with Ludlow Castle and the Boxing Day meet. This may help you decide on the Castle’s involvement for this year.

An AAF member has sent me her email thread with you. You state this:

“…the castle is not under compulsion to allow the Hounds into the castle but in case you do not recall the detail of the layout of Ludlow then the market square is bordered by public highway and is fairly small. It is packed with horses and the general public on Boxing Day. I would entirely disagree with your view concerning health and safety and perhaps that’s were the crux of the issue lies. The owner’s priority is the care of the castle, its setting, our neighbours and the general public – a point which appears to have been missed by several people recently.”

Shropshire Council has confirmed this:

On 29 Oct 2024, at 10:55, Alex Postlethwaite.Highways <Alex.Postlethwaite.Highways@shropshire.gov.uk> wrote:

 Hi,

Thanks for your enquiry. We are aware of the Ludlow Hunt Boxing Day meet, and can confirm that they have been advised to apply for road suitable closures this year.

Kind regards

Alex

Your response to our member’s enquiry suggests that you allow the hounds in the Castle because of the dangerous situation with the public highway surrounding the square. Now that the Hunt has been advised by the Council to apply for a road closure, there is no need for the Castle to step in and allow the hounds inside at all.

The Castle should rightly support the Council’s advice and expect the Hunt to apply for a road closure, instead of their relying on the Castle to provide facilities (which, after all, is causing you reputational issues). 

A road closure order would make the situation safer for everyone. If the Hunt ignores the advice and fails to apply for an order, it would be wrong for the Castle to provide a back stop. 

Additionally, we are all aware that health and safety is not the sole reason why the Hunt uses the Castle. They want to appear from inside, with the hounds and horses, in order to make a stylish entrance to the meet. The Castle provides the beautiful backdrop. Associating yourselves with the Hunt is problematical, as you are aware. Hunts are controversial organisations and most people do not support them. When you see a large number of people gathering in the Square on Boxing Day, it is unlikely that they are representative of the usual type of people who might visit the Castle during the year. You’d need to see 700 visitors through the doors before one hunter might come in. Out of 100 normal visitors, you probably won’t find any actual hunters, but four might support them, and a further six will be undecided. The other 90 (when asked) will all object. (Source https://www.actionagainstfoxhunting.org/aaf-rural-survey-2024/)

As it is universally accepted that hunts like the Ludlow Hunt have been fox hunting for the last twenty years (despite the ban) and using trail hunting as a “smokescreen”, the Government has committed to changing the Hunting Act and closing all the loopholes. Fox hunting is cruel. 

You are probably aware that Ludlow Castle has been added to Protect the Wild’s Blood Business Database. Please note – any voluntary association with a hunt is enough to get you on the database. Your health and safety reasons will be dealt with by a road closure, and are, in the opinion of many, rather unconvincing. It is also worth noting that other hunt meets are held in other towns, where there is no Castle to house the hounds beforehand. Ludlow Castle’s involvement is unnecessary. 

https://bloodbusiness.info/business/ludlow-castle-shrops/

Your concern is the Castle, of course. Hunts have a very bad reputation indeed, and it is a pity that the Castle’s own reputation is suffering as a consequence.

Please let me know what you decide to do for Boxing Day 2024. If you decide not to allow hounds inside the Castle at all, I can help you advertise that decision, quell the criticism and restore the Castle’s reputation. 

Thank you.