The British Hounds Sports Association doesn’t just fail in practice; its governing documents reveal the real mission. Plainly put, the BHSA exists to shield illegal hunting and safeguard the hunts’ reputation. And nothing else. 

Across parts of Somerset and Dorset, the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Hunt (BSV) continue to break the law, chase foxes, operate with terrier men, cause road chaos, and intimidate monitors and saboteurs. In April 2025, four leading members of this hunt were convicted of offences against the Hunting Act 2004, but by the beginning of the cubbing season in August the hunt was back out, behaving as if nothing had changed at all. The same people, the same activities. The public expects the law to act, and it did. But the public also expects that the hunts’ own governing body, the British Hound Sports Association, to act too.

The grand and official-sounding “British Hound Sports Association” (BHSA) is there “to ensure the highest standards of conduct by all those engaged in or involved with hounds, kennels, hunting activities or hunt management”. But what does the BHSA do when a hunt’s “standard of conduct” falls so low that they break the law of the land? The answer is simple — nothing at all, really. And the other question is this: isn’t the BHSA there to stop this from happening? The answer to this is also simple — no, it isn’t. The BHSA has quite another function altogether.

Who are the British Hound Sports Association and what do they do?

The BHSA has a constitution. They have a webpage. They spend a great deal of time posting on Facebook and other social media. They look like any other organisation — with the notable exception of how they actually behave.

The constitution tells us their “Core Principles”:

• to ensure the highest standards of kennel management and hound care and welfare;
• to ensure the highest standards of conduct by all those engaged in or involved with hounds, kennels, hunting activities or hunt management;
• to ensure the highest standards of conduct by all those participating in any hunting activities or activities relating to a Recognised Hunt;
• to operate to promote hounds, hunting activities and the hunting community and to instil confidence in hunting;
• to abide by instructions and guidance from the BHSA;
• to ensure that hunting is not brought into disrepute;
• to ensure that no one acts against the interests of hunting;
• to ensure that the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (or any subsequent re-enactment thereof) are adhered to by those participating in any hunting activities or activities relating to a Recognised Hunt.

The constitution also tells us that the Hound Sports Regulatory Authority (HSRA) — a different organisation — is responsible for complaints and discipline. They claim that this Authority is “independent”.

The HSRA also has a constitution. Their constitution essentially says that if a member fails to adhere to the BHSA’s Core Principles, they can be disciplined or sanctioned.

Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman, police lead for hunting, has said that “The BHSA has never made a single self-referral to the police.” A self-referral is where an organisation needs to obtain advice from the police about whether an action by one of their members broke any laws. Other organisations such as the Football Association and Rugby Football Union see the police as a resource and have made a number of referrals over the years — despite the fact that their sports do not have specific legislation covering them. Hunting, however, has the Hunting Act 2004.

For the last twenty years, the hunting community has been at pains to tell us that they “hunt within the law” and they are “lawfully trail hunting”. However, evidence from people who follow hunts suggests they are not doing any of this. We hear that hunts break the Hunting Act 2004 all the time. You’d think, given the obvious discrepancies, that the governing body would cover that somewhere in their constitution — but they don’t.

The BHSA Constitution does not mention the Hunting Act. Neither does it mention mammals or wildlife. Given that wildlife and the Hunting Act are their biggest problems, the fact that neither gets a mention is fundamental.

Let’s take a look at two other, very closely related governing bodies: the Masters of the Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association (MDBA) and the Clean Boot Hunting Association (CBHA). Both these organisations are concerned with hound sports, and both must ensure that their sport is unquestionably humane. Like the hunts who are members of the BHSA, drag hunts and clean boot hunts also take packs of hounds into the countryside to follow a scent and are therefore subject to the same law and the same risks. So, how do these associations approach the accidental or deliberate chasing or killing of wildlife?

The MDBA does not mention the Hunting Act either. They also don’t publish their constitution. However, they recently published their Compliance Scheme, which tells us:

“The routes taken should be chosen in consultation with farmers and landowners, as well as any relevant public bodies. They should at all times seek to avoid any conflict with wildlife or domestic livestock, adverse effects on farmers’ crops or other assets, and any conflict with the general public, private or public landowners.”

The Clean Boot Hunting Association’s protocol begins with the Hunting Act:

“Hunting with hounds in the UK is governed by the Hunting Act 2004, but clean boot packs in the CBHA must observe the following format and protocols to ensure their sport is an unequivocal, publicly verifiable, humane form of hunting.”

Both these organisations are keen to avoid the controversy that dogs the fox hunts.

If they can do this, why can’t the BHSA?

For the public to have confidence in a sport or activity, there has to be a governing body with genuine standards. But the BHSA’s standards are not what anyone would reasonably expect. Generally, people simply see that a governing body exists — and the BHSA certainly does exist. Look closer, and we see that it is not there to act against members who break the law. It is there to preserve hunting only.

Turning to the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Hunt and their activities since being filmed (by a drone) killing a fox in December 2023. Four members were convicted in April 2025 of Hunting Act offences.

A friend of ours, Judy, emailed the BHSA and asked:

• Why is this Hunt not banned?
• Why is this Hunt not, at least, under an extended suspension?
• Why has its committee not been asked to resign?
• Why have the named hunt personnel not been asked to resign and prevented from moving on to another hunt after this illegal and shameful conduct?
• Why has at least one named person been allowed to simply move on to a Hunt elsewhere?
• What actions will the BHSA be taking in order to address this Hunt’s wholly unacceptable behaviour?

Oliver Hughes, BHSA Managing Director, replied:

“The BHSA system works alongside, not instead of, the criminal justice system. Where a criminal offence is alleged, it is for the police and courts to investigate, prosecute and sentence. The BHSA and HSRA cannot and should not run parallel investigations.”

“In the case of the Blackmore and Sparkford Vale Hunt, the HSRA has already taken regulatory action. A formal disciplinary hearing concluded that standards had fallen short. The Hunt was placed under 12 months of close regulatory monitoring and strict conditions were imposed, which were accepted in full. That regime remains in place, and the HSRA retains the power to escalate further, including suspension or withdrawal of recognition, if required.”

He also said:

“One of the conditions imposed by the HSRA was that terriermen are not to be present during hunting, with their role limited to before or after the day. Quad bikes may be used in some hunts for logistical support, such as carrying equipment or gates, but their use must be consistent with BHSA Core Principles.”

So, how is that working out?

Between 21 August 2024 and 25 November 2025, the BSV were seen with terrier men 54 times. They killed foxes on 6 occasions (confirmed) and may have killed on 11 more. They caused road chaos on 32 occasions, were seen chasing wild mammals on 56 occasions, and used violence and abuse on 33 occasions. They were seen laying a trail on zero occasions. The hunt was observed on 67 occasions by sabs and non-BHSA monitors. 

This information has been gathered from hit reports with evidence. The full list, with links, can be found here:

https://www.actionagainstfoxhunting.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/BSV-Data-BSHA-report.pdf

The rows in red show the incidents which occurred during the BSHA’s monitoring. 

Table 2 (below) shows the actions of the BSV and the responses by the BHSA between the date of the kill (December 2023) and the convictions in April 2025. Lack of action by the BHSA meant the BSV could continue hunting and killing for almost a year, aside from a three-week suspension and a short monitoring period at the end of the 2024 season. 

It is clear that the BHSA’s “regulatory action” has not stopped the BSV from breaking the law and hunting foxes.

Even though all of the incidents have occurred since the kill was filmed, not all occurred during the BHSA’s period of “close regulatory monitoring”.

Table 3 (below) shows the known incidents that have occurred during the “close monitoring” apparently imposed by the BSHA. 

Why has the BHSA not escalated sanctions?

To find the answer, we return to the BHSA’s Core Principles.

None of them state that breaking the Hunting Act 2004 will result in expulsion from the BHSA. None mention that chasing or killing wildlife will lead to removal. 

The reason the BSV were sanctioned at all was because they were caught — and being caught breaches the Core Principle “to ensure that hunting is not brought into disrepute”.

In practice, the message seems to be this: if you see a drone above you, or anyone else with a camera, and you cannot track down or intimidate the person into leaving, then behave. 

Otherwise, you can do what you like.

The HSRA did cause the Avon Vale Hunt to disband after horrific footage emerged of a dig-out and fox kill. Once again, this was about “disrepute” not animal cruelty or law-breaking. More distressing footage has since emerged of the Coniston Foxhounds digging out another fox. It remains to be seen what the BHSA will do about that in the long term — a difficult case for them, because one of their own senior figures was allegedly present that day.

The BHSA cannot have it both ways. It cannot promote itself as the guardian of standards while refusing to demand even basic compliance with the law of the land. It rejects the very legislation that defines its limits, and treats defiance not as an aberration but as the norm. In doing so, it gives every one of its members licence to do the same.

With thanks to North Dorset Hunt Sabs and Weymouth Animal Rights for their tireless efforts to sab and monitor this hunt. We have used your hit reports in this report. 

Pip Donovan
Action Against Foxhunting