"Pat Bryant" wrote in message
...
As I understand it the plan in some police forces is to pick off the
landowners.

You cannot be prosecuted until you are seen to be hunting. Riding with
hounds isn't hunting until a quarry is chased. Up to that moment you are
just taking the dogs for a walk. A fox will go where it pleases and the
person whose land the hunt is lead onto may have no idea that the hunt is
there and, indeed, may not have given permission for the hunt to use the
land. A prosecution against such a defence (by the landowner) would fail
unless there was other, more compelling, evidence.

If you care to read the Bill at
http://www.publications.parliament.u...12/2004112.htm
I got 404 Page not found, but anyway the letter of the law is one thing and
the implementation of it in the courts, with each case being heard on it's
merits, is quite another.

They can confiscate the dog and have it destroyed
Which dog? Which one out of the pack did the deed? Would they destroy the
entire pack? I think not.

The land owners can be arrested and fined.
For what? Suppose the fox is caught in the front garden of an anti-hunt
saboteur. Will he be arrested and fined?

The vehicles can also be forfeited and destroyed..
I won't go on, though I take your points. The thing is, that with something
in the region of 20,000 people who have vowed to carry on hunting
regardless, enforcing this law will be virtually impossible. There is
plenty of money in the kitty (I assume) to fight and appeal every case
brought against those who hunt and those (landowners etc) who are alleged to
have supported hunting. The whole thing is just going to be a big
embarrassment for the government.