“What About the Hounds?”: The Hypocrisy Behind MPs’ Hunting Claims

Manufactured outrage designed to protect a cruel and failing industry, not the animals it exploits.

On 7 January, MPs Mark Pritchard, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, and Joe Morrissey, stood in the House of Commons and delivered a series of emotional, ill-informed and deeply misleading claims about foxhounds.

All three raised the same talking point: “What will happen to the hounds?”
All three challenged the Labour Government on so-called animal welfare.
And all three pushed the familiar hunting industry narrative that banning trail hunting will lead to the mass killing of hounds.

Let’s be absolutely clear: this narrative is false.

The Claims Made in Parliament

Mark Pritchard warned:

“Why are the Government going to spend so much time on banning trail hunting? Is she aware that, if that goes through, in Shropshire alone we will likely see the death of at least 300 hounds?”

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown followed with:

“I am lucky enough to represent some of the most famous hunts. If we carry this policy through, how many people will, directly or indirectly, lose their jobs? How many thousands of hounds will be euthanised to support this unwelcome measure?”

Joe Morrissey went further still, declaring:

“What exactly do the Government think is going to happen to the 170 packs of hounds in England when they are no longer in use? What is going to happen to the 20,000 hounds and numerous horses if the trail hunting ban goes through? … Let us be brutally honest: many of them will be destroyed… Put the blood of those hounds and those horses on your heads.”

In response, we ask a far more pertinent question:

What exactly do Mark Pritchard, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and Joe Morrissey think already happens within the 170 packs of hounds in England when those dogs are no longer useful, or are deemed surplus to requirements?

Their statements were delivered with theatrical moral outrage. But they deliberately ignore one crucial, inconvenient fact:

The hunting industry already kills its hounds.

This is not speculation. It has been documented. Undercover footage from the Beaufort Hunt shows hounds being shot in the head. After death, further evidence, including footage linked to the Green Britain Foundation, has shown foxhounds being incinerated and used to generate electricity.

This is not hypothetical. It is not a future risk. It is current, routine practice, carried out quietly, away from public scrutiny, long before any proposed changes to the law.

The Truth They Don’t Want You to Know

Anyone who watches hunts, works within hunts, or has read hunting literature knows exactly what happens to foxhounds. It has been leaked, and widely acknowledged within hunting circles, that hunts cull around 20% of their hound packs every year as a matter of routine.

And these are not just elderly hounds at the end of their working lives. Many of those killed are young, healthy dogs, often under three or four years old, who simply “do not make the grade” for hunting. They may stray too much, be too playful, or show too much or too little drive. They are not sick. They are not dangerous. They are simply surplus.

But even where a hound’s working life has genuinely come to an end, if they are healthy, we believe they should be rehomed regardless. A dog should not lose their right to life simply because humans no longer have a use for them, especially when that dog could enjoy three or four happy, healthy twilight years in a home. Killing a healthy animal because they are no longer economically or practically convenient is not animal welfare. It is disposability dressed up as tradition.

The Lie About “Unrehomable” Hounds

Joe Morrissey claimed it is “impossible” to keep a hound in a home.

“No, please, I insist on you trying to have a hound come to your home and stay with you for a week. It is impossible.”

This is simply wrong.

Any qualified dog behaviourist, trainer or veterinarian will tell you the same thing: dogs are trainable. Foxhounds are no exception.

Meet Alfred, a rescued and rehomed foxhound from a hunt, settled in a home!

In fact, the hunting industry itself proves this. Many foxhounds spend the first 8–10 months of their lives in domestic homes with puppy walkers. They are socialised, handled, trained and exposed to everyday life, before being returned to kennels at 10-12 months to begin hunt training.

The Cheshire Hunt explain what it is to be a puppy walker, and just how long foxhounds stay with them.

The idea that these dogs suddenly become “undomesticable” is nonsense. Hounds are rehomable. The industry knows this. It simply chooses not to rehome them.

sAnd crucially, foxhounds have already been successfully rehomed. There are documented cases of former hunt hounds living safely and happily as companion animals, the lucky few who escaped the hunting industry altogether. Their existence alone dismantles the claim that rehoming is impossible.

Foxhounds up for adoption ins rescue centres, proving they are rehomeable, 2 of the above have already been rehomed.

Fake Outrage, Real Hypocrisy

So where is the outrage from these MPs about the thousands of hounds already killed every year?

Where are the calls for mandatory rehoming?
Where are the demands for hunts to stop breeding surplus dogs?
Where is the concern for the young, healthy hounds shot simply for failing to hunt “well enough”?

It is nowhere to be found. Because this sudden concern for animal welfare is not genuine. It is a political warning shot, not compassion.

The hunting industry is not afraid that hounds will die. It is afraid it will lose control.

The Reality

The death of hounds is already an unavoidable fact within hunting. The vast majority are never rehomed. They are bred, used, and killed once deemed surplus to requirements.

If hunts had abided by the law for the past 20 years, they would not be in this position now. And if MPs truly care about hound welfare, we have a simple suggestion:

Visit a hunt kennel.
Watch young and old, healthy dogs being shot in the head.
Then come back and tell the public this debate is about animal welfare.

Until then, people should recognise these claims for what they are:
manufactured outrage designed to protect a cruel and failing industry, not the animals it exploits.

---

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 83