First, this article does not talk about a "class of dog" in the sense that a "poodle" is a class of dog. It talks about a use of certain types of dogs. To chase "quarry". This sets a context for these dogs (the matter of fact tone suggests approval of this use of a dog, as does, very much so, that the first requirement for a working dog is that someone should work it!). Describing what the dogs do as "work" is strongly biased to a positive view of it. I do not strongly object to this, although it could be rephrased into a "voice" that took things less for granted.

Second, many readers will not automatically realise that one is talking about dogs that could be used in fox hunting, yet this is primarily what they are used for at least in the UK. The article largely discusses terrier work in the UK, framing its history in terms of enclosure, which is not an issue in the States or elsewhere, because enclosure practices differed in other places. So the intro should note this, and having done so, making note in some detail why it is controversial (not just that it is) serves to balance out a piece that is far too sympathetic to one POV.

Third, the article on the Hunting Act is not specific on this issue, and it's appropriate to give it in some detail (if it is appropriate to go into as much detail about terrier work in the UK, which the article does). You should either slash the article to its generic elements and put the slashings into an article on Working terriers in the United Kingdom or accept that given the form of the discussion, a focus on UK responses is appropriate.