The Hunting Act 2004 allows what has become known as ‘trail hunting’ – allegedly following an animal-based scent laid in advance of a hunt. It is widely recognised as the exemption under which most illegal hunting takes place, and the most widely used to confuse police and the courts. ‘Trail hunting’ supposedly involves people on foot or horseback following a scent (typically fox-based, which of course means dogs will not know an artificial scent from a real one) along a pre-determined route (of any length) with hounds or beagles. It is supposed to effectively replicate a traditional hunt but without a fox being chased, injured or killed. Hunts are supposed to have a ‘trail layer’ (usually on a quad bike) who goes ahead of the hunt to ‘lay the trail’, but witnesses on the ground say any ‘trail layers’ rarely if ever ‘trail lay’ for more than a few hundred metres and it’s impossible to know both where a ‘trail’ is allegedly being laid or (which is far more likely) a rag is merely being dragged along the ground to give the illusion of ‘laying a trail’. ‘Trail layers’ won’t notify those in control of the hounds where the trail is, allowing the hunt to claim ignorance if the hounds ‘leave the trail’ and an animal does get killed. Hunts are legally supposed to immediately call off dogs if they start hunting a wild mammal, but it is very difficult to prove or disprove in court whether they have actually done this. ‘Trail hunting’ is a sham. While many hunts now promote their ‘hunting’ as following a scent, the truth is that the vast majority of hunts are using ‘trail hunting’ as a disguise for illegal hunting and are hunting wild animals as they have always done.