Home > false alibi > Hounds Off Opinion: National Trust 2017 AGM

25th October 2017

Hounds Off Opinion: National Trust 2017 AGM

Results from the Beynon Resolution for a cessation of trail hunting, exempt hunting & hound exercise on NT land at the National Trust 2017 AGM.


Helen Beynon’s Members Resolution to ban so-called trail hunting on National Trust properties failed by 299 votes (30,686 for; 30,985 against). So the #TrailHuntLies continue, just. The question is, what to do next?

Leaving the National Trust in disgust, though understandable, is only going to leave it vulnerable to entryism by the pro hunt lobby. That would be disastrous for persecuted wildlife. If you can afford the fees, then for fox sake remain or become a National Trust member. We are clear: change can only be effected from within (if you’re not a member then you cannot vote). As influential and substantial landowners, whether or not hunting is banned across 248,000 hectares really does matter.


Since 1988 there have been five National Trust (NT) Members Resolutions against hunting with hounds. Some were defeated, others were carried. Way back in 1990, the Chairman used between 30 and 40 thousand proxy votes in an attempt to defeat two motions presented to the AGM. Sounds familiar? The only difference between then and now is that one, the Cronin-Wilson Resolution (to ban staghunting on NT land) was carried by 68,679 to 63,985.

That Members voted to stop this particularly hideous form of rural entertainment rocked the NT Ruling Council and the hunting community at large.

The Ruling Council ignored their Members. Instead of implementing a ban, they set up a Working Party crammed with hunting sympathisers to investigate the implications of a ban whilst specifically ignoring the abuse of and suffering caused to hunted deer. Predicatably, the Working Party recommended no ban on staghunting. The hunting fraternity, meanwhile, amid threats of rural vandalism and disobedience if the bloodsport was prohibited, urged their supporters to join the NT in an effort to swing the balance of power in their favour. There was a battle royal being waged within and around the NT.

Lord Soper was President of the League Against Cruel Sports at the time and also a member of the NT. His Members Resolution to a NT Extraordinary General Meeting held on Saturday 16 July 1994 had many anti hunters rolling their eyes at its seeming timidity but it was ultimately to succeed in ways that nobody on either side of the bloodsports fence anticipated. The Soper Resolution called for a “balanced Working Party to be convened to consider the aspects of cruelty and welfare that were ignored previously.” It was carried by a whopping 114,857 to 99,607.

In April 1995 the NT Ruling Council invited Professor Patrick Bateson of Cambridge University to conduct a two-year scientific study into the welfare implications of hunting deer with hounds. He and his team did this with the full co-operation of West Country staghunts and the League Against Cruel Sports. The findings were published as ‘The Behavioural and Physiological Effects of Culling Red Deer’ (aka The Bateson Report). The evidence of cruelty inherent in staghunting and the proven effects of suffering caused to hunted deer, regardless of whether they were eventually killed or not, stunned all concerned. The day after being presented with The Bateson Report, the NT Ruling Council (to its credit) agreed not to renew any licences for staghunting on NT land.

After a couple of days shame and shock, the hunters fought back. Among other tactics, Countryside Alliance President and staghunting apologist Baroness Mallalieu set up Friends of the National Trust (FONT) with the aim of getting their people elected onto the NT Ruling Council. To date FONT has not fully succeeded, but they are still trying.


Sure, Helen Beynon’s 2017 Members Resolution to ban so-called trail hunting on NT lands failed, but by a whisker. I would argue that now is not the time to cut up membership cards and walk away. More than ever, hunted wildlife needs compassionate advocates with voices and votes. I hope you can see that where we today are is not the beginning but actually the continuation of something which has been going on for decades. Against the odds and despite all the pain, disappointment and blind eyes, we have moved (and keep moving) mountains.

You can be rest assured that hunt supporters up and down the country will be joining the National Trust en masse. They are already pressurising the Ruling Council to backslide on their recently introduced conditions for licensing so-called trail hunting. Currently, sixty-seven Hunts are in dispute with the NT over these license conditions. We need the NT to stand firm. Leaving as a protest might make you feel better in the short-term but in the long-run if our voices get weaker while theirs get stronger it won’t help hunted animals.

I just became a paid-up Member because I want to ensure that these new licensing conditions which hunts are calling “unworkable” are actually adhered to. And, next time there is a Members Resolution to stop hunting on National Trust land, I’ll be ready, willing and eligible to vote for it (who knows, I might even be the proposer…).


Thanks to Ian Pedler for documenting so much of the long history of various campaigns against deer hunting. His excellent book Save Our Stags (ISBN 978-0-9554786-0-4) is a hugely valuable tool for any students or others who want to learn about the campaigns against deer hunting with hounds from 1891 to 2007.

© Joe Hashman

Share this page:

7 Comments | Leave a comment

  • John Rimington Hare Preservation Trust says:
    Posted October 25, 2017 at 6:36 pm

    Disappointing to have come so close in the voting and one wonders what amount of bribery went on by the various hunts in order to sustain their licence status. Joe is quite correct in his deduction that people cancelling their membership as a result of the vote outcome will only strengthen the position of the hunting mafia. It is a pity that those emotionally immature individuals cannot find something useful to do with their spare time.

    Reply to this comment >
  • Linda and Roger Dobbs says:
    Posted October 30, 2017 at 8:37 am

    Extremely disappointing that the vote was lost. We were about to resign in protest – until we read your latest comments. But now we’ll remain members and look forward to a second vote at next year’s AGM. How can we encourage the RSPB and The Wildlife Trusts (approx. 1 million members each), to get any of their members, who are also NT members, to support a second vote on this issue?

    Reply to this comment >
    • HoundsOff says:
      Posted November 13, 2017 at 9:39 pm

      Glad to hear that you’re going to stay, advocate & vote, Linda & Roger. Due to NT rules & regs, there cannot be another vote on this issue for three years. In the meantime, we must work to hold the NT accountable for enforcing its ‘trail hunting’ guidelines. Already we have concrete evidence of unlicensed hunting on NT land. It’s up to us, the Members, to raise these issues and insist that appropriate action is taken as a consequence and press for it to be so. It’s up to us to also ensure that when the time is right this is put before the Membership again and hopefully carried. Of course, any such vote is only advisory. As we outlined, historically the Ruling Council has been at odds with ordinary Members on the issue of bloodsports. But note that Membership pressure has achieved great changes and this is what we must work tirelessly to carry on. The key to your last sentence question is one word – “education”. Again, that’s where we (us) can do our bit wherever and whenever appropriate. Phew!

      Reply to this comment >
  • Ian Fey says:
    Posted January 04, 2018 at 11:25 pm

    Like many people we were going to leave but having read your post we will stay and vote every time to ensure that all forms of hunting that “accidentally” involve animals are banned forever.

    Reply to this comment >
  • Trevor Hiscox says:
    Posted February 22, 2018 at 10:05 am

    I unfortunately know of two people who are vehement anti hunts, yet who do not read their National Trust literature and so knew nothing about last years vote, then having heard how it went afterwards, decided to cancel their membership, a double lose to the cause, with the the vote as narrow as it was, I can not help feeling there were many more who were uninformed.

    I have tried explaining how leaving not only let’s down the animals hunted but many others threatened with culls and like.

    Their view is of a Trust immovable. They feel the money they give the trust would be better spent on direct opposition by sabs.

    Reply to this comment >
    • John Rimington Hare Preservation Trust says:
      Posted February 23, 2018 at 7:06 pm

      More anti hunt people joining the NT would be the obvious answer, not existing members leaving. Just relying on the sabs (who cannot be everywhere in their efforts) is not a realistic answer and the two people Trevor refers to simply cannot see the whole picture, which is very disappointing. The people running the NT seem to possess the same 18th century retrograde mentality as the hunters.

      Reply to this comment >

Leave a comment: