So is this really the end?

THERE was defiance in the air as huntsmen and women toasted the last legal York and Ainsty South hunt with stirrup cups of port.

"This is not the end," said hunt master Nick Procter, as the hunt's 70 hounds milled around the horses' legs yesterday. "It is the beginning of a new regime of hunting within the law. We are going to show that this law is a bad one, a law based on prejudice.

"B******* to Blair and b******* to his grubby little Government who are putting us in this position. They won't stop us. We are going to carry on with this hunt until the day I bloody well die. York and Ainsty South will now have to hunt within the law - but the law is an ass."

Alongside the bravado, however, there was sadness - and a sense that England may never be quite the same again.

"My husband and I are moving to France this year, because England just isn't England any more," said Hunt member Suzannah Kilbington. "One of the reasons we are going is the hunting ban. We have bought a home in rural France - which is like England was 30 or 40 years ago. We will definitely keep on hunting there."

Whether you are pro- or anti-fox hunting, there is no doubt that the Hunting Act which became law today is a landmark in British legal history.

But with thousands of hunt supporters pledging that they will be saddling up tomorrow as normal in the face of the ban, is this really the end of a centuries-old rural tradition?

The Hunting Act makes clear that it will be an offence for anyone to "hunt a wild animal with a dog". It will also be an offence for landowners to permit their land to be used for hunting.

But there is nothing to stop huntsmen riding out with hounds if they are not hunting - and lawyers are already pointing out that if a fox happens to get killed along the way, it may be very difficult to prove the death was intentional.

Police have new powers under the Act to stop those engaged in hunting, to seize animals and vehicles, and even to search buildings such as stables and kennels for evidence of hunting.

But in North Yorkshire they have made it clear that while they will investigate complaints about illegal hunting, they will not be actively intervening to stop hunting taking place.

This will effectively leave it up to animal rights activists to monitor hunts and gather evidence of illegal activity.

They are pledging to do just that. But even so, lawyers warn, making a successful prosecution will be difficult.

The clash between town and country, huntsman and hunt sab, rural tradition and urban sensitivity, is far from over.

The huntsmen

EDWARD Duke doesn't believe in mincing his words. "Personally, and I'm talking about me as an individual, I would rather go out hunting illegally straight away and see what they can do to us," said the local businessman and keen huntsman.

"I am very keen to test the law. Let them come and try to arrest us. It is an unjust law, and I think breaking the law doesn't make me a criminal it makes me a patriot."

Mr Duke, a member of the Middleton Hunt from Marton-in-the-Woods and a founder of militant group the Real Countryside Alliance, says thousands of other huntsmen feel the same way.

"There are 15,000 to 20,000 people in the UK who are very willing to break the law and to go to prison and they will get together over the coming months and organise how they will do it," he said.

"Some of us have found a way to hunt illegally without anyone finding out, and we're going to do that, we have ways."

He admits he feels sorry for police who will have to try to enforce the law.

"What are they going to do? Fingerprint the countryside?" he said. "How do you investigate retrospectively? One man says: 'Oh, they chased a fox there' and 50 of us say: 'No we didn't the hounds chased it and we ran after them to try to stop it'.

"We are great friends of our police and we support them, but they're between a rock and a hard place. They've been forced into a political situation by the bloody Government and it's totally wrong. They should not be dragged into these political issues."

"I know more about foxes than all of Westminster put together," added former Ryedale farmer Peter Hickes, of Holgate, York, who has hunted for 70 years with the Middleton Hunt.

"It's the worst legislation to come out of there in a long time. It does no good and a lot of bad. There is a little bit of cruelty in chasing a fox, but there is in everything that gets killed."

The police

POLICE in North Yorkshire won't be actively intervening to stop hunts - or even monitoring them - unless there is a risk of a clash between hunt supporters and saboteurs, according to Ryedale area commander, Inspector Neil Burnett.

That doesn't suggest they will ignore the law. Police will investigate if they receive complaints of illegal hunting. But hunting will remain a low priority compared to offences such as burglary and theft.

In an approach which amounts to leaving the policing of hunts to hunt saboteurs and animal rights activists, Inspector Burnett says his officers would investigate allegations retrospectively.

"We fully anticipate that different individuals and groups will seek to monitor hunting actively post-ban and we expect that any breaches that individuals or groups do monitor will be reported to the police," he said.

"We are also already aware that a number of animal rights and animal welfare groups will seek to make sure the law is upheld." The new legislation would be difficult to enforce, he admitted. "But that doesn't mean to say we won't be enforcing it."

The animal rights activists

The League Against Cruel Sports has already made clear that it will be prepared to police hunts in an attempt to stop illegal hunting. The group has set up a website - www.huntcrimewatch.com - in which it invites people to volunteer as "field monitors" and record hunt meets with camcorders so solid evidence can be gathered for prosecution.

"In our meetings with the Association of Chief Police Officers, we have been assured that the authorities will be treating credible claims of hunting breaches seriously as they would with any other offence," said a spokesman for the League today.

"We recognise that the police have their priorities but the League and ordinary members of the public will be available to support the police by supplying evidence of hunts breaking the law as and when it occurs. There is no reason to suspect that this law will not be effective or enforceable; it is."

"The pro-hunt Countryside Alliance has lost its argument with the public, with Parliament and in the courts," added John Rolls, the RSPCA's director of animal welfare promotion. "Pro-hunters must finally accept that this just and valid law reflects the will of the majority, who can no longer tolerate cruelty inflicted upon animals in the name of sport or tradition."

The law

As of today, it is an offence to "hunt a wild mammal with a dog" or to allow unlawful hunting on your land. The maximum penalty is a £5,000 fine.

There are exemptions, however. Dogs can still be used to hunt rats and rabbits; and up to two dogs can be used to flush out a wild mammal such as a fox if it is a threat to livestock. The animal must then be shot.

It is still legal to ride out with hounds, provided you do not attempt to kill a fox or any other wild mammal.

In practice, legal experts say the ban may be difficult to enforce.

It will be difficult to prove that somebody out riding with hounds is hunting, since police are unlikely to have the resources to follow hunts and anti-hunt witnesses may not be seen by courts as the most un-biased of witnesses. In addition, magistrates have been given little or no guidance on how to interpret the law.

There are also questions over whether a fine will be a sufficient deterrent. If motoring offences are anything to go by, even those convicted of hunting may well escape with a fine of only a few hundred pounds.

"Many relatively wealthy people may feel that is a reasonable price for a day's hunting," said solicitor Craig Sutcliffe, head of the criminal defence department at Harrowell Shaftoe in York.

The Government's failure to show real commitment to enforcing the ban is bizarre, given the huge quantity of parliamentary time devoted to it, added Jonathan Mortimer, head of commercial litigation at Langleys in York.

"The Government should not underestimate the extent to which this legislation can be avoided by those who believe hunting is right," he said. "I predict that a number of fox-hunting activists will be disappointed by the extent to which this legislation can be enforced."

Ultimately, said Craig Sutcliffe, the most effective tool against repeat offenders might be an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO), which could be worded in any way a court wanted: for example, to prevent a named individual riding a horse, or riding a horse in the company of dogs.

Whether such a method is ever used, however, will depend on how determined the Government is. With a general election in the offing, it may be unlikely to do anything that would be too confrontational for now at least.

Updated: 11:00 Friday, February 18, 2005