The Fox Hunting Bill

Why This Vote Was Inevitable, and Why the Conversation Still Matters

Last night, the Animal Health and Welfare (Ban on Fox Hunting) Bill 2025 was defeated in the Dáil by a decisive margin. Twenty-four TDs voted in favour. One hundred and twenty-four voted against.

That outcome alone tells its own story.

The Bill, introduced as a ban on fox hunting, went far beyond a single practice. As drafted, it would have outlawed trail hunting and effectively dismantled all forms of mounted hunting activity in Ireland, regardless of whether an animal was ever killed.

In doing so, it failed to reflect how regulated hunting currently operates, misunderstood rural realities, and overlooked the depth of its connection to the equine industry.

This does not mean that concerns around animal welfare should be dismissed. It does mean that this particular proposal was built on weak foundations.

A Bill Built Without the Industry

One of the clearest issues with the Bill was process.

There was no meaningful engagement with those directly involved in hunting, land management, farming, or the equine sector. It could very easily be said that there was no attempt to distinguish between different practices, different regions, or different regulatory frameworks already in place.

Trail hunting, which exists specifically to avoid the killing of animals, was swept into the same category as practices it was designed to replace.

For any legislation that impacts a long-standing rural activity, this absence of consultation matters.

Not because tradition should be immune from scrutiny, but because policy cannot be effective if it does not understand the thing it seeks to regulate.

That lack of understanding was reflected in the scale of the vote.

The Human Cost That Was Barely Mentioned

One aspect of this Bill that received very little attention during the debate was its potential impact on employment within the equine industry, particularly around point-to-point racing.

Point-to-points in Ireland are run through hunt committees, with horses required to hold a Hunter’s Certificate issued by recognised hunts. Insurance, fixtures, land access and organisation are all closely tied to those same structures.

While the Bill did not directly reference point-to-point racing, many within the industry believed that removing or criminalising core hunting practices would have left point-to-points unable to operate in their current form.

In recent days, yard owners and trainers working exclusively with point-to-point horses were openly discussing job losses should the Bill pass. In one case, a point-to-point yard owner indicated 8+ staff would have been let go in January due to the uncertainty surrounding the future of the sport with another contacting us and saying 15+ would be let go. These are grooms, riders, transport staff, and stable workers whose livelihoods depend on a functioning point-to-point season.

Whether or not point-to-point racing would ultimately have survived under a restructured system is beside the point. What matters is that the potential consequences for workers were neither examined nor addressed publicly. For legislation with such far-reaching implications across rural Ireland, the absence of any serious consideration of employment impact represents a significant gap.

If future discussions around hunting, regulation, or animal welfare are to be meaningful, they must include the people whose jobs, incomes, and communities are directly affected. Rural equestrian sport does not exist in isolation. It supports families, yards, and local economies, and those realities deserve to be part of the conversation from the outset.

Again, none of this takes away from a discussion that needs to be had. But serious thought, listening, planning and understanding needs to go into legal bills like this and in this case, it really cannot be said that has happened.

Case and Point;

The Problem With the Numbers

In the days leading up to the vote and still across social media today, polling figures were widely circulated suggesting that a majority of people supported a ban on fox hunting as a sport. These statistics were repeated across social media as proof that the government was “ignoring the will of the people”.

What was rarely interrogated was who those people were.

The surveys referenced did not meaningfully differentiate between urban and rural respondents, between those with lived experience of hunting and those without, or between fox control as land management and hunting as a sporting or social activity.

It was mentioned in the Dail, that 98% of those respondents had never witnessed a hunt, never engaged with the equine industry, and had no direct exposure to rural livestock realities.

People are entitled to hold opinions regardless of experience. But when statistics are used to justify legislation, the context of those statistics matters and media needs to do a better job. Polling that excludes or dilutes the voices of those most affected does not create clarity. It creates noise.

That misframing has fuelled a lot of anger online, with claims that rural Ireland is refusing to listen and that certain Politicians or "city people" are ignoring rural Ireland.

In reality, this vote reflected a recognition that the question being asked was not the right one. But also, highlighted that a question really does need to be asked here.

Regulation

There is a legitimate discussion to be had about fox control, animal welfare, and regulation. Foxes do kill lambs, poultry, and other livestock. That is not ideology. It is a reality of farming life in Ireland. Equally, it is reasonable to question how control is carried out, what standards apply, and how welfare is protected.

Those conversations require precision, not broad strokes.

Banning without distinction, without consultation, and without a workable alternative does not protect animals. It pushes activity underground or replaces visible, regulated practices with less accountable methods.

A Media Platform in Conflict

Within Equitas, this issue surfaced an internal conflict because we have values, are human, have our own opinions and because this topic sits at the intersection of many of them.

We support women speaking openly about their experiences in the equine world, including those for whom hunting provides community, structure, and belonging. We recognise that many of those voices represent a significant part of our audience.

At the same time, not everyone within the industry feels comfortable with hunting, and that discomfort is valid and a lot of the talk this week was how barbaric it is to kill foxes and how it needs to change. The equestrian world is not monolithic, and pretending otherwise serves no one.

Our role as a media platform is not to collapse those tensions into a single position or to just project our opinions on sensitive issues. It is to create space for them to exist honestly and with real discussions.

Where This Leaves Us

The Bill was rejected because it was poorly constructed, poorly informed, and disconnected from the realities it sought to change.

That does not mean the underlying issues disappear. It should be very clear to equestrians and the powers that be that a deeper discussion is needed.

But it must be built on solid ground, shaped by those who understand the landscape, and informed by evidence rather than selectively framed data. It must involve farmers, equestrians, landowners, animal welfare experts, and rural communities alongside urban voices.

If Ireland is to have a serious conversation about the future of hunting, it must start with understanding, not accusation.

This vote closed one door. It should open a better one.