Enda McClafferty, Claire Quinnand Eimear Flanagan,BBC News NI
BBC
Pro hunting supporters have warned that a new Stormont bill to ban the blood sport will leave thousands of dog owners across Northern Ireland at risk of prosecution.
It comes as assembly members (MLAs) voted on Tuesday voted to pass the second stage of the Hunting with Dogs Bill, which aims to ban hunting wild animals with dogs in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where the practice is still permitted.
The private members bill is being brought by the Alliance Party's John Blair but has been dismissed as "misguided and divisive" by the campaign group Countryside Alliance Ireland.
The group held a protest outside Stormont on Tuesday morning and its spokesperson Gary McCartney warned the bill is so "wide-ranging that it will impact on every dog owner in Northern Ireland".
"If an elderly person was walking in the park and their dog scampered off and chased a wild mammal - whether that be a shrew or a deer - that could be classed as the act of hunting and the dog owner could be open to prosecution," he said.
"With 400,000 households having a dog, you can see how many people could be affected by this legislation."
But John Blair insisted his bill would not impact on all dog owners.
He said similar legislation has been in force for more than 20 years in Scotland and there hasn't been "one prosecution or attempted prosecution against a dog owner".
He said his bill will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK.
This is the second time MLAs have voted on a hunting bill brought by John Blair. The previous one in 2021 was defeated by seven votes.
But it is expected the bill will secure the support this time to move to the next stage in the legislative process.
It is understood it will have the support of Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party.
Some Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) members are also expected to back the bill.
'Provide absolute clarity'
Speaking in the assembly on Tuesday, Blair said: "This bill reflects changes made after engagement, consultation and further consideration."
"What has not changed is the central fact at the heart of this debate – hunting wild mammals with dogs is cruel, unnecessary and a ban is long overdue."
Northern Ireland Assembly
The Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs committee, Robbie Butler from the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), told the debate that his party was "broadly supportive of the principles underpinning the Hunting With Dogs Bill".
But he said it was "important to acknowledge plainly and honestly that vermin control and wildlife management are necessary components of rural living".
"Farmers, gamekeepers, land managers and rural communities face genuine challenges in protecting livestock, safeguarding biodiversity, preventing disease and managing species populations responsibly," Butler said.
He added that the UUP "welcomes the fact that this bill does not seek to eliminate all forms of lawful pest control or countryside management".
But he added that his party's support for the bill rested on getting "clear legal certainty" that lawful rural activities were not going to be unintentionally affected by how the legislation is drafted.
Butler called on the author to "provide absolute clarity" on how the bill and its various exemptions would operate in practice.
'More work needed'
Áine Murphy from Sinn Féin told MLAs that her party supported "the principle of a targeted ban on fox hunting with dogs for the purposes of leisure".
"The intention of this bill is to tackle unnecessary cruelty to animals in relation to hunting with dogs, and we support that objective," she said.
"However, it is important to be clear that this is not an outright ban on hunting."
She said Sinn Féin welcomed the fact that the bill included "important exemptions" aimed at allowing farmers to continue to protect their livestock from predators.
"However, we do have concerns that, as currently drafted, those exemptions are not yet sufficient," Murphy said.
"More work will be needed to ensure that hunting with dogs can continue where necessary to effectively and practically protect the likes of livestock and manage wildlife populations."
Following the debate, the assembly voted to pass the second stage of the legislation.
Out of the 75 MLAs who voted, 60 voted aye, 15 voted no.
The bill now moves onto the Committee stage.
'Most natural form of pest control'
Speaking ahead of Tuesday's debate, Emma Hodge from the East Antrim Hounds organisation said she is very concerned about the impact the proposed legislation would have on her pack and her livelihood.
"What is going to happen to our hounds if they ban hunting?" she asked.
"Hounds are not an animal which can be rehomed, they are a pack animal, and they need to be in a pack," she said.
She also defended fox hunting which she said was the "most natural form of pest control".
"Everybody thinks we are bloodthirsty and we are going out and killing hundreds of foxes, that is not the case," she added.
"Fox hunting has been going on for generations and has been used for pest control for all these years."
'Latest attack on farming community'
Sean McAloon, huntsman with the Fermanagh Harriers, said he has been hunting from the age of two and is opposed to any ban.
"There are a lot of more important issues MLAs should be sorting out, and hunting should not be a priority for them," he said.
He also defended fox hunting which he said was the most "humane form" of pest control.
"There are a lot of farmers out there losing lambs to foxes and they need our services to control the fox population," he said
"This is just the latest attack on the farming community, and we have taken a stand, and it now feels we are fighting a class war."
Chasing and killing a wild animal is 'repugnant'
Robbie Marsland is the Director of the League Against Cruel Sports in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
He said the "idea of encouraging a pack of hounds to chase and kill a wild animal is repugnant".
"I think we will not hear anybody talk about why it's a good thing in the debate today.
"We will hear an awful lot of chaff that's thrown in the air to distract from that central argument."
Marsland disagreed with any "suggestion that innocent dog walkers are going to be criminalised" with new legislation, as it "simply hasn't happened across the rest of the United Kingdom", where legislation is already in place.