Sounds good except they are also slipping in something to bring back the persecution of wild animals by blood sports fanatics. Supposedly it is their "freedom" to be able to torture animals. I'd rather the animals had the freedom to be left alone, personally.

I think they are bundling this with all the other stuff because they know it will never be accepted on its own.

Sounds good, but actions speak louder than words. Bearing in mind Cameron's comments in the past about protests on Parliament Square, the freedom to protest is only extended to those that he doesn't have to look at on the way to work.

I noticed that too - the opportunity to consider a referendum re: the hunting ban.

However, they do write about banning the use of animals in the testing of household products and stricter parameters on animal testing practices. In this consumer society isn't almost anything a "household product", even pharmaceuticals? Interesting food for thought to apply leaverage if these measures come to pass as promised.

Watch this space!

Persecution of wild animals by bloodsports fanatics has never been away. The anti-hunting legislation is next to useless and the police have no interest in enforcing it as most country coppers are hunt scum themselves. It doesn't outlaw killing anyway and murdering wild animals with guns instead of packs of dogs is still murder.

The police are at best too lazy and stupid to do anything to implement the Hunting Act. They are even arresting those of us who are trying to film hunts hunting unlawfully. The police, as an institution are actively supporting unlawful hunting so how exactly has this Act as it stands made anything better for wildlife? Furthermore the Act has so many loopholes that if a concientious copper or IFAW or the LACS do get a case together the CPS will sabotage it. The Hunting Act needs tightening or completely rewriting, at present it is as much use as a chocolate fireguard, we should fight a repeal but the Hunting Act is also a sop to those naive enough to think that hunting wild animals with dogs has been "banned". A repeal might just wake people up to the fact that hunts are still killing and still digging out foxes, nothing has changed.

The hunting act is a step in the right direction and the next step is to make sure the law is acted upon this will not happen when activists with a link to extremist activity are in the field winding up the hunt. You don't need to get up close to monitor a hunt but people are not monitoring hunts, they are disrupting them.

Have you not yet realised? "Extremist" means anyone who attends demos, however peaceful, however law abiding. The respectable POWA who never break the law are regularily beaten and treated with contempt and yes regarded as "extremists".You intimate that you personally can get evidence of illegal hunting by staying well clear of the hunt well if you do then YOU to the police and to the hunt are an extremist as well. To get a case to court at least the fox/hare/mink/stag/hind and hounds/terriers in the same frame is required, no mean feat, this has been done on many occassions and the hunt have simply said "ooops we lost control, it was an accident" and have got away with it. I would love to be able to say that in court and have it taken seriously with not even a snigger "sorry your honour, I got lost and just happened to wander into a place I now know as Covance and this beagle, jumped into my bag without me noticing".
I do agree that it is not sensible to antagonise a hunt which is why I do not do this though of course someone present who is opposed to hunting is enough for the red mist to descend. I used to hunt I am no better than those who hunt and therefore my role is not to piss them off or frighten them it is to stop the huntsman and terrierman killing and/or to gather evidence. I have known hundreds of hunting people and some are benign towards sabs and monitors, many are very violent and wish to eliminate any opposition to hunting. I am not interested in the field (the mounted followers), the car followers or any of those who are there to support as they are often blissfully unaware of anything going on, the only time they become an issue is if they attack or restrain me and those I am with. If that becomes the case then yes I might "wind them up" by defending myself.
I think that the best way to gather evidence is undercover a very difficult path, to be really effective this would be a great commitment involving building up contacts and trust within the hunting fraternity which takes a season or two and then hunting a few times a week, going to social events and becoming an expert in hidden cameras. Mike Huskisson the greatest undercover anti hunt activist ever has detailed how he did it in Outfoxed. To anyone really wanting to hit hunting hard who is unknown and has the stamina and courage this is a very good option delivering a double whammy first exposing what hunting is now (Mike did this in the 80s) and secondly making hunts so paranoid that they alienate those who may wish to support them.