Are there are other effective and practical  methods of control which cause less stress:- gassing, poisoning, shooting,  terrier work, snaring, trapping, chemical birth control, or aversion training?

Let's take possible methods one at a time bearing in mind that an acceptable method must not only cause less suffering but meet the following important criteria:- (a) effective and without unacceptable costs or impracticalities of application, (b) able and willing to be limited so that it does not decimate the fox population, (c) safe for humans and domestic animals, (d) does not tend to degrade the genetic adaptation of rural foxes to their natural environment, and (e) relatively safe for other wild animals.
The reasoning given below is supported by 300 Veterinary Surgeons, Research Workers etc. For further details please see http://www.vets-for-hunting.org.uk/

Gassing?

Gassing cannot guarantee that there will be NO pockets of air or low concentrations leading to slow painful death. It is also indiscriminate, killing the  young and fit in addition to those past their prime: also other animals  that may use the foxes' earth. It tends to reduce the population too severely  and to increase suffering by degrading its health and the efficiency of  its genetic adaptation to its environment. 

Poisoning?

 It is indiscriminate  and has the same shortcomings as gassing. 

Shooting?

Most Gamekeepers are relatively expert at shooting foxes. Nevertheless,  research entitled "Welfare Aspects of Shooting Foxes" (presented  to Parliament in June 2003 by several scientists) shows that expert rifle  shots at 100yds wound heavilly as many foxes as they kill outright, even  at 50 yds with the rifle supported, they killed 60% and wounded heavilly  some 40%. A further study by the University Federation for Animal Welfare ,which has been peer reviewed and accepted as valid scientific research, was reported in their journal Animal Welfare in May 2005. It confirmed earlier research that up to 50% of foxes shot in the 500 cases analysed were wounded not killed. Furthermore, the shooters may not know when they wound. They are not always able to shoot a second time. They may not have a suitable dog to catch a wounded  fox and kill it quickly. However, unlike Gamekeepers, relatively few farmers  would claim to be expert at shooting foxes. Inexpert shooting often with a shotgun at short range (difficult to achieve against a shy fox) was shown also to wound heavilly as often as to kill. Wounding heavilly always runs risks of a slow painful death resulting in a much longer period of suffering than when caught by hounds.  It is not always possible for the farmer to know that he has wounded.  Neither can the farmer always own a suitable dog to guarantee catching a wounded fox quickly. Some shot-wounds leave a fox able to run at its normal speed for a substantial time, but will cause the animal to die  later from the wound. Many farmers acknowledge the problems of shooting foxes themselves and have no access to a professional shot. It is relatively difficult to arrange to deliberately shoot foxes with a shotgun, because they are normally in woodland cover and present a fleeting target; although it is possible to control some on an opportunistic basis using shotguns.  In the open foxes are very wary and it is difficult to get near them for an easy shot. However, they can be enticed out into the open (E.g. by Lamping) where they can be shot at relatively long range. This requires a rifle and, if risk of injury is to be minimised, an expert shot. BUT  THE RESEARCH SHOWS THAT EVEN THEN HALF WILL BE WOUNDED HEAVILLY. This shooting with rifles is has been thought to be a relatively humane method of controlling foxes where expert shots are readily available: particularly around gameshoots. However, the research shows that it runs a wholly unacceptable risk of slow death from heavy wounding. Furthermore, it is unsafe near built up areas and roads, footpaths etc. because rifle bullets can carry  considerable distances and can ricochet. But a significant number of foxes  live in such areas from which they emerge and kill farmer's possessions. It is also less selective than Hunting and there is a strong incentive around gameshoots for the keeper to reduce the fox population to a very low level.

Foxes can be made to “freeze” on a dark night by being illuminated  in the beam of a strong light (lamping) for long enough to set (slip) a couple of lurchers to chase and catch the fox. However, the fox is not always killed quickly as it would be under a pack of hounds. From the viewpoint of the Anti’s, animals being caught by hounds is anathema. The lamping with lurchers control is used where it is too dangerous to shoot with rifles at night due, say, to the risk of people being about or near roads/dwellings. Thus to obey the Anti’s wishes to kill by shooting cannot be met safely by using guns with Lurchers and lamps.

The history of the results of the Fox Bounty in the UK after the '39-'45 War and the situations in Holland and the Isle of Man, please see this link for details.
The rarity of foxes in the areas of England where shooting predominates (e.g. Much of East Anglia ).

Farmers state that they are aware that if Foxhunting is banned sufficiently skilled marksmen would be in short supply and unlikely to be available exactly when needed. They also state that marksmen's services would be expensive. They expect , therefore, that many farmers would have to attempt  to protect their property through reducing the menace of foxes by shooting; ; notwithstanding the difficulty of finding the time also their strong objection to the risk of slow death after wounding. They state that they would seek to protect their livestock from foxes whatever arguments are  put forward that they do not need to. Therefore, the result of banning  Foxhunting would be an increase in the total duration of fox suffering.

Snaring? 

Unless tended impracticably frequently leg-capture snares impose long periods of suffering. Strangulation snares often lead to a relatively slow death.
All snares are relatively unselective.

Foxes have been found having nearly bitten off a leg to escape the snare.

Terrier Work?

This does involve an undesirably longer period of confrontation than the very quick kill at the end of a chase. Approved foxhunts have to use terriers from time to time. However, this is only when the farmer needs to have the fox destroyed and "he" has gone to ground after a chase.  If Hunts refused to kill foxes under these circumstances very few farmers would allow the chase to cross their farms. Approved Foxhunts operate within a strictly enforced set of rules.  These cover all Terrier Work undertaken by the Hunt. All Terriermen must  be approved by the Hunt. For more on the Rules for Terrier Work please  click here. Terriers should bring the fox to bay under ground by barking. Any that fight the fox must  never be sent to ground again. The fox must be dug down to rapidly and  dispatched with a humane killing bullet from a licensed pistol of an approved type. A fox which has had to he handled by a terrierman or his assistant must either be freed or humanely destroyed immediately; under no circumstances may it be hunted. There are many people working Terriers to control  foxes in a responsible manner complying with the rules  of the National Working Terrier Foundation NWT. Unfortunately, there are also gangs who indulge in Terrier Work which is neither under the  auspices of an approved Foxhunt nor the NWTF. This "cow boy" activity does include using terriers to fight foxes. Worse, Hunt Terriermen  have been caught working with such gangs. These activities have sometimes  been attributed, often wrongly, to an approved Foxhunt or to members of  the NWTF. The solution would seem to be; to make Terrier Work after foxes illegal ( like badger baiting is illegal) unless carried out by Terriermen  licensed by the NWTF or an approved Foxhunt.

Trapping?

Leghold self locking traps are illegal.
Live capture traps unless tended impracticably often impose long periods  of suffering. Doped bait may shorten this but cannot extend the period  of relaxation safely by long enough for compatibility with a practicable interval between checking for a capture.
Traps with poisoned bait are nonselective and will kill dogs, cats etc.
Rural populations of foxes learn to avoid traps and this happens in a surprisingly short time. 

Foxes have been known to tear out many of their teeth attempting to chew  there way out of a live capture trap. There have been several unsuccessful attempts to catch rural foxes in such traps 

Chemical Birth Control? 

The use of bait containing contraceptives. I understand that this has been used in parts of New England USA and in wild areas of Europe (such as  the Ardennes Forest) to control rabid foxes. However, there has been very little practical experience of its use in environments and circumstances  equivalent to those of rural lowland foxes in the UK. It would seem to  be unselective and difficult to confine to the fox species. It would also seem to be difficult to restrict its effects so that it does not decimate the fox population over a large area. Particularly, if it is proposed  to "sterilize" dog foxes which normally travel considerable distances to mate. It has become disliked by the
Environmental Lobby because other mammals are also affected. Also it causes pregnant vixens to abort. It appears to have most of the deficiencies  of poisoning. 
A less species unspecific method is  to shoot with a dart containing contraceptive  instead of shooting with bullets or ball shot. But  not enough can be injected to avoid having to repeat dose a few weeks later. This is very difficult and expensive because courting vixens roam widely. Again it causes pregnant vixens to abort. 

I have none and would be grateful for any or the URLs of places where some might be found on the Internet. 

Aversion Training? 

Causing foxes to be put off a type of prey which it is desired to protect  from predation by deliberate contamination with a chemical which nauseates but does no other harm. The theory is that this creates aversion to that type of prey. For instance treated carcasses of lambs would be placed near foxes earths. I suspect that this would be only partially effective  and would create problems of a probability of harming other animals and birds who would eat treated carcasses. Do people really want rotting carcasses  left where earths are close to human habitation? 

During 1996-99 The Game Conservancy Trust devoted intensive field research to 'conditioned taste aversion' to establish whether it had potential in controlling predation of game. This method is designed to 'train' foxes  to avoid certain prey. Disappointingly they encountered insurmountable practical  problems that make this approach unsuitable in the UK.