THE CASE FOR HUNTING

Our case is based on the following facts:

1. NECESSITY: Fox populations need to be controlled In areas where shoots, farms, animal/bird sanctuaries etc. need to protect their stock from foxes (that is everywhere except where arable land is totally dominant and there is very little game shooting).
2. EFFECTIVENESS:   Hunting is an effective means of control to a level just tolerable to farmers, shoots, sanctuaries etc.
3. LEAST CRUEL CONTROL:   Hunting is the least cruel effective method of control to a level beneficial to the maximum number of foxes just tolerable to those whose property they destroy.
4. NO SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVES:     There are no alternative control methods that so well satisfy the essential 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.
5. MORALITY:    Hunting does not infringe the morality of those who interact with nature, rather than predominantly spectate upon it.
6. OTHER ADVANTAGES:   Hunting has several other beneficial effects; alone these would not justify it, but they support the primary case (paras 1 to 5 above.)

For more detail click on the links or menu items.

Conclusion

The disciplined  culling of foxes  in the UK by  highly organised, long standing  and respected Hunts ( i.e. those belonging  to the Masters  of Foxhounds  Association) avoided the  excessive depletion and risk of  excessive suffering  which has been  shown to be a feature of the practicable  implementation  of alternative  methods (e.g.  trapping, shooting, gassing, snaring.) This conclusion is hardly surprising since it has been reached  before by a body much more intelligent  than me------the "Scott Henderson Committee" set up by the  last "landslide"  Labour Government in 1949. Click here to see a  scanned copy  of their conclusions. WHAT HAS CHANGED? Not the facts, only the "Public's attitude". In reality, this is views  held for the  most part by  representatives  of our "Urban Sub-Culture" and not shared by many from our "Rural Sub-Culture".  BUT THIS IS  NOT A PROPER  BASIS FOR WRECKING  THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LIVES OF A MAJORITY  OF OUR "RURALS". 

The moral objections to hunting are, at best,  arguable and, at worst, factional opportunism.