WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT THE ALLEGED SUFFERING CAUSED BY FOXHUNTING  The stress caused by Foxhunting is within the limits to which the mind of the species  has become adapted. Where shooting by experts is impractical, it is the only proven method which meets all the criteria discussed below. Therefore, I have a clear conscience in  the matter of whether I am being cruel when Foxhunting.  Are foxes scared out of their wits and effectively tortured while being chased? The Antis claim they are. BUT a large number of scientists who study animal behaviour believe that they are fully in control of their wits. Furthermore, observation by countrypeople over hundreds of years  shows that:- (a) They appear not to anticipate their possible death. (b)  They seem not to be tortured by being chased. A large body of authoritative  opinion has good reason to assume that their genes, together with inherited and acquired learning, have adapted them to the chase. However, the "Cruelty Argument" will remain sterile because it is subjective, either way,  until it becomes possible for a human being to know objectively what a fox is thinking. Two British zoologists at the University of  Nottingham, (Chris Barnard, professor of animal behaviour and Jane Hurst, a behavioural ecologist) back up observations that foxes seem not to anticipate death and appear not to be suffering while being chased. Their views can  be summarised as:-  (a) animals who are hunted regularly (e.g. foxes) may well be conditioned to regard the stress of being hunted as normal ; (b) do not confuse stress with suffering.  Stress is a physical condition. Suffering is a mental condition. The former does not inevitably cause the latter. A marathon runner is highly stressed  but is not suffering unless his stress exceeds anything that he has experienced previously and has not, therefore, mentally adapted himself to cope with.  Stress produces adrenalin and endorphins which produce exhilaration to  mask some of the stress. Judgements in respect of animals about the balance  between pain and exhilaration (both caused by a stress) are very difficult and human analogies are unlikely to be reliable. The fact that foxes are fully in control of their wits when being hunted is shown by the following examples:- they know how much scent they leave, how to mask it by running  through ground fouled by cattle etc. or water and how to use the wind. Also other tactics too numerous to discuss here. They use these tactics  methodically while being chased. Foxes have been seen to kill and eat  a small mammal while being hunted. For more details on academic work click here. The reasoning given above is supported by 300 Veterinary Surgeons, Research Workers etc. For further details please see http://www.vets-for-hunting.org.uk/ What did Burns say about welfare and cruelty? "Burns" fought shy of reporting  on cruelty because they found that several crucial aspects of the alleged cruelty and degradation of welfare had not been thoroughly researched. Furthermore, the Inquiry did not have time to initiate this "missing research", nor to await its outcome before reporting.  "Burns" states that: Except in relation to deer, little scientific work has been done  to assess the impact of hunting on the welfare of the four quarry species, (para 46). There is a lack of scientific evidence about the welfare implications of hunting, (para 55). There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, (para 56). Although there is no firm scientific evidence, (para57). The assertion that hunting with dogs "inflicts unnecessary suffering" (i.e. cruel) is, therefore, at best premature and at worst likely to be wrong. Certainly it is unproved and it would not stand up to legal examination. This conclusion is supported by statements made by "Burns" members  to Parliament after they reported: Their report stated that "this experience {being hunted} seriously compromises the welfare of the fox". The Anti Foxhunting fraternity used this statement to allege that  this meant that hunting was cruel. However during the parliamentary debate, two principal authors of the Burns Report set out to explain  precisely what they meant by the expression. Lord Burns, Chairman of the Inquiry, said on the issue of cruelty "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not  sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to each views about cruelty." Lord Soulsby, one of the most senior vets in the UK, went further,  condemning those organisations who claimed that the expression equated  to cruelty and thus justified an end to hunting "At no point did the committee conclude, or even attempt to conclude, an assessment of cruelty.   Instead of addressing the alleged cruelty, "Burns" made assertions  (unsupported by research) about the welfare of hunted individual animals.  There conclusions are at this link , with Foxman's reactions shown in red. The assertion that hunting with dogs degrades the welfare of foxes is,  therefore, at best premature and at worst likely to be wrong. Certainly it is unproved and it would not stand up to legal examination.   Do hounds tear a fox to pieces while it is still alive? To those without detailed knowledge it looks as if they do. BUT analysis  of many films/videos shows that, in nearly all cases, the first or second  hound to reach the fox catches it, usually by a hind leg. The next hound  instinctively bites its neck and gives a quick twist which breaks the spinal cord. From the moment the first hound reaches the fox to its death is very seldom more than a very few seconds. The remaining hounds tear  the dead fox to pieces. THE SURE CULL OF A FOX IN  SECONDS Please note that the kill  shown is a worst case. The clip needs the "Real Player Plug In" download from:   Hunting aims to preserve the most humane and practicable way  of controlling foxes. This link explains the flaws in other methods. In the vast majority  of cases a large number of hounds catch up with the fox simultaneously and death is virtually instantaneous. However even in this worst  case, it takes less than 10 seconds from the moment a hound first seizes the fox to the moment he dies under a number of hounds. Surely even this worst case is preferable to the possibility of a slow death from wounds after an attempted shooting. 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? There are no poisons cleared for use against foxes. 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 100 yds wound heavily as many foxes as they kill outright, even  at 50 yds with the rifle supported, they killed 60% and wounded heavily  some 40%. They 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 heavily as often as to kill. Wounding heavily 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 HEAVILY. This shooting by experts with rifles 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 even this least uncertain method 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.  1. The history of the results of the Fox Bounty in the UK after the '39-'45 War. During World War 2 there was much less Hunting. The fox population soared and predation of lambs, piglets, chickens etc. became intolerable. The Government encouraged shooting to bring down numbers. Farmers took up their shotguns and "Fox destruction clubs" were formed. The fox is difficult to shoot dead except by skilled marksmen (E.g. many gamekeepers) using lamps. Such marksmen were (and still are) relatively few. Most farmers and many members of the "clubs" were unskilled at shooting foxes to achieve an instant death. There was little discipline in these informal "clubs". Many foxes were wounded and left to die slowly, mostly in pain. The RSPCA and the Govt. became concerned about this distressing situation and stopped encouraging the shooting of foxes; please see the Scott Henderson Report, actually the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals"---- Cmd. 8266-------published first in June 1951 paragraphs 158 to 162. This report is as relevant today as it was at publication; what has changed? (only that gassing, poisoning and the use of "gin" traps was commonplace at the time). Today there are a number of non--MFHA Foxhunts and Fox Destruction Societies that use foxhounds or other types of dog to drive foxes to guns. They admit that some 25% are wounded before being caught and killed by the hounds/dogs. Foxes' minds are not conditioned to withstand the pain and stress of wounding by shooting (an entirely unnatural event), whereas they appear to be conditioned so that they do not suffer mentally when chased (an entirely natural event).   2. The situations in Holland . Here foxes used to be given a high degree of protection. Numbers rose and the population of ground nesting birds became seriously depleted. The Govt. introduced controlled culling of foxes. But the controls are difficult to regulate; in some places excessive numbers are culled, in others the cull is too small to hold numbers steady. The match of the scale of the cull in a particular area to the tendency of its fox population can vary from year to year. The fox population is now unstable and often badly matched to the tolerance of farmers or the interests of conservationists, depending on the locality. ( I obtained this information from a Dutch visitor; a nature lover normally resident in a farming area of Holland).  3. There is no longer any Foxhunting in the Isle of Man but there are many sheep farms. The fox population has all but vanished along with most of the small woods (Coverts) that hunting people maintained for the benefit of the fox (and which still form such a feature of much of the UK's "hunting country"; enjoyed by all and an important habitat for a wide diversity of flora and fauna). A TYPICAL COVERT 4. 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 we encountered insurmountable practical problems that make this approach unsuitable in the UK.   SOME ACADEMIC VIEWS ON ANIMAL SUFFERING WHILE BEING CHASED Following the debate on the Burns inquiry, a group of veterinary surgeons, under the leadership of Dr Lewis Thomas and Professor Twink Allen, have prepared a working paper entitled "A Veterinary opinion on hunting with hounds" which examines the welfare implications of hunting and its alternatives. Dr Thomas’ group consists of nearly 300 Members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, including a number of leading animal welfare experts and pathologists with incomparable experience in the field of animal welfare. Their conclusions make it perfectly clear that they do not view hunting as causing the infliction of unnecessary suffering and, furthermore, highlight the animal welfare dangers of legislation that could make it a criminal offence. Foxman has based his arguments on a paper published in November 1996 in the academic journal Animal Welfare. It is reassuring to read that this has been backed up by more recent work. In the 1996 paper, two British zoologists at the University of Nottingham, (Chris Barnard, professor of animal behaviour and Jane Hurst, a behavioural ecologist) maintain that to discover whether an animal is likely to be suffering when chased you need to ask if adaptation has preconditioned the population to deal with such conditions. If it has, then the risk of suffering may not be nearly as great as might be imagined. They maintain that it is necessary to understand how the population has adapted (by genetic evolution and/or inherited and acquired learning) to "value" its own survival and wellbeing. Barnard and Hurst argue that in situations where a human would suffer an animal population cannot be assumed to suffer if in fact natural adaptation has preconditioned them to function in that particular situation. For instance it should not be assumed automatically that a rabbit fleeing a fox is suffering. It is operating in familiar territory, evolutionarily speaking. The rabbit has developed capacity to cope with the experience of being hunted and is not suffering. This would also apply to a fox in places where foxes have been hunted regularly. Hurst maintains that animals may not suffer when running away from predators because it is a contingency that natural adaptation has adapted them to deal with.These zoologists say that an animal may experience the subjective state of "fear", but that just tells it to run, just as "hunger" tells it to eat. Fear and hunger only lead to suffering when the animal's adaptive responses fail to assuage them. Suffering is triggered when the world frustrates an animal's adaptive drives. They go on to state that this subtle distinction is a crucial one that has been neglected by animal welfare campaigners weak on evolutionary theory. Behavioural assessments and physiological measurements such as blood pressure,stress hormone levels and the strength of the immune system are used to assess stress levels. But can you be sure that you will be able to interpret behaviours which seem to reveal what the animal is feeling correctly? In Ancient Greece, Epicureans thought that any pain caused suffering in all animals. Stoics, on the other hand, "thought that pain only mattered as a sign of some impediment to natural functioning". They reasoned that animals were concerned only with maintaining their existence and their kind. Stoics pointed out that animals didn't shrink from inflicting pain on themselves in pursuit of their natural ends. Some zoologists have suggested that the painful subjective experiences we call suffering evolved to alert animals to a state of emergency and trigger evasive action. They argue that whether or not these actions are frustrated, those responsible for animal welfare cannot ignore them. But Hurst and Barnard downplay the role of subjective feelings. They state that "Many 'bad' feelings will simply reflect an internal gauge which animals use to regulate damage within adaptive bounds". Robin Dunbar, professor of psychology at the University of Liverpool, who sympathises with Barnard and Hurst's approach, says " People's conception of what is good for animals tends to be the cat on a mat sort of thing, rather than seeing things from the animal's point of view." People have an anthropomorphic concept of suffering and fail to "see things from the animal's point of view". Barnard says that "Animals suffer only when they are being forced to perform outside their design criteria." That is if they are treated in a way that evolution didn't intend or when there has not been time for the population to have adapted to a new set of circumstances. CONCLUSION It seems that a number of eminent zoologists agree that animal breeds that have been farmed for centuries (E.g. cows) can be expected to have adapted to, say, being housed in barns and, therefore, do not suffer under the conditions to which they are subjected. Similarly, wild animals (E.g. foxes) that have been hunted for centuries can be expected to have adapted to being hunted by dogs and, therefore, although under great stress while being hunted do not suffer mentally during the hunt. In a phrase "do not confuse stress and suffering".