Ban all hunts

[Smurf's Gran]

But in 2012 the polls showed also showed that 76% were against - the numbers seem quite consistent, and I think polls (the recent one) were also taken to be consistent in the countryside also. (maybe rural dwellers who are against daren't speak out)

I really don't think the majority of people are bothered if "posh" people hunt (and neither do I think that's the case) but I don't think people can get over the fact of hunting an animal for sport, and that this could be a prolonged chase - it is this which seems cruel to many (myself included)

I accept that shooting, gassing etc are not good ways either, but this does not make fox hunting any more palatable.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

I did not say that illegal hunting was not going on perhaps you could read what I wrote without blinkers. I said if no credible evidence has been found after 10 years of trying, the other side of the argument has to be that it doesn't in fact exist. If a group of people wish to regulate the activities of another they have to make a valid case for so doing. LACS and the RSPCA have signally failed to do so.

Ask Alec Swan - he knows its going on.. he has admitted on here that he takes part.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

Ask Alec Swan - he knows its going on.. he has admitted on here that he takes part.

Well I suggest you report this to the police, you wanted evidence of illegal activities, well now you have it would you please go away.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Well I suggest you report this to the police, you wanted evidence of illegal activities, well now you have it would you please go away.

Put me on ignore... this is where I have you.

 

[Alec Swan]

Put me on ignore... this is where I have you.

When you place someone on UI, then you're unable to read their posts, and yet you reply to them?

Alec.

 

[LittleRooketRider]

LRR, I don't agree with this behaviour any more than you do. Being against fox hunting does not make me on the side of the hunt sab either. (and I think this is probably where the majority of the population sit)
However, it does seem to have become a hardened battle, with neither side being rational tbh - and I think some of the pro fox hunt set on here seem just as entrenched in their views as the hunt sabs you mention.

Have no fears SG..I did not mean to imply that you supported the behaviour of sabs, what I was trying to point out was that what comes across as their argument is based on anthromorphism and misconceptions.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

When you place someone on UI, then you're unable to read their posts, and yet you reply to them?

Alec.

You are able to look at individual posts if you wish, a fact of which I'm sure you are aware. I am replying only to request that I am also put on ignore, I wont be reading or referring to anything else from Bonkers2. The posts are insulting and personal. I also see that they break forum rules re 4.3.and 4.4.

I doubt that many on here would choose to be associated with the personally insulting comments expressed by Bonkers2.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

Have no fears SG..I did not mean to imply that you supported the behaviour of sabs, what I was trying to point out was that what comes across as their argument is based on anthromorphism and misconceptions.

Thankyou

 

[Overread]

An interesting point on the area of conservation is that many areas that often show the highest actual conservation value (which are not owned and managed by conservation trusts) are often upon estates which have in the past or are currently engaging in shooting/hunting practice. This is because promotion of habitat for game species often benefits multiple other species as a result.

It is, of course, not a cut and dry argument as many species are often controlled on hunting estates and things such as birds of prey continue to be under threat. However by giving value in an economic and social sense to the land it does act as a protection against its conversion into building or farming land which significantly reduces its biodiversity (modern farming is very much not friendly toward the environment - such is why we have so many payment schemes to encourage more nature friendly farming methods).


It's complicating element in simply banning or opposing hunts/shoots because if you do you not only put people out of work; but you also risking putting areas of land at risk of being carved up for new productive ventures.



On the subject of fox hunting its a personal (and very poorly researched and totally not based on empirical data) consideration of mine that we are seeing a rise in urban foxes as a result of foxes becoming more accustom and tolerate of human contact. Now part of that is people in those environments being more receptive, but I also wonder if its partly a result of the stop in hunting at large which thus allowed for increases in fox population, but also a decrease in fox fear of humans - thus promoting more interaction at closer distances and thus giving us human tolerant urban foxes (against which the RSPCA has an interesting tactic of catching and relocating into the countryside, which is often to the detriment of established countryside foxes and land users).

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

You are able to look at individual posts if you wish, a fact of which I'm sure you are aware. I am replying only to request that I am also put on ignore, I wont be reading or referring to anything else from Bonkers2. The posts are insulting and personal. I also see that they break forum rules re 4.3.and 4.4.

I doubt that many on here would choose to be associated with the personally insulting comments expressed by Bonkers2.

You can always report me.

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

I doubt that many on here would choose to be associated with the personally insulting comments expressed by Bonkers2.

Wrong.

Alec.

 

[LittleRooketRider]

If you are unwilling to engage in a debate, don't post, its simple. If you post on here people have the right to ask questions, because this is a forum, debate is encouraged and we have freedom of speech ( I should add we also have forum rules!). If you are not up to answering questions regarding what you are putting don't post. I would also add that there has been so many statements made on her from the Pro fox hunt lot that don't hold up to investigation at all , if you have an opinion and express it then be prepared to defend it. this seems is a problem for many.

As for getting people into trouble, what on earth are they doing that could get them into trouble ?? (wouldn't be something illegal would it ?) I would also appreciate it if you could avoid making personal assumptions re my motives etc of which there seems to be no other aim but to be insulting.

Felliwell, anti's are not some strange breed who bounce around jumping in front of horses in balaclava's. The people you mention are sabs and are a very small minority (did you mean to say sabs ?) - anti's make up the 80%. When you say anti's believe hype etc, its not helpful to make an assumption here as you actually denigrating a very large majority of the population. I am an anti, not a sab.
I agree with you re other animals, and that more needs to be done - though this thread is about hunting, however, on a different topic we may agree

Firstly SG it would appear anybody who does not comply with your opinion is incapable of debate, yet you yourself will not take on any other opinion.

But also...the antis who make a big hoohar ie. sab hunts are a strange breed who jump about in balaclavas in front of horses every weekend, we had near 100 out doing precisely that a while back, and you can find endless "dedicated fb pages with them brandishing their balaclavas and various gizmos to take picture of somebody sat on a horse in a tweed jacket or red jacket. That figure of 80% is from a survey carried out by LACS and most surveys these days are available online, well if we are a nation in stage 4 heading for stage 5 of the demographic transition model ie. we are an ageing population with more retired elderly than young and working, many of thge population would not have access to the internet mostly by choice so a) the survey is immediately biased and b) is taken from a sample of the population...nobody round here ever saw the survey and i suspect it was taken from both urban and rural communities but it was NOT a survey of the entire country so no it is not the majority of the population. On top of this another survey ahs found resulots showing a decline in support of the ban in the last ten years which now sits at roughy 46% against the ban and 54% supporting it...I would not be surprised if their are also similar flaws in this survey but one has to admit that is a very large discrepancy between two "official" surveys.

 

[Countryman]

When you ask leading questions, you get the answers you pay for. That's the reality of it. The vast majority of the British public really do not care about hunting. They're not necessarily for it, and if asked, some *might* say they supposed they were against it. But they certainly wouldn't care about it enough to cross the street to sign a petition against it, or protest against it. That is the preserve of a very small minority, who get an undue amount of attention.

 

[LittleRooketRider]

[

Wrong.

Alec.

Here Here.

 

[Exploding Chestnuts]

I have tried to be reasonable and to provide S G with information about fox hunting in the UK, as have others.
To come on here and ask for information about illegal activities is beyond naive.
Many people have responded to S G and as one would expect on a hunting forum, not many agree with her, and though she has brought publicity to LACS, I don't think it shows them in a good light.

 

[LittleRooketRider]

I have tried to be reasonable and to provide S G with information about fox hunting in the UK, as have others.
To come on here and ask for information about illegal activities is beyond naive.
Many people have responded to S G and as one would expect on a hunting forum, not many agree with her, and though she has brought publicity to LACS, I don't think it shows them in a good light.

And once again..here here.

 

[Maesfen]

This ^^^^^ with knobs on,

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

I doubt that many on here would choose to be associated with the personally insulting comments expressed by Bonkers2.

Wrong.

Alec.

And as a further thought for you SG, Bonkers wasn't insulting, the poster simply doesn't agree with you and your ill informed claims, as do very few others.

Alec.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

An interesting point on the area of conservation is that many areas that often show the highest actual conservation value (which are not owned and managed by conservation trusts) are often upon estates which have in the past or are currently engaging in shooting/hunting practice. This is because promotion of habitat for game species often benefits multiple other species as a result.

It is, of course, not a cut and dry argument as many species are often controlled on hunting estates and things such as birds of prey continue to be under threat. However by giving value in an economic and social sense to the land it does act as a protection against its conversion into building or farming land which significantly reduces its biodiversity (modern farming is very much not friendly toward the environment - such is why we have so many payment schemes to encourage more nature friendly farming methods).


It's complicating element in simply banning or opposing hunts/shoots because if you do you not only put people out of work; but you also risking putting areas of land at risk of being carved up for new productive ventures.



On the subject of fox hunting its a personal (and very poorly researched and totally not based on empirical data) consideration of mine that we are seeing a rise in urban foxes as a result of foxes becoming more accustom and tolerate of human contact. Now part of that is people in those environments being more receptive, but I also wonder if its partly a result of the stop in hunting at large which thus allowed for increases in fox population, but also a decrease in fox fear of humans - thus promoting more interaction at closer distances and thus giving us human tolerant urban foxes (against which the RSPCA has an interesting tactic of catching and relocating into the countryside, which is often to the detriment of established countryside foxes and land users).

Thank you for the information

 

[Smurf's Gran]

But in 2012 the polls showed also showed that 76% were against - the numbers seem quite consistent, and I think polls (the recent one) were also taken to be consistent in the countryside also. (maybe rural dwellers who are against daren't speak out)

I really don't think the majority of people are bothered if "posh" people hunt (and neither do I think that's the case) but I don't think people can get over the fact of hunting an animal for sport, and that this could be a prolonged chase - it is this which seems cruel to many (myself included)

I accept that shooting, gassing etc are not good ways either, but this does not make fox hunting any more palatable.

Here is the latest survey results published by YouGov https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/09/british-people-still-support-fox-hunting-ban/. this was carried out on the 8th of Feb 2015. This is interesting as it also separates "country" and "town" preferences.
LRP the poll you refer to was commissioned by Lacs but was actually carried out by Mori, and they would have had to follow protocol (as I'm sure you are aware). As for the poll where the numbers were much lower do you have details of that and can you post the link ? (or am I not allowed to ask that question? as you will be deemed to have given me the info already!!)

Countryman, I think you have a point about a percentage of the people being lukewarm either way, but when push comes to shove they are still voting against, and in not significant numbers.

Most of you (in fact all of you) seem convinced that all hunting is within the law, yet choose to ignore the fact that Alec Swan has been quite upfront in saying he will continue to hunt illegally (which not surprisingly has drawn no comments from him - nor others at all ?)

In regards to this debate, while HH obviously started as a hunting forum, there will be a very significant number on here who do not support hunting, and probably dare not post due to the fear of personal attack such as that which has been aimed at me - however there is a very small minority who think that's okay - Alec Swan, LPR, Maesfen and Fellewell. It is disappointing, I had hoped there would be some points on which we could all converse, but it seems that many of you are so lacking in perspective as to be unable. Your insults and ramblings represent the dying gasp of an industry that society wont permit, and that has had its day. Being rude to me will not change that, and as for the insults addressed to me, frankly if you think that's okay, then I don't think you are worth talking to, and it appears that many of you do not have the intellectual capabilities to enable you to converse in an adult way either, so I will waste no further time on you.

For those of you who have provided me with useful information, thank you - the conservation / control issues is interesting, and something I was not aware of. I would also add I have no affiliation with Lacs either.

 

[Smurf's Gran]

I did not say that illegal hunting was not going on perhaps you could read what I wrote without blinkers. I said if no credible evidence has been found after 10 years of trying, the other side of the argument has to be that it doesn't in fact exist. If a group of people wish to regulate the activities of another they have to make a valid case for so doing. LACS and the RSPCA have signally failed to do so.

Please refer to my previous comments on this.

 

[Alec Swan]

An interesting point on the area of conservation is that many areas that often show the highest actual conservation value (which are not owned and managed by conservation trusts) are often upon estates which have in the past or are currently engaging in shooting/hunting practice. This is because promotion of habitat for game species often benefits multiple other species as a result.

It is, of course, not a cut and dry argument as many species are often controlled on hunting estates and things such as birds of prey continue to be under threat. However by giving value in an economic and social sense to the land it does act as a protection against its conversion into building or farming land which significantly reduces its biodiversity (modern farming is very much not friendly toward the environment - such is why we have so many payment schemes to encourage more nature friendly farming methods).

It's complicating element in simply banning or opposing hunts/shoots because if you do you not only put people out of work; but you also risking putting areas of land at risk of being carved up for new productive ventures.

On the subject of fox hunting its a personal (and very poorly researched and totally not based on empirical data) consideration of mine that we are seeing a rise in urban foxes as a result of foxes becoming more accustom and tolerate of human contact. Now part of that is people in those environments being more receptive, but I also wonder if its partly a result of the stop in hunting at large which thus allowed for increases in fox population, but also a decrease in fox fear of humans - thus promoting more interaction at closer distances and thus giving us human tolerant urban foxes (against which the RSPCA has an interesting tactic of catching and relocating into the countryside, which is often to the detriment of established countryside foxes and land users).

You've raised interesting points which are so often overlooked by the arguments of both sides of the discussion.

Para 1. The value of the conservation trusts, no matter how well intentioned, tends to cover only the smallest of areas and act only as 'reserves' (or at least they attempt to) and for there to be any significant influence to the good for our wildlife, they need to be able to act in a far wider capacity. That said, the enviro/agri schemes are an attempt to widen that influence, and must be considered to be of value. That point leads us on to your next paragraph.

Para 2. Excepting for the fact that our birds of prey populations seem to thankfully be improving, I agree with you. Without the influence of those Government schemes which encourage an improved habitat, so British Agriculture would achieve, quite neatly, what those who are opposed to Hunting would have, but the suffocating influence would have been all invasive. The environment which we provide, is the single and most influencing aspect of our wildlife management plans. Sadly, that in turn is influenced by the question of disturbance by man with our opening of the countryside to those who would have access. The intrusion upon our countryside by those who would 'visit', is all so often of an equally detrimental effect as is our modern farming demands. It's sadly true that 'Nature Trails' whilst benefitting man from his awareness perspective, have a hugely detrimental effect upon the one thing which we would have preserved, our wildlife. It was the invasion of our waterways and our countryside by man which brought about the monstrous decline in our otter population, it certainly wasn't hunting.

Para 3. Accepted.

Para 4. Here I suspect, we may not agree. It's my belief that the spreading of our fox population in particular, is as a result not of the species acceptance of man, but the opposite. Hunting with Hounds in itself has never influenced our vulpine numbers directly. What has influenced those numbers and the expansion of a lived in environment, is the protection which Hunting previously afforded. Just as with all forms of created land-preserves so with an implied protection, there will be a sustainable population. The practice of cubbing (though it's now referred to as 'scattering'!) was to split up litters of cubs and have them learn to stand alone and support themselves. It was also of course, a way of introducing the young entry to their work without what would have been the wholesale destruction of whole litters of cubs had the entire pack which was laid on, been made up of experienced Hounds. Today, with the constant pressures of those who's hand is now turned against the fox, the same effect has been achieved.

The simple fact that night shooting is so prevalent, and there are few areas in this country which don't have their near dedicated followers, has had exactly the same effect as has cubbing. Foxes will simply not tolerate rifle bullets being bounced around them at night, and with the constant pressure and harassment, so the previous preserves no longer exist.

Previously, there were many men who were employed as 'keepers, who were quite clearly instructed that were it ever known that they killed a fox, that they'd be seeking fresh employment. Foxes were preserved for the sake of Hunting, and there was a balanced and generally healthy population. Today and with the hugely disruptive influence which the ban has brought about, the expansion in vulpine numbers is now beyond the control of man. The ban on Hunting has influenced our vulpine population NOT because of the numbers of foxes which were killed by Hounds, but by the destruction of a safe environment in which they lived.

The other and hugely contributing factor in the meteoric rise in the numbers of foxes, is the increase in commercial shooting. During the '70s I worked as a gamekeeper. Then it was considered that on the large Estates each man would have about 1000 acres and about 1000 pheasants (for instance) released in to his care. Today, we have local Shoot owners who with say 3000 acres, will employ one man and will release between 30 and 40 THOUSAND head of game. With such vastly increased numbers being released, so a food supply is being provided and the 'keeper simply doesn't have the time to keep the numbers of foxes extant, within bounds. The logical overspill, coupled with the numbers of those who's hand is turned against the species is the major contributing factor in our urban fox population, I feel.

It's my view and I suspect of others, that the disruption which the hunting ban has brought, has in reality, completely changed the environment in which the fox lives, and not for the better of the fox.

Alec.

 

[Alec Swan]

……..

…….. - the conservation / control issues is interesting, and something I was not aware of. …….. .

It would seem to your quoted 'minority', that there is much that you are unaware of. It would also seem that you have no wish to consider that those who have lived their lives in a fashion which allows for a balanced view, have any opinions of worth, such is your narrow approach to the subject.

Alec.

 

[Maesfen]

For those of you who have provided me with useful information, thank you - the conservation / control issues is interesting, and something I was not aware of. I would also add I have no affiliation with Lacs either.

With your thirst for information, it proves yet again that you are not interested in the fox at all if you haven't considered conservation and what that means to the fox.

 

[Overread]

Some very interesting and good points Alec.
Otter hunting certainly wasn't a cause of their decline; though was likely a contributing factor in the latter years of their decline before the hunts voluntarily shut down (I also hear they shifted to hunting the invasive mink). But the waterways and the DDT and other chemicals was certainly the greater part in it.

Indeed it is interesting that as one studies the subject the years during and since WWII have seen a huge shift in farming; and whilst the common almost romantic idea of farming as working with nature is still prevalent, modern farming is almost the full opposite. It's one of those things I worry about when people talk of leaving the EU because I wonder if without that we'd only need one bad run of government (and our current lot is very bad for nature and conservation) and we could see massive devastation, even in 4 years. Doing the damage takes very little time - repairing often decades or more.

I also agree that nature trails and such are just as disruptive, if in a different way. Sadly its oft a question not of process, but of scale. 5 people a week isn't a problem 5 every minute at peek seasons is. Couple that to the shocking lack of nature studies in school (its, in my view, only really focused on in the first few years of school; once you hit the years before and after the GCSEs nature studies is basically totally ignored - its touched on in geography and biology; but the former mostly in process and the latter in things like photosynthesis.


On the subject of fox spread and its relation to hunting I think we do agree that the ban might have had a detrimental effect in the long term; though the specific reasons for what has happened might be impossible to viably prove. I do recall seeing documentaries of foxes living on waste dumps and in towns before the ban, so it might be that the urban sprawl and vast increases in waste created a system where ban or no ban we would have ended up with an ever increasing urban fox population. Though I wonder if the hunts were still running if control over that might have been more swift; this keeping populations even in the urban area, down. (at present it seems to be done with relocation; which is a very nice idea in theory but not in practice because the countryside already has its foxes so releasing more foxes into other territories only results in fights; with urban foxes oft being quite a bit bigger and, whilst more mangy, somewhat stronger and much bolder around human habitation).

The commercial pheasants is indeed another factor; and one I don't like at all. Traditional hunts which were quite local affairs and social events were fine; but the new system of daily hunts through the season and of bagging the "biggest" bags at the end is just terribly callous to my mind. Sadly I understand the estates positions; the land they have needs to earn and shooting is highly expensive, very popular and has a huge profit margin. It's no surprise its been encouraged, but I've a feeling that before long there will be a backfire on it.

Heck the estate local to us started in the last year or two and we've seen dozens of pheasants around now where as we might see only the odd few before. A drive in up in Yorkshire a year or two back for two hours and I saw something like 20 dear pheasants on the roadside. It's a clear sign there are just way too many birds down; but its hard to oppose. This is especially the case when rarer birds like the grey partridge and many other once common farmland birds directly benefit from the extra food and the habitat that the shoots promote (even if its overrun with pheasants).



A part of me does wonder if fox hunting would have, in time, gone the same highly commercial way. Deer hun...no wait stalking (can't have my woodland teacher catch me saying hunting in the UK!) has already gone that way, though at least has some constraints upon it. Pheasants seems to be more rampant (even though there are restrictions).





In the end its all complex system, made worse often by the extreme polarities of those at the most active ends of campaigning. So long as they see it as a war-zone with a total win/lose viewpoint chances are both side will just keep swiping at each other with the land in the middle suffering as a result.

 

[Alec Swan]

Overread,

whilst we may engage in a bout of nick-picking, we read from the same page. ^^^^ A good and worthwhile post.

Alec.

 

[LittleRooketRider]

Here is the latest survey results published by YouGov https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/09/british-people-still-support-fox-hunting-ban/. this was carried out on the 8th of Feb 2015. This is interesting as it also separates "country" and "town" preferences.
LRP the poll you refer to was commissioned by Lacs but was actually carried out by Mori, and they would have had to follow protocol (as I'm sure you are aware). As for the poll where the numbers were much lower do you have details of that and can you post the link ? (or am I not allowed to ask that question? as you will be deemed to have given me the info already!!)

Countryman, I think you have a point about a percentage of the people being lukewarm either way, but when push comes to shove they are still voting against, and in not significant numbers.

Most of you (in fact all of you) seem convinced that all hunting is within the law, yet choose to ignore the fact that Alec Swan has been quite upfront in saying he will continue to hunt illegally (which not surprisingly has drawn no comments from him - nor others at all ?)

In regards to this debate, while HH obviously started as a hunting forum, there will be a very significant number on here who do not support hunting, and probably dare not post due to the fear of personal attack such as that which has been aimed at me - however there is a very small minority who think that's okay - Alec Swan, LPR, Maesfen and Fellewell. It is disappointing, I had hoped there would be some points on which we could all converse, but it seems that many of you are so lacking in perspective as to be unable. Your insults and ramblings represent the dying gasp of an industry that society wont permit, and that has had its day. Being rude to me will not change that, and as for the insults addressed to me, frankly if you think that's okay, then I don't think you are worth talking to, and it appears that many of you do not have the intellectual capabilities to enable you to converse in an adult way either, so I will waste no further time on you.

For those of you who have provided me with useful information, thank you - the conservation / control issues is interesting, and something I was not aware of. I would also add I have no affiliation with Lacs either.

If I remember correctly I think i saw it in a BBC article online, but it was a couple of months ago and as I am useless on computers i am unable to find it. I'm sure they followed protocol, but the fact still remains it was a very small sample of the population (I think it was about 2000 people) and thus neither a reprsentation of the whole country nor can one state that 80% of the entire population is anti.

 

[Fellewell]

Do you mean that foxes are maintained, so their numbers are healthy etc, which then fosters a need to control said numbers, and the control of numbers is actually the hunt ?? so it is all for the fun of the hunt?? (btw insults are not obligatory)

There is an overpopulation of foxes, this leads to an imbalance in food and environment. Both these factors are detrimental to the fox and other wildlife. Would you like to see more foxes and no ground nesting birds? Numbers of dead, mangy foxes strewn across the roads would be greatly reduced if they were managed and monitored by people who live and work in the countryside.

Hunting with hounds is simply utilising natural selection, weeding out unhealthy specimens, as I have tried to explain to you. Do you really believe gassing, trapping and poisoning are more viable alternatives, indiscriminate as they are?

So to answer your question; No, there is far more at stake here than the fun of the hunt.

 

[Overread]

I think its important to realise that over-abundance of foxes is not a totally natural occurrence. It is in part greatly fuelled by access to abundant food supplies as a result of human activity and waste. This means that the land can support more foxes than the natural populations of prey species would otherwise support. However just because a fox can get access to more food from people doesn't mean it will not also take natural supplies as well (indeed most species gorge upon food when they can get it because the next meal is uncertain and might not come for many days - this is why its so easy to over-feed pets like dogs because even though your dog expects its food at the same time each day it still has no guarantee that it will appear and thus relies upon its instinct to eat when it can - people also do the same thing).

What happens then is you get a predator population which can eat more natural food than there is in the system. Now in a fully natural system this would result in a crash in food supply species which means predators would then starve, thus a crash in one population brings the other down as well. When you have human food supplies however your predator species doesn't crash; it might lower when natural supplies get significantly less, but it will still remain relatively high; thus putting at risk many prey species already on a decline.



This introduces the idea of us needing to manage the natural system because of how we've unbalanced it. Foxes are also one of our apex predators whilst in a more natural system wolves, lynx, bear would also be present within the system (even though they might prey upon different specific species they all interact and still have some influence upon each other).


A hunt can be part of this management process, as a further bonus it can act as an economic and social factor for human interests and by putting direct value into the land and management of an otherwise "pest" species it can do some significant good. However I think its important to realise that its not just the hunt but the support structure that is built up around that which contributes more significantly to the management.
A pest species that can be controlled, whilst also providing an economic bonus whilst remaining alive is an interesting system because it means that whilst you have an economic (and natural) desire to manage the species you also have a check against the simple, easy option of management, which is to wipe it out entirely.


You could contrast foxes to the predatory birds where there is a similar conflict of interest (the taking of shoot birds), yet where the predatory bird has no financial gain for the land users. Under such a system it becomes difficult to then tell people not to remove that species; because it being there costs them in lost stock to keep it around and provides no bonus to them directly by being around.



At some level economic considerations often trump many others and whilst we can argue that its all money for the rich, we can't deny that it also often supports a structure underneath it of other land users and earners . This is why things like "eco-tourism" are gaining more momentum because it provides income from land whilst protecting the environment. It give the land worth and provides an economic structure in a conservation setup.

It's all in all a complex issue and can be made worse if the scale of implementation increases. Local level fox-hunts likely do little actual damage; whilst if they went full commercial the damage potential scales up (plus you could easily end up in a system where foxes are being bred and put down to ensure daily hunts can take place).

 

[ExmoorHunter]

So to answer your question; No, there is far more at stake here than the fun of the hunt.

This absolutely!!
In rural areas hunts provide a much greater service and are more important than many people from outside appreciate or understand. They are out in the countryside and often find, rescue and/or despatch injured wildlife, help and let farmers know about trapped or sick livestock and provide an essential fallen stock service. Anyone who has livestock will know how much they do to prevent suffering to animals.

In this area the hunts are vital to the community - we have loads of social events which support local businesses, village pubs and village halls. Friendships and acquaintances are made and maintained and we have lots of fun! The cross section of people is huge and many visit to hunt, shoot and meet friends. It is a vital part of the local economy.

Management of the environment is an absolute necessity and hunting is a part of the infrastructure of our countryside. It is also self-supporting. Currently, the only costs to the taxpayer are the costs for the failed prosecutions! If you ban it, what takes it's place?