Cleo Brann argues against the tradition
Image: Cleo Brann
Fox hunting – is it a primal instinct or is that an excuse for entertainment through animal abuse? Many excuses have been made for fox hunting both before and after the 2004 Hunting Act which banned hunting wildlife with dogs.
Before hunting was banned, hunters argued that they received enjoyment from using their dogs to kill animals and from horse riding. They also said that it gave the hounds a chance to work and an opportunity for the hunters to go out into the countryside and socialise.
However, after hunting was banned, they changed their reasonings for wanting to hunt. They argued that it was more humane than killing foxes with guns as the first shot may not kill them. They also claimed that foxes have no natural predator and so by hunting them it controlled their population. Additionally, they used the claim that foxes like running to back up their argument that hunting with dogs is natural.
Clearly the ban had changed the way that people saw hunting and so the hunters were forced to make new excuses that claimed hunting was for practicality as they had previously treated fox hunting as a leisure sport. This demonstrates some level of guilt though they try to dismiss any blame that could be placed on them.
It is true that fox hunting is deeply rooted in British tradition and history. Hunting (mainly deer and wild boar) was entirely necessary for survival in the prehistoric ages. Humans killed not for pleasure, but for food and skins to keep themselves protected and warm. The Normans introduced the Forest Laws after the 1066 conquest. They prevented people from hunting animals in forests because they didn’t want people other than the ruling class hunting on their land. These laws became difficult to deal with for the working class in winter when they couldn’t get as much food from farmland.
In the 17th century, hunting became the leading entertainment for aristocrats and they began using firearms. Later, in the 18th and 19th centuries, fox hunting started gaining more popularity among the wealthy. It became less of a hunt and more of a competition amongst themselves, a sport. After the second world war, people began realising the importance of wildlife. Instead of hunting wild animals, potentially endangering their population, game, such as pheasants, was raised and then released onto hunting grounds.
This short history shows how the purpose of hunting has evolved over time from a survival instinct to an entertainment and sport for the ruling class. The necessity for hunting grew lesser as humans grew more advanced but it didn’t stop people from indulging in it. There is an argument to be made that hunting is a large part of British tradition and history and should be preserved but this argument is a demonstration of ‘tradition’ being used as an excuse for cruel practices such as fox hunting. Tradition should not obstruct progress in society.
Many hunters use ‘trail hunting’ as an excuse to justify hunting foxes. Trail hunting is defined as an activity involving hounds following a man-made trail, often of urine, to imitate fox hunting by putting the trail in areas with high populations of foxes. Trail hunting is currently facing government bans and enforcements to stop people from exploiting this loophole in the Hunting Act. This is important because while 79% of people in the UK agree that the Hunting Act of 2004 should be kept in place, during 2024 – 2025 there were 474 cases of suspected illegal hunting which includes 397 reports of foxes being chased.
The argument that hunting is more humane than shooting can be rebuffed with the fact that hunting is not a replacement for shooting since shooting foxes is illegal anyway. Additionally, the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management conducted an experiment in shooting foxes. 48% of foxes were not killed on the first shot but were incapacitated and died on the second shot. The concept of being torn apart by hounds is clearly a much more inhumane and prolonged death.
Hunters also argue that foxes have no natural predators and that they’re controlling the fox population. However, the fox population doesn’t need human intervention as many foxes will die from injury or disease; the population largely controls itself. Foxes are also very territorial animals and will defend their own territory from other foxes – without territory a fox won’t breed. There is also no evidence to suggest that hounds are effective in controlling the fox population. Foxes themselves are predators and serve a function in the food chain as all animals in their native ecosystems do.
Hunting causes a lot of damage from both the foxes and the hounds. Foxes dig underground as defence and the hounds also dig up dens and setts to find the foxes. They often trespass on private grounds such as gardens and cause distress to other animals or pets. The fox also suffers extreme stress from being hunted, they do not enjoy being hunted and it is not a natural process, no matter how deeply rooted in tradition.
There is simply no solid claim that can excuse fox hunting. Although hunting was crucial for survival when humans were still evolving, modern fox hunting is just a cruel sport for the entertainment of the wealthy. This abusive tradition has no place in an advancing society and there is no justice in preserving it. Fox hunting is not a necessary ‘instinct’ in the modern world.
