I've read all your replies and thought deeply about them. I would never, never, ever stand up for the trapping of harmless song-birds, bear-baiting, cock-fighting or dogs chucked into pits to fight to the death etc., etc. These are all horrible.
However, the fox is a predator which needs to be killed. It is the method which seems to be in question. I oppose poison (drawn-out and cruel - I hated, really hated, having to put poison down for the rats in France when I moved out of my farmhouse (the dog was much quicker and kinder whilst I lived there, they were killed very quickly). Has anyone out there come across a rat curled up in its last death throes and had to put it out of its misery by smashing its head in with a stone? Can't think there are too many of you know the reality of co-existence with nature.
Shooting. Well some of you seem to think that one shot - always, kindly, through the brain - is the way to go. Again, please understand that this does not always (in fact it is rarely) happen. Shots go awry. Foxes may be (and often are) wounded in various places and hide themselves away - they then die slowly of septicaemia etc.. I couldn't wish these sorts of fates on any animal.
I think I am taking the humane attitude t.b.h.. A fox hunted by dogs is alive or dead at the end of the hunt. It is very quick. I have not seen dogs kill a fox - but I have seen greyhounds on a rabbit. One moment there is a rabbit, the next (and before you could blink) there is not. A pack of dogs is fast, very fast, believe me.
Being 'torn to bits' is an emotive phrase - but from experience death is as near instantaneous as makes no difference. So I conclude that hunting is a better than most methods of vermin control.
Logically, this being so, what is so wrong with 'following the hunt'? It comes down to a class thing, doesn't it? Also trying to control the behaviour and ethos of a section of the native community.
So, I'll stick with my belief that I would not oppose the repeal of the anti-Hunting ban.