Understanding the Case for Hunting
Hunting remains one of the most divisive topics in British rural life. Those opposed to it argue that killing wild animals for sport is cruel and unnecessary. Those who support it maintain that hunting serves practical purposes and forms part of a long-standing rural tradition that still has value today.
This article outlines the main arguments put forward by those who support hunting. Whether you agree with these points or not, understanding both sides of the debate can help you form your own view on the matter.
The Tradition Argument
Supporters of hunting often point to its deep roots in British history. Fox hunting as we know it today became established during the 18th century, though hunting wild animals for sport goes back much further. Before foxes became the primary quarry, hunters pursued hares, wild deer and wild boar across the British countryside.
As wild boar became extinct in Britain and deer numbers fell dramatically, foxes took their place as the main target. Over the following centuries, fox hunting developed its own customs, dress codes and rituals that became woven into rural community life.
Those who value this tradition argue that it represents more than just the pursuit of an animal. They see it as a living connection to agricultural heritage and a way of bringing rural communities together. Hunt meets have historically served as social gatherings where farmers, landowners and villagers could come together, and supporters argue this community aspect should not be dismissed lightly.
Critics counter that tradition alone cannot justify an activity if it causes unnecessary suffering. Supporters respond that many traditional practices have adapted over time, and that hunting can evolve while still maintaining its core role in rural life.
Wildlife Management and Pest Control
Supporters of hunting frequently cite the need to manage fox populations in rural areas. Farmers have long regarded foxes as a threat to livestock, particularly lambs, poultry and game birds. Those who favour hunting argue that it provides a method of controlling fox numbers in areas where they cause problems.
Proponents suggest several potential advantages over other control methods. They claim that the presence of regular hunts may encourage foxes to avoid certain areas, reducing predation on livestock, and that hunting covers large areas of land that might be difficult to manage through shooting or trapping alone.
However, the effectiveness of hunting as a pest control method remains scientifically contested. Research has not established that hunting with dogs selectively removes weaker or older animals, and studies reach conflicting conclusions about whether hunting significantly affects fox populations or reduces livestock losses. The scientific consensus on this question has not been settled.
Since the Hunting Act 2004 came into force in England and Wales, traditional fox hunting with dogs has been banned. Exemptions exist for certain activities including using dogs to flush foxes to be shot, and trail hunting where dogs follow an artificially laid scent. Scotland has separate legislation under the Protection of Wild Mammals Act 2002, with the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023 introducing further restrictions, including limiting the number of dogs that can be used to flush wild mammals to two.
For current details on what is and is not permitted under wildlife management legislation, you should check GOV.UK or contact the relevant authorities in your area.
Economic and Employment Considerations
Hunting and its associated activities support jobs and businesses in rural areas. This economic argument features prominently in the case made by hunting supporters.
The hunting economy includes kennel staff and hunt servants who care for hounds, farriers and saddlers, feed suppliers and veterinary services, accommodation providers near hunt events, and clothing and equipment suppliers.
Estimates of hunting's economic contribution vary significantly depending on who produces them. The Countryside Alliance has historically claimed that hunting supports thousands of jobs, while animal welfare organisations argue the true figure is considerably lower. Independent verification of these competing claims proves difficult because definitions of what constitutes a "hunting job" differ, and many roles serve multiple rural activities. Both sides accept that some employment depends on hunting, but they disagree sharply about the scale and whether this provides sufficient justification for the practice.
Supporters argue that in areas with limited employment opportunities, jobs connected to hunting matter to local communities. They also point to spending in local pubs, shops and accommodation on hunt days.
Those sceptical of this argument note that rural economies have diversified considerably. Wildlife tourism, walking holidays and outdoor recreation have grown substantially, and some economists suggest that employment would shift to these sectors rather than simply vanishing if hunting declined further. Contemporary rural policy increasingly emphasises diversification, meaning the economic case for any single activity carries less weight than it might have done decades ago.
Your situation may be slightly different. ask a question below ↓ and our editorial team will reply with our advice.
Questions of Knowledge and Ethics
Hunting supporters frequently argue that many opponents lack direct experience of rural life or what actually happens during a hunt. They suggest that views about hunting sometimes rely on media portrayals or campaign materials rather than first-hand observation.
This argument takes several forms. Supporters contend that people living in urban areas may not grasp the realities of livestock farming or the genuine difficulties foxes can create. They argue that wildlife management involves practical complexities that are not obvious from outside, and that those raised around hunting perceive it quite differently from those who encounter it only through news coverage.
Some hunts invite undecided observers to see their activities directly, arguing that witnessing events would shift opinions.
Opponents reject the premise that rural knowledge is necessary to hold valid views on hunting. Animal welfare advocates argue that ethical objections to causing suffering apply regardless of whether someone has attended a hunt or worked on a farm. The question of whether it is acceptable to pursue and kill a wild animal, they suggest, does not require specialist expertise to answer. Philosophers working on animal ethics have generally concluded that proximity to a practice does not determine whether moral objections to it are legitimate.
Where the Debate Stands Today
The Hunting Act 2004 was passed after years of heated debate and remains controversial. Some argue the legislation struck a reasonable balance, while others believe it went too far or not far enough.
Hunting supporters continue to call for changes to the law, arguing that current rules are unworkable. Animal welfare organisations campaign for stronger enforcement and, in some cases, further restrictions.
Trail hunting, where hounds follow an artificially laid scent rather than a live animal, has allowed some traditional hunts to continue in modified form. This too has faced criticism, with opponents alleging it sometimes serves as cover for illegal hunting. Several high-profile prosecutions have tested the boundaries of what the law permits.
Public opinion surveys consistently show that most British people oppose bringing back traditional hunting with dogs. A 2023 Savanta poll found that 77% of respondents supported maintaining the ban, though views differ somewhat between rural and urban areas. Polling also suggests that many people hold mixed feelings or remain uncertain about the finer points of the debate.
Whatever your view on hunting, the arguments outlined here represent the main points made by its supporters. Understanding these positions can help inform discussions about wildlife management, rural traditions and animal welfare in Britain today.
For authoritative information on current hunting legislation and exemptions, visit GOV.UK or contact organisations such as the Countryside Alliance, the League Against Cruel Sports, or the RSPCA, keeping in mind that these groups hold differing perspectives on the issue.
Firstly I should state that I am in favour of Fox Hunting with dogs. I don't hunt and I don't ride although I do know people who do. I support Fox Hunting because I feel a huge heavy dark depressing blanket of colourless dirge will descend on the land if Fox Hunting with dogs is banned. I feel it keeps the Countryside alive. And I feel that losing it will almost be like ripping the Soul out of the Nation. I wish both sides would simply be honest. I suspect those who hunt do it because it is exciting and rewarding. We can say "It's a Countryside tradition." And taking away that tradition will make the Countryside dull and unspectacular. It may even sap the Soul from those living in the Countryside to continue with their Work. Which brings me back to the start. We know that the WEF (World Economic Forum) which is very much linked to almost everything that happens these days, want to ban all meat consumption by 2050. We also know that another big plan in the Works is to install a One World Government (New World Order) with one language, religion, culture, set of laws, education system etc etc to make governing the World more watertight. Breaking the Spirit of the Nation could be a big part of that and indeed explains much that has been seen over the last 100-200 years. I see the ban on Fox Hunting as being akin to Breaking the Spirit of the Nation. As usual when all these "Groups" get involved it's often a sign that the Higher Powers are involved. This is why I support Fox Hunting. It has a practical element and also a recreational (some might say a Spiritual) element.
I suspect the numbers of foxes actually killed by Hunting is relatively small and that those killed are mostly the sick or elderly. If you can make the argument that controlling Fox numbers is necessary then I suspect that killing with dogs is probably the best all-round option being cheaper, quick and efficient.
I don't think those opposed to Hunting with dogs are being honest. There are many activities undertaken by Man of a similar nature: fishing in rivers and the sea, shooting birds, etc etc. Sometimes the dead animal is eaten which seems to provide a stronger justification. In the case of Fox Hunting the unusual factor is the element of Pest Control which is mixed with an element of Ritual / Ceremony.
Do we really want our fields and moorlands to be purely reduced to sterile, politically correct spaces where those who REALLY understand the land, how it works and its Nature are ignored and sidelined, restricted in what they can and can't do in the spaces they know and love so well?
These are not greedy people or lunatics whose lives depend on inflicting suffering on the animals they understand so well.
I have heard many times phrases such as:
The beau
I wonder if this is why so many want to keep it, because what next? animal farming standards will be improved and pig farming could be banned...
The problem with fox hunting is that it shows humans to be the creatures we are. In some ways the annual reminder of our cruelty, as the TV shows the boxing day hunts and those trying to disrupt events is not something that we really want.
I suspect that a reintroduction of fox hunting is not in the rural communities interests, it will bring the spotlight back to cruel practices and inflame the sensitive townies further.
Perhaps we should let sleeping dogs lie.
At the end of the day the fox is charming and charismatic, but don't let that fool you as it is a ruthless killer underneath.
Hunting keeps certain species from starving and protects livestock so you can have your hamburgers. Also, most hunters DO eat what they kill, I ALWAYS do. ??
I don't agree with the gentleman's comment on putting dogs on badgers though, unless you don't care much for your dogs. They thick hide, very sharp teeth, and can Easily win a battle against a couple of hunting dogs.
Hunting foxes with dogs is cruel
Hunting rats with dogs is ignored because they carry disease
Badgers carry disease too but 'that's different'
What does make my blood boil though is SABs thinking that they have the right to viciously attack people who have used their human rights to participate for whatever reason in a legal pursuit. The SABs have injured and occasionally killed hounds and horses alike (so their animal welfare argument is out of the window again) but they provoke and incite violence while hiding their identities through balaclava wearing. They hide because what they do is illegal and they wish to avoid prosecution for their crimes.
After hunting one species to extinction and one to near extinction, do you not think the same will happen to foxes? Damn you people are stupid.
You're vermin :)
See, it's a meaningless statement. We can decide what we call vermin and our definition of it and then use that subjective position as fact to prove our own case.
Hunting and killing things isn't very nice. Even if at times necessary, but the very fact you have no compassion or empathy for another living creature, the very fact you think you are better than a fox, makes my statement accurate.
There are very few things invented in the 1700s that cannot be improved on or changed. We weren't a very friendly lot back then. Did you know, when 'sport' hunting like this became popular, we were still burning witches...funny eh...perhaps we should carry on with that tradition as well.
What barbaric and degenerate society are we currently living in? I have read many manifestos and arguments as to why certain 'humans' want to bring back animal slaying ..... and I am still in ultimate dismay that these people are living amongst us!
You say 'Tradition'........... it was traditional to make young children work in factory's- being crushed by heavy machinery- I suppose who cares these children they are similar to animals? Dirty, uneducated and a burden on society? And how about woman voting? the list is endless, the thing is we have moved forward in society and come to understand that these 'old' unjust ways are stupid.
Fox's eat animals................. Last time I checked a fox could not get on all twos' and open a metal gate- imagine my shock when I found out that some actually can (not). how about in today's world you just use a lock and gate, fancy that. As for sheep - why not have it fenced off?
We are overpopulated- I feel the same way towards these murdered but you do not see me jumping on my horse, chasing them down and torturing them to death.
Have you considered the mentality of the dogs? What if one of these trained pups decided to turn on the child of the hunter? Mauling its face to death - the dog would be sent to the killing rooms!
To those who are in support of this felony - I wish you every painful disease going and then at the last minute a slow, treacherous death.
I hope you and your wife are well, hope to see you on (toy) foxhunting soon again ;-)
// xoxoxoxo
The Toffs will defend fox hunting until the ends of the earth suggesting that it keeps the poor local villagers in jobs lol! they live in a very dimly lit world full of very stupid self obsessed rural bankers and their sons and little Hermione and her horse!
Fox hunting and in fact any other form of hunting is cruel but unfortunately the whole city/rural directors and their wives and families have real fun in this upper class rural set so lets be happy for the moment that their blood sport is banned!
Initially taking aside the chase many riders use the hunt as a means of creating fitness, desensitisation, acclimatisation and most importantly for behavioural improvement. Members bond not only with one another but with their horses also. With respect this is demonstrated by followers beginning at a young age, following strict rule and regulation while maintaining a fun and safe sense of tradition. For example in how many pursuits is it mandatory to greet with good morning and leave with good evening?
In regards to the chase, the hunt rarely chases and catches. It is a method of control and nor a method of murder as many would call it. A fox is in fact a pest and a fox harasses many other animals. This cancels the theory of sport, a fox will break in to your electrocuted chicken pen and it will kill. They are proven to be an animal killing for fun. Since the ban in fox hunting there have been many reports of fixes entering houses and savaging pets and children, as well as adults. This is new and disastrous. yet in common opinion this is due to no method of control.
As for scientific control, I am also a scientist. Foxes are notoriously hard to shoot and would bleed to death but this makes them hard to dart. Catching them is hard due to their cunning so injection or gassing while both expensive is also inhumane to that animal and those in the food chain. If a viable method could be found I am all ears, but until then there has been nothing found that is more effective for control.
Moving on to saboteurs, you may call 'my kind' blood thirsty or murders but please until you have seen riders intentionally unseated by sabs or young riders hospitalised by viscous protesters and extreme cases rider, horses or hounds killed. Please do not hasten to judge as you are no better and your gate and your passion, your bad words are their driving force. If you are a Sab or protester, shame on you as you are worse than those you hate, a protester can and may be the cause of mass hysteria.
Thank you for listening.
I found this site looking for arguments to stop fox hunting in order to make a balanced decision about it. That lead me to this argument FOR hunting - but I am afraid your stating the case for hunting is strongly lacking in any of the more convincing arguments the hunting lobby puts foreward, making me believe there is no balance in your article, with the intention to make the pro-hunting argument seem without any valid points.
For example, the animal is either killed or escapes unharmed. There is no in-between. Any form of hunting that soley depends on shooting will always result in animals being wounded and escaping, only to die days or weeks later in great pain.
Or how about the argument that the hunting is selective. Those animals that are healthy are fairly sure to escape wheras a weak or infirm animal is likely to be caught. Is a quick death not preferable over a lingering death due starvation because the fox is too weak to hunt succesfully or to diseases such as mange. This will result in a much healthier fox population. Simple shooting is non-selective with healthy and infirm animals being shot alike.
I am as yet not totally convinced either way, and will continue looking for balanced arguments on both sides but at this point the pro-hunt lobby seems to have produced a more thought out argument for hunting and the anti lobby tends to make an emotional argument.
Regards
First off, it is a bonding time with friends and family. It is the one thing that keeps me close with ALL of my family.
Second, it teaches you that patients is a virtue. I am in South Carolina and out of the 5 month deer season I sit on the stand about 40-50 times and only get one or two deer a year.
Third, you are supposed to put the animal down quick and humanely so there is no suffering. Every good hunter knows that.
Fourth, it keeps the animal count down low. Even with hunters hunting deer they're still plenty deer related car accidents every year.
Hunting is an amazing sport. If you see that big 10-point whitetail walk into your firing lane, your adrenaline pumps and once you find him afterwards, it is a feeling like no other.
There are always those bad example people who poach and break the laws but those people are one in a million. If you think that hunting is a bad thing then just step outside on a nice ,cold late October morning and see a big buck charge from the woods because you called him in with a grunt call, then shoot him, track him and bag him and then hang him on the wall for your kids and grand kids to ask you "How did you get that one?". Then tell me what you think about hunting.
Ask Rural Sports a question
Ask our editorial team a question and we will reply with our advice. Tell us as much about your situation as you can: the more detail you give, the more useful our answer can be.
You do not need to use your real name. Please do not include your full address, phone number, email address, or the names of other people. We may edit or remove identifying details for privacy and legal reasons.
Comments are moderated before publication.