Can I just make it clear that I'm not trying to say all foxes should be killed by hounds, I sit on the fence with regards to hunting, but I'm just trying to say tha actually with all the hormones pumping it is not such a horrific end for the fox as others are trying to make out.
There is pain and suffering everywhere in the wild - it's a fact of life. In that regard, domestic animals tend to be rather better off than their wild cousins. Because we act as stewards or keepers of livestock, pets and animals used for service, sport or leisure, we owe them a duty of care which involves trying to minimize any suffering. At least, that is how the moral argument goes. (In my opinion, we are failing spectacularly in the case of factory farmed animals.)
Our position vis-à-vis wildlife is different in that we cannot hope to prevent all the suffering that goes on. We can certainly help in certain cases: putting the mixy rabbit out of its misery by shooting it, or treating and rehabiliting an injured bat, for example. We can also promote healthy wildlife e.g. by providing bird feeders.
Every fox is going to die eventually, somehow. Many, perhaps most, of those deaths will involve suffering to some degree, whether humans are directly involved or not. The question is whether hunting reduces or increases the sum total of their suffering. Does the horrific-looking death actually save the fox from an even worse fate? Does it save others? I think an argument can be made (at least in the former case) that sometimes it does. But does it benefit every fox to be killed by hunters? I don't think so.
My personal feeling is that hunting foxes is, in many cases, no more cruel
to the fox than leaving it to live - and die - by itself. So I am not strongly opposed to hunting on those grounds. I would find it horrific and cruel if those who hunt derive pleasure from the killing itself. But I think that most do not - at least I hope not! On the other hand, I am sure hunters do take pleasure in
other aspects, some of which I can only guess at because I have never experienced them myself, but which may be easier to justify.
The arguments that are put forward in support of the activity of fox hunting are not always 100% convincing - even though the views may be honestly held. I dislike the exaggerations, e.g. regarding the role of hunting in pest control. Hunting makes very little difference to the numbers overall. Its only real benefit results from removal of "rogue" foxes that habitually attack livestock - a small fraction of the total.
So I guess you could say I sit on the fence too.
. Hence also why I am not anti hunting, as I believe hunting actually maintains a healthy fox population!
Its true though, why is it ok for one lot of vermin to suffer slow agonising deaths but an outcry over another far more cuddly vermin to be dispatched with a dog? I'd rather my JRT caught a few rats than put bait down!