Foxes - their control and management
Political parties, farmers and conservationists have consistently recognised the need to control wild animals. So assuming that they (in this case foxes), and particularly those with no natural predator (foxes), are going to be controlled each available method of control should be examined in comparison with their welfare consequences. Only then can it be decided whether banning hunting with dogs causes unnecessary suffering. The question that has to be addressed is:
“has a ban on hunting reduced suffering?”
If the answer is “No”, there can be no conceivable justification for retaining a ban.
Control necessarily involves culling which means death. A ban on hunting has not reduced the number of foxes killed and, in some areas, has resulted in an increase in the number killed by alternative less acceptable means. As Lord Burns said in the debate in the House of Lords on the 12th March 2001 “If hunting was subject to a ban, I have little doubt that at least an equivalent number of foxes, deer and hares would be killed by other methods. The number of deaths is not likely to be reduced by banning” (col: 532). Death itself is not a welfare issue but the manner of death may be. As Lord Burns recognised (para 6.59) “None of the legal methods is without difficulty from an animal welfare perspective”.
The effectiveness of control, and particularly management, should be judged on maintaining sustainable population levels of foxes that are acceptable to human interests (primarily livestock farmers) and the overall balance of other wildlife. Effectiveness should not be judged merely on the numbers killed.
So given the need for control and management of populations of foxes and recognition that death will inevitably occur, the issue is not whether they should be controlled but how. To gauge the welfare effect and management consequences of banning hunting it is necessary to look at the alternative methods of control. However, the MFHA recognises that no single method is adequate or suitable for all circumstances. Indeed, a combination of methods is often a requirement.
Many foxes, of course, die from accidents and disease. Sarcoptic mange virtually wiped out the large and unmanaged fox population that became established in Bristol in the 1980s and 90s. In addition some foxes will die of starvation; a few purely of old age. Nothing mentioned in this paragraph is welfare friendly. Indeed omission (neglect) might be adjudged to be a cause of unnecessary suffering (see - Definitions and understandings of welfare issues).
Foxes inhabit widely different habitats - from open moorland to suburban back gardens. As stated no one method of control is adequate or suitable for all circumstances. To take one example the use of either hounds or rifles is obviously inappropriate in a suburban setting. Thus there remains the need to retain a range of methods and to look at each taking into account their welfare consequences, suitability and practicality.