“Hunting is a traditional ritualistic appreciation of the countryside, that respects landowners' rights to protect their livestock and livelihoods. The hunt work within close proximity with the needs of the landowners, by helping them protect their livestock, etc.

Hunting also has its rewards, which those against may find fickle. Hunting provides a trophy which some can quite justifiably argue is a sign of respect to the animal the animal they chased. What is meant by this is that the hunt does not chase and kill a quarry and leave it - which to many anti hunt groups is one of the main reasons to oppose it, and due to much of a great misunderstanding believe it criminal.

The opposition appear too focussed on the act of chasing a live quarry to understand the true social and enjoyable nature of hunting which those who follow do appreciate and understand. The unknown - i.e. where you will end up, the people you will meet, the countryside you have the privilege to cross is all much a part of hunting. Indeed, it is these factors which the majority of supporters follow for - the enjoyment to be with other horse people and to ride together across beautiful countryside and to experience nature.

Hunting accepts all classes and societies, thus we are able to ignore the anti argument that hunting is only for rich elitest individuals which is absolutely unjustified, and is strong proof that the opposition have no clear understanding and only appear to see what they want to before truly understanding it. This could also be applied to those MPs who were uneducated on the subject, and did not understand before deciding upon it. This therefore weakens the general argument.

Of course, it can be said that with any law introduced, there will be a majority unsatisified. In this case, the majority argue to have the ban repealed, and the majority could be said to have the upper hand here. Hunting has grown in its popularity since the ban, and landowners see fit to argue back because it is their fences, their livestock and their livelihoods which are being disrupted and damaged by the artful scheming of foxes. Of course, foxes are beautiful and intelligent animals, but it is their cunning which has led to the problems of lambs, chickens being taken or killed.

Consider this also. Any animal in the wild who hunts on others will be willing to take advantage of any easy pickings. Once having located this, it will return numerous times as it no longer has to work hard to find its food. This is basic instinct of the fox here, which leads to the conflict between the landowners whose animals are being preyed on by it. In these cases it is often necessary to allow the hunt to take care of such problems as the hunt are an efficient and quick method of culling. And the population of the quarry is hardly dented by the activities of the hunt.

The hunt ban should be repealed because as far as anyone can see there is no bette alternative method to hunting in order to weed out the ill and sick or injured and to prevent the exhaustion of natural habitats which the ppopulation may do so if increasing too much. The hunt nurtures the countryside even when it is not hunting on horseback - it is there maintaining the fences, hedgerows, etc and keeping up a good strong bond with landowners who depend on them.

Hunting is both a sport and a conservation method and is something that opposition truly fail to understand. They have not experienced the true social decadence, community and livelihoods that lay the foundations for this elegant and colourful event. Thus they should not be allowed to judge it in such a profuse way until they do. In so may cases, the antis protest that they were "abused" or "insulted" by the hunt when in many cases, the hunt has been insulted by the since they have failed to look at the full picture of hunting, rather concentrating in the parts they want to and encrypting the hunt individual's rights to spea”

“Hunting is not just a sport its a livelihood. Respect that right o have a livelihood and respect the rights of people who choose to hunt.

I think this argumentis out of date now, so lets just drop it and concnetrate on the wars and butchering of people around the world who suffer for prolonged periods and die a slow death, than the quick death of 1 fox.”

“I stress and stress this point: the hunt has not got a hollow argument at all. In fact there are more stronger arguments to keep hunting, than there are to abolish hunting!

Conservation, maintenance, cooperation with landowners are all hugely justifiable arguments. Plus what is it with this argument that "why don't landowners shoot it" and the point is that the majority of landowners probably don't have a firearms license, or do not have the chance to do it themselves because the fox is long gone. The hunt is far more efficient, and the landowner will in fact save money because his/her fences won't be damaged, stock won't have to be continously replaced. Therefore they won't have to keep spending money tidying up after the fox.

The hounds are born with some instinct to kill quarry anyway, its not true they are completely trained. Anyway wild dogs kill animals in the wild all the time, so what's so different to a pack of hounds with the same instinct? I see little difference.

The hunt is not a "gang" it is a humane, beneficial method of conservation which the countryside depends on.

By banning hunting, there will be so much more illegal ways of trapping, poisoning or whatever of the fox, which will do so much more damage to the quarry and environment for that matter. The hunt does it quickly.

There is no such thing as a "transparent" argument. An argument has two justifiable sides to it and this is the same. Though I think hunting has a greater level of justification than that of the opposition.

If the antis are so against animal cruelty why have they not targeted the inhumane and even crueller transport of e.g. horses for slaughter? No! Instead they worry about the quick death of 1 fox out of thousands of its kind. That I believe is unjust, because they ignore that and focus on this.

Antis appear to have no idea and are blind to the benefits. It seems like they choose to ignore these factors and concentrate on what they want to. We on the other hand are open to all aspects of hunting and understand it whereas they appear not to.

Keep hunting. It is far more humane than bundling a load of animals into a claustrophobic vehicle and giving them no water or food or light or fresh air and then killing them at the end. Atleast the fox has lived a decent life in the wild.

I believe this ban is UNJUST and should be dropped. Also, there are far more pressing matters involving world economy and war that threaten the lives of thousands, than to follow this weak argument against hunting.”

“Foxhunting has been part of country life for generations. Hunting has been in my family for atleast 5 generations. My grandfather passed on the love of hunting to me, and he continued hunting to the ripe old age of 65. The hounds are bred to do one thing and that is to hunt. How can one expect a pack of hounds, who are born with the instinct to hunt to suddenly change their tactic? It is almost impossible for them to do so.

Nature can be cruel just as much as you say hunting can be cruel. Animals eat eachother, kill eachother, and that process can be slower than hunting. Hunting however is the best and most efficient means of conservation in the country because it weeds out the sick, ill or old animals. It prevents the spread of disease and keeps the population at a perfect number that the environment does not become swamped by an excessive number which would be what happens if hunting did not take place.

Those that are against, I respect their opinion, but in due course many have failed to understand the entire means and usefulness of the hunt and its importance in the country.

Livelihoods depend on hunting too. People who work in the hunt do so much to maintain the countryside i.e. walls, fences, hedges, etc are all managed by the hunt. If it be banned then these people lose a substantial proportion of their livelihoods. Is it just to deny someone their livelihoods? I think not.

Another thing, how different is hunting a quarry to slaughtering an animal for your plate? I see little difference. Like the abertoir, the hunt is professional in its methods, and works hard on the deftness and efficiency of eliminating the quarry IF it is caught. Catching the quarry is rare!

Hunting continues because they see the greater purpose. They I believe are far more justified than those that see fit to protest against the quick death of one fox that in most cases is ill, old and weak - while the rest of its abundant population will remain to increase the fox population by approx. 3 times the size of its previous estimate.

Some use footage of violence shown by some hunts, but it is not the case for ALL hunts. In most cases it is the sabs provoking it by getting in the way, shouting at the hunt staff or spooking their horses. Though I am able to see that they may have rights, in due course by disrupting what the hunt does, they are intruding on the rights of hunt people to continue even though they follow the law and eliminate the quarry faster by means of a shotgun. Sometimes it may be difficult to shoot it and the hounds may get it but that is rare! Sabs should show more respect for the rights of the people which choose to hunt by keeping their distance and not intruding on their grounds.

Hunting HAS changed and will continue. They strive for the perfection of new methods and are doing so successfully. Thus, they are not breaking the law.

On the other hand hunting is not just about foxes. There is a massive social sector to it, where people meet to socialise, excercise their horses and the hounds and see countryside that normally will be private. It is this which I believe many antis have failed to recognise, and continue to.

I have been hunting for 4 years, have loved it and will continue because not only has it been in my family for centuries, but I see the true beauty, elegance and enjoyment, and above all the hardwork and dedication that goes into hunting. Peoples lives depend on it, the countryside relies upon its maintenance and conservation.

LONG LIVE THE HUNT. FIGHT THIS UNJUST BAN AND GET BACK OUR RIGHTS.

As for me, I'll be out hunting this week . The above is just a few of the arguments which justify hunting and why hunting should be allowed to continue. Landowners depend on it, the countryside benefits from it and a tight knit community is born from it.”

“If a hunt rarely end in a kill then why are you wasting your time going out then?

You also says its a chance for the dogs to go out and do what they love to do yet its not ok for the fox to hunt a chicken.

The point of fox hunting is pointless the same as any other type of hunting. Take away money, possessions, shops etc and put us in the same position as a fox and see how long we survive for.

Of course I feel sorry for the chickens killed by the foxes but the fox isnt aware that it is doing any harm. If it is costing farmers all this money would it not be cheaper to leave food out for the fox? or even try adopting it? or even spend money to protect the land better?”