Fox-hunting arguments are contradictory

I WELCOME the Millward Brown opinion poll finding that two out of every three Irish people want fox hunting banned (Irish Examiner, April 9).

The reaction of the field sport lobby has again dredged up old arguments in favour of hunting, which rely on a set of contradictory claims.

“We serve the farmers by keeping down the fox population,” they say. In the next breath, they say, “Sure, we hardly ever catch a fox, most of them get away.” So which is it? They cannot be controlling fox numbers if they seldom catch them.

“The farmers and country folk love us and extend a warm welcome to hunts,” they say, despite hunt ban notices from farmers in provincial newspapers at the start of every hunting season.

“We hate to see a fox get caught; we’re only in it for the chase and the clean fresh air of the countryside,” they say, and yet every hunt employs men with spades and terriers to dig out any fox that goes to ground.

“Foxes take hens and lambs, so farmers breathe a sigh of relief when the hunt arrives,” they assure us. These, one presumes, would be the farmers whose fields of crops are not churned up by rampaging horses and hounds, and whose herds are not scattered.

“We rarely catch the strong healthy foxes. It’s mainly the old, sick and diseased ones.” It’s a peculiar “sport” that targets the old, sick and diseased. And wouldn’t the healthier fellows pose a greater threat to poultry or lambs?

And for people so committed to protecting farms from foxes, isn’t it odd that hunts introduce fox cubs into areas where foxes have become scarce — to ensure an adequate supply of victims for the next hunting season?

The fox has been persecuted for long enough. But following the British ban, the day of its deliverance cannot be too far off.

John Fitzgerald

Campaign for the Abolition of Cruel Sports

Lower Coyne St

Callan

Co Kilkenny