Editing Fox hunting (section)

== Controversy ==
The nature of fox hunting, including the killing of the quarry animal, the pursuit's strong associations with tradition and [[social class]], and its practice for sport have made it a source of great controversy within the United Kingdom. In December 1999, the then [[Home Secretary]], [[Jack Straw|Jack Straw MP]], announced the establishment of a Government inquiry (the [[Burns Inquiry]]) into hunting with dogs, to be chaired by the retired senior civil servant [[Terence Burns, Baron Burns|Lord Burns]]. The inquiry was to examine the practical aspects of different types of hunting with dogs and its impact, how any ban might be implemented and the consequences of any such ban.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/mainsections/committeedetails/aboutus.htm|title=Background to the Inquiry|author=Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs|year=1999|access-date=12 February 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090407134938/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/mainsections/committeedetails/aboutus.htm|archive-date=7 April 2009}}</ref>

Amongst its findings, the Burns Inquiry committee analysed opposition to hunting in the UK and reported that:
<blockquote>There are those who have a moral objection to hunting and who are fundamentally opposed to the idea of people gaining pleasure from what they regard as the causing of unnecessary suffering. There are also those who perceive hunting as representing a divisive social class system. Others, as we note below, resent the hunt trespassing on their land, especially when they have been told they are not welcome. They worry about the welfare of the pets and animals and the difficulty of moving around the roads where they live on hunt days. Finally there are those who are concerned about damage to the countryside and other animals, particularly badgers and otters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/mainsections/huntingreport.htm|date=2000-06-09|title=Final Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales, para 4.12|access-date=2008-02-09|publisher=Defra|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090410213249/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/mainsections/huntingreport.htm|archive-date=2009-04-10}}</ref></blockquote>

In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, [[Terence Burns, Baron Burns|Lord Burns]], also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010312/text/10312-06.htm#10312-06_para26|title=Lords Hansard|date=12 March 2001 |access-date=29 February 2008 |publisher=House of Lords|author=Burns, T.}}</ref>

[[Anti-hunting]] activists who choose to take action in opposing fox hunting can do so through lawful means, such as campaigning for [[fox hunting legislation]] and [[Hunt Monitors|monitoring hunts]] for cruelty. Some use unlawful means.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.league.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=1704|publisher=League Against Cruel Sports|title=Hunt Crimewatch|access-date=12 February 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080205234021/http://www.league.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=1704|archive-date=5 February 2008}}</ref> Main anti-hunting campaign organisations include the [[Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals|RSPCA]] and the [[League Against Cruel Sports]].  In 2001, the RSPCA took high court action to prevent pro-hunt activists joining in large numbers to change the society's policy in opposing hunting.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Telegraph|date=19 June 2001|title=RSPCA wins right to block hunt lobby|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1319660/RSPCA-wins-right-to-block-hunt-lobby.html|access-date=27 October 2008 | location=London}}</ref>

Outside of campaigning, some activists choose to engage in direct intervention such as [[hunt sabotage|sabotage of the hunt]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hsa.enviroweb.org/tactics/tactbook/tactics.html|publisher=Hunt Saboteurs Association|title=HSA hunt tactics book|access-date=12 February 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080304215707/http://hsa.enviroweb.org/tactics/tactbook/tactics.html|archive-date=4 March 2008}}</ref> Hunt sabotage is unlawful in a majority of the United States, and some tactics used in it (such as [[trespass]] and criminal damage) are offences there and in other countries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.huntsab.org/hunter_harassment_laws.htm|title=Hunter Harassment Laws|publisher=American Hunt Saboteurs Association|access-date=12 February 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080315020942/http://www.huntsab.org/hunter_harassment_laws.htm|archive-date=15 March 2008}}</ref>

Fox hunting with hounds has been happening in Europe since at least the sixteenth century, and strong traditions have built up around the activity, as have related businesses, rural activities, and [[Social hierarchy|hierarchies]]. For this reason, there are large numbers of people who support fox hunting and this can be for a variety of reasons.<ref name = "MFH-social"/>

=== Pest control ===
The fox is referred to as [[vermin]] in some countries. Some farmers fear the loss of their smaller [[livestock]],<ref name="CA submission">{{cite web|author=Countryside Alliance|title=Submission to the Burns Inquiry|year=2000|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence/alliance.htm|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence/alliance.htm|archive-date=23 January 2013|publisher=Defra|access-date=14 November 2007}}</ref> while others consider them an ally in controlling rabbits, voles, and other rodents, which eat crops.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence2/drryder.htm|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence2/drryder.htm|archive-date=23 January 2013|author= Ryder, R.|year=2000|publisher=Defra|title=Submission to the Burns Inquiry|access-date=11 February 2008}}</ref> A key reason for dislike of the fox by pastoral farmers is their tendency to commit acts of [[surplus killing]] toward animals such as chickens, since having killed many they eat only one.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kruuk|first=H|title=Surplus killing by carnivores|year=1972|journal=Journal of Zoology, London|volume=166|issue=2|pages=435–50|doi=10.1111/j.1469-7998.1972.tb04087.x}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Baldwin|first=Marc|title=Red Fox Vulpes vulpes:Food & Feeding|publisher=Wildlife Online|date=29 April 2007|access-date=22 February 2008|url=http://www.wildlifeonline.me.uk/red_fox.html#feeding}}</ref> Some anti-hunt campaigners maintain that provided it is not disturbed, the fox will remove all of the chickens it kills and conceal them in a safer place.<ref>{{cite web|publisher=National Fox Welfare Society|title=Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) General description|url=http://www.nfws.org.uk/fox_info.html|access-date=13 April 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080608135436/http://www.nfws.org.uk/fox_info.html|archive-date=8 June 2008}}</ref>

Opponents of fox hunting claim that the activity is not necessary for fox control, arguing that the fox is not a pest species despite its classification and that hunting does not and cannot make a real difference to fox populations.<ref>{{cite web|publisher=International Fund for Animal Welfare |url=http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=158534 |title=New research explodes myth that hunting with gun-packs controlled foxes in Wales |year=2006 |access-date=11 February 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080620022132/http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=158534 |archive-date=20 June 2008 }}</ref> They compare the number of foxes killed in the hunt to the many more killed on the roads. They also argue that [[wildlife management]] goals of the hunt can be met more effectively by other methods such as ''[[spotlighting|lamping]]'' (dazzling a fox with a bright light, then shooting by a competent shooter using an appropriate weapon and load).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence2/deadline20002.htm#research|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence2/deadline20002.htm#research|archive-date=23 January 2013|author=Deadline 2000|year=2000|title=Submission to Burns Inquiry|access-date=12 February 2008|publisher=Defra}}</ref>

There is scientific evidence that fox hunting has no effect on fox populations, at least in Britain, thereby calling into question the idea it is a successful method of culling. In 2001 there was a 1-year nationwide ban on fox-hunting because of an outbreak of [[foot-and-mouth disease]].  It was found this ban on hunting had no measurable impact on fox numbers in randomly selected areas.<ref name="Baker">{{cite journal |author=Baker, P.J. |author2=Harris, S. |author3=Webbon, C.C.|year=2002|title=Ecology: Effect of British hunting ban on fox numbers|journal=Nature|volume=419|issue=6902|page=34|doi=10.1038/419034a|pmid=12214224|bibcode=2002Natur.419...34B|s2cid=4392265|doi-access=free}}</ref> Prior to the fox hunting ban in the UK, hounds contributed to the deaths of 6.3% of the 400,000 foxes killed annually.<ref>{{Cite journal |author=Leader-Williams, N. |author2=Oldfield, T.E. |author3=Smith, R.J. |author4=Walpole, M.J. |year=2002|title=Science, conservation and fox-hunting|journal=Nature|volume=419|issue=6910|page=878|doi=10.1038/419878a|pmid=12410283|bibcode=2002Natur.419..878L|doi-access=free}}</ref>

The hunts claim to provide and maintain a good habitat for foxes and other game,<ref name="CA submission"/> and, in the US, have fostered [[conservation movement|conservation]] legislation and put land into conservation easements. Anti-hunting campaigners cite the widespread existence of artificial earths and the historic practice by hunts of introducing foxes, as indicating that hunts do not believe foxes to be pests.<ref name = "League submission">{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence/league.htm|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence/league.htm|archive-date=23 January 2013|author=League Against Cruel Sports|title=Submission to Burns Inquiry|year=2000|access-date=11 February 2008|publisher=Defra}}</ref>

It is also argued that hunting with dogs has the advantage of weeding out old, sick, and weak animals because the strongest and healthiest foxes are those most likely to escape. Therefore, unlike other methods of controlling the fox population, it is argued that hunting with dogs resembles [[natural selection]].<ref name="CA submission"/> The counter-argument is given that hunting cannot kill old foxes because foxes have a natural death rate of 65% per annum.<ref name = "League submission"/>

In Australia, where foxes have played a major role in the decline in the number of species of wild animals, the Government's [[Department of the Environment and Heritage]] concluded that "hunting does not seem to have had a significant or lasting impact on fox numbers." Instead, control of foxes relies heavily on shooting, poisoning and fencing.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/european-red-fox.html|year=2004|title=European Red Fox Fact Sheet|publisher=Environment Department, Australian Government|access-date=19 April 2010}}</ref>

=== Economics ===
As well as the economic defence of fox hunting that it is necessary to control the population of foxes, lest they cause economic cost to the farmers, it is also argued that fox hunting is a significant economic activity in its own right, providing recreation and jobs for those involved in the hunt and supporting it.  The [[Burns Inquiry]] identified that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time jobs depend on hunting in the UK, of which about 700 result from direct hunt employment and 1,500 to 3,000 result from direct employment on hunting-related activities.<ref name=burns/>

Since the ban in the UK, there has been no evidence of significant job losses, and hunts have continued to operate along limited lines, either trail hunting, or claiming to use exemptions in the legislation.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Simon-Hart-Hounding-out-a.3619917.jp|author=Simon Hart|title=Hounding out a law that's failed in every way|date=26 December 2007|access-date=11 February 2008|newspaper=The Yorkshire Post}}</ref>

===Animal welfare and animal rights===
Many [[animal welfare]] groups, campaigners and [[activists]] believe that fox hunting is unfair and cruel to animals.<ref name=bbccruel/> They argue that the chase itself causes fear and distress and that the fox is not always killed instantly as is claimed. [[Animal rights]] campaigners also object to hunting (including fox hunting), on the grounds that animals should enjoy some basic rights (such as the right to freedom from exploitation and the right to life).<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Uncaged|title=The universal declaration of animal rights|year=2006|url=http://www.uncaged.co.uk/declarat.htm|access-date=3 November 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071102075149/http://www.uncaged.co.uk/declarat.htm|archive-date=2 November 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|publisher=People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)|title=General FAQs|url=http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp|access-date=3 November 2007}}</ref>

In the United States and Canada, pursuing quarry for the purpose of killing is strictly forbidden by the Masters of Foxhounds Association.<ref name="usmfha1"/> According to article 2 of the organisation's code:
<blockquote>The sport of fox hunting as it is practised in North America places emphasis on the chase and not the kill. It is inevitable, however, that hounds will at times catch their game. Death is instantaneous. A pack of hounds will account for their quarry by running it to ground, treeing it, or bringing it to bay in some fashion. The Masters of Foxhounds Association has laid down detailed rules to govern the behaviour of Masters of Foxhounds and their packs of hounds.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mfha.com/code.htm|title=MFHA Code of Hunting Practices|year=2000|publisher=Masters of Foxhounds Association of North America|access-date=2008-02-12|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080315131747/http://www.mfha.com/code.htm |archive-date = 15 March 2008}}</ref></blockquote>
There are times when a fox that is injured or sick is caught by the pursuing hounds, but hunts say that the occurrence of an actual kill of this is exceptionally rare.<ref name="usmfha1"/>

Supporters of hunting maintain that when foxes or other prey (such as coyotes in the western USA) are hunted, the quarry are either killed relatively quickly (instantly or in a matter of seconds) or escapes uninjured. Similarly, they say that the animal rarely endures hours of torment and pursuit by hounds, and research by Oxford University shows that the fox is normally killed after an average of 17&nbsp;minutes of chase.<ref name=bbccruel>{{cite news|publisher=BBC News|title=Is fox hunting cruel?|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/418681.stm|date=16 September 1999|access-date=3 November 2007}}</ref> They further argue that, while hunting with hounds may cause suffering, controlling fox numbers by other means is even more cruel. Depending on the skill of the shooter, the type of firearm used, the availability of good shooting positions and luck, shooting foxes can cause either an instant kill, or lengthy periods of agony for wounded animals which can die of the trauma within hours, or of secondary infection over a period of days or weeks. Research from wildlife hospitals, however, indicates that it is not uncommon for foxes with minor shot wounds to survive.&nbsp;<ref>{{cite web |author=Baker, P. |author2=Harris, S. |author3=White, P. |publisher=International Fund for Animal Welfare |title=After the hunt, the future of foxes in Britain |url=http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/After%20the%20Hunt%20(Web%20final%20Feb).pdf |access-date=25 November 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071127073352/http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dimages/custom/After%20the%20Hunt%20%28Web%20final%20Feb%29.pdf |archive-date=27 November 2007 }}</ref> Hunt supporters further say that it is a matter of humanity to kill foxes rather than allow them to suffer malnourishment and [[mange]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence/hunts/fourburrow.htm|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence/hunts/fourburrow.htm|archive-date=23 January 2013|author=Four Burrows Hunt|title=Submission to Burns Inquiry|year=2000|access-date=12 February 2008|publisher=Defra}}</ref>

Other methods include the use of [[Snare trap|snares]], [[Animal trapping|trapping]] and poisoning, all of which also cause considerable distress to the animals concerned, and may affect other species.   This was considered in the [[Burns Inquiry]] (paras 6.60–11), whose tentative conclusion was that [[spotlighting|lamping]] using [[rifle]]s fitted with [[telescopic sight]]s, if carried out properly and in appropriate circumstances, had fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting.<ref name=burns/> The committee believed that lamping was not possible without vehicular access, and hence said that the welfare of foxes in upland areas could be affected adversely by a ban on hunting with hounds, unless dogs could be used to flush foxes from cover (as is permitted in the [[Hunting Act 2004]]).

Some opponents of hunting criticise the fact that the animal suffering in fox hunting takes place for sport, citing either that this makes such suffering unnecessary and therefore cruel, or else that killing or causing suffering for sport is immoral.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.league.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_336.pdf|year=2006|author=Linzey, A.|publisher=Christian Socialist Movement|title=Fox Hunting|access-date=11 February 2008}}{{dead link|date=October 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> The [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]], in considering the British Hunting Act, determined that the legislative aim of the Hunting Act was "a composite one of preventing or reducing unnecessary suffering to wild mammals, overlaid by a moral viewpoint that causing suffering to animals for sport is unethical."<ref name=CourtAppeal>{{cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/817.html|title=R. (oao The Countryside Alliance; oao Derwin and others) v. Her Majesty's Attorney General and Secretary of State of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs|date=23 June 2006|publisher=EWCA|access-date=11 February 2008}}</ref>

[[Anti-hunting]] campaigners also criticised UK hunts of which the [[Burns Inquiry]] estimated that foxhound packs put down around 3,000 hounds, and the hare hunts killed around 900 hounds per year, in each case after the hounds' working life had come to an end.<ref name=burns/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence2/hounds.htm|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence2/hounds.htm|archive-date=23 January 2013|author=Fanshawe, B.|title=Details of number of hounds involved in hunting, Campaign for Hunting submission to Burns Inquiry|date=17 May 2000|publisher=Defra|access-date=18 February 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence2/amhbmbhanccalc.htm|publisher=Defra|year=2000|access-date=10 April 2008|title=The Hare Hunting Associations, submission to Burns Inquiry|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080824020711/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence2/amhbmbhanccalc.htm|archive-date=24 August 2008}}</ref>

In June 2016, three people associated with the South Herefordshire Hunt (UK) were arrested on suspicion of causing suffering to animals in response to claims that live fox cubs were used to train hounds to hunt and kill.  The organisation Hunt Investigation Team supported by the [[League Against Cruel Sports]], gained video footage of an individual carrying a fox cub into a large kennel where the hounds can clearly be heard baying. A dead fox was later found in a rubbish bin. The individuals arrested were suspended from Hunt membership.<ref name="Huffington2016">{{cite news|work=Huffington Post UK|title=Investigation launched after footage shows 'Fox Cubs Being Put into Hounds' Kennels'|author=Harris, S.|date=23 June 2016|access-date=23 June 2016|url=https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/investigation-launched-after-footage-shows-fox-cubs-being-put-into-hounds-kennels/ar-AAhwEso?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=SL5MDHP|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160812001402/http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/investigation-launched-after-footage-shows-fox-cubs-being-put-into-hounds-kennels/ar-AAhwEso?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=SL5MDHP|archive-date=12 August 2016}}</ref> In August, two more people were arrested in connection with the investigation.<ref>{{cite news|title=Further arrests in South Herefordshire Hunt animal cruelty probe|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-37099283|access-date=17 September 2016|publisher=BBC News|date=17 August 2016}}</ref>

=== Civil liberties ===
It is argued by some hunt supporters that no law should curtail the right of a person to do as they wish, so long as it does not harm others.<ref name="CA submission"/> [[Philosopher]] [[Roger Scruton]] has said, "To criminalise this activity would be to introduce legislation as illiberal as the laws which once deprived Jews and Catholics of political rights, or the laws which outlawed homosexuality".<ref name=scruton>{{cite web|url=http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence/scruton.htm|archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/hunting/inquiry/evidence/scruton.htm|archive-date=23 January 2013|title=Fox Hunting: The Modern Case. Written submission to the Burns Inquiry|last=Scruton|first=Roger|author-link=Roger Scruton|year=2000|access-date=18 November 2007|publisher=Defra}}</ref> In contrast, liberal philosopher, [[John Stuart Mill]] wrote, "The reasons for legal intervention in favour of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves and victims of the most brutal parts of mankind—the lower animals."<ref>{{cite book|title=The history of economic thought|author1=Medema, S.G.  |author2=Samuels, W.J.|publisher=Routledge|year=2003|access-date=18 November 2007|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4PslOtUYstsC&q=%22the+reasons+for+legal+intervention+in+favour+of+children%22&pg=PA360|isbn=978-0-415-20551-1}}</ref> The UK's most senior court, the [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|House of Lords]], has decided that a ban on hunting, in the form of the [[Hunting Act 2004]], does not contravene the [[European Convention on Human Rights]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd071128/countr-1.htm|title=House of Lords judgement on Hunting Act ECHR challenge|date=28 November 2007|access-date=29 November 2007|publisher=House of Lords|archive-date=7 December 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071207193055/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd071128/countr-1.htm}}</ref> as did the [[European Court of Human Rights]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=859952&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649|title=HECtHR judgment in case Friend and Countryside Alliance and Others v. UK|date=24 November 2009|access-date=11 January 2010|publisher=ECtHR}}</ref>

=== Trespass ===
In its submission to the [[Burns Inquiry]], the [[League Against Cruel Sports]] presented evidence of over 1,000 cases of [[trespass]] by hunts. These included trespass on railway lines and into private gardens.<ref name=burns/> Trespass can occur as the hounds cannot recognise human-created boundaries they are not allowed to cross, and may therefore follow their quarry wherever it goes unless successfully called off.  However, in the United Kingdom, trespass is a largely civil matter [[William Capel (cricketer)#Landmark foxhunting court case|when performed accidentally]].

Nonetheless, in the UK, the criminal offence of 'aggravated trespass' was introduced in 1994 specifically to address the problems caused to fox hunts and other field sports by [[Hunt sabotage|hunt saboteur]]s.<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Free Beagles |url=http://freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-21.html |title=Legal advice for activists |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121029052548/http://freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-21.html |archive-date=29 October 2012 }}</ref><ref name=stokes/> Hunt saboteurs trespass on private land to monitor or disrupt the hunt, as this is where the hunting activity takes place.<ref name=stokes/> For this reason, the hunt saboteur ''tactics manual'' presents detailed information on legal issues affecting this activity, especially the Criminal Justice Act.<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Hunt Saboteurs Association |title=Legal advice on Public Order and trespass |url=http://hsa.enviroweb.org/tactics/tactbook/legal.html |access-date=3 November 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071124125412/http://hsa.enviroweb.org/tactics/tactbook/legal.html |archive-date=24 November 2007 }}</ref> Some [[Hunt Monitors|hunt monitors]] also choose to trespass whilst they observe the hunts in progress.<ref name=stokes>{{cite web |author=Stokes, Elizabeth|title=Hunting and Hunt Saboteurs: A Censure Study |website=University of East London |year=1996|url=http://www.uel.ac.uk/lss/staff/elizabethstokes/elizabethstokes/|access-date=20 December 2011|archive-date=13 April 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130413173710/http://www.uel.ac.uk/lss/staff/elizabethstokes/elizabethstokes/}}</ref>

The construction of the law means that hunt saboteurs' behaviour may result in charges of criminal aggravated trespass,<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Crown Prosecution Service|title=Trespass and Nuisance on Land: Legal Guidance|url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/trespass_and_nuisance_on_land/#Aggravated_Trespass_Charging|access-date=11 September 2010|archive-date=22 November 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101122114101/http://cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/trespass_and_nuisance_on_land/#Aggravated_Trespass_Charging|url-status=dead}}</ref> rather than the less severe offence of [[Civil law (common law)|civil trespass]].<ref>{{cite web|author=Countryside Alliance and the Council of Hunting Associations|title=Hunting without Harassment|year=2006|url=http://heythrophunt.com/picts/huntinghandbook.pdf|access-date=20 December 2011|publisher=Countryside Alliance|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131104120/http://heythrophunt.com/picts/huntinghandbook.pdf|archive-date=31 January 2012}}</ref> Since the introduction of legislation to restrict hunting with hounds, there has been a level of confusion over the legal status of [[Hunt Monitors|hunt monitors]] or saboteurs when trespassing, as if they disrupt the hunt whilst it is not committing an illegal act (as all the hunts claim to be hunting within the law) then they commit an offence; however, if the hunt was conducting an illegal act then the criminal offence of trespass may not have been committed.<ref name=stokes/>

=== Social life and class issues in Britain ===
[[File:JohnLeechBriggsPleasuresHunt.jpg|thumb|250px|right|[[Punch (magazine)|''Punch'' magazine]]'s "Mr. Briggs" cartoons illustrated issues over fox hunting during the 1850s.]]
In Britain, and especially in [[England and Wales]], supporters of fox hunting regard it as a distinctive part of [[British culture]] generally, the basis of traditional crafts and a key part of social life in rural areas, an activity and spectacle enjoyed not only by the riders but also by others such as the ''unmounted pack'' which may follow along on foot, bicycle or 4x4 vehicles.<ref name="MFH-social"/> They see the social aspects of hunting as reflecting the demographics of the area; the [[Home Counties]] packs, for example, are very different from those in North Wales and Cumbria, where the hunts are very much the activity of farmers and the working class. The Banwen Miners Hunt is such a working class club, founded in a small Welsh mining village, although its membership now is by no means limited to miners, with a more ''cosmopolitan'' make-up.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.banwenminershunt.co.uk/page2.htm|title=Banwen Miners Hunt History|publisher=The Banwen Miners Hunt|access-date=20 December 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120122013357/http://www.banwenminershunt.co.uk/page2.htm|archive-date=22 January 2012}}</ref>

[[Oscar Wilde]], in his play ''[[A Woman of No Importance]]'' (1893), once famously described "the English country gentleman galloping after a fox" as "the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable."<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Bibliomania|title=Oscar Wilde|url=http://www.bibliomania.com/0/2/57/frameset.html|access-date=16 November 2007}}</ref> Even before the time of Wilde, much of the criticism of fox hunting was couched in terms of [[social class]]. The argument was that while more "working class" [[blood sport (hunting)|blood sports]] such as [[Cockfight|cock fighting]] and [[badger baiting]] were long ago outlawed,<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Icons- a portrait of England|title=Banned Blood Sports|url=http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fox-hunting-and-the-ban/features/banned-blood-sports|year=2006|access-date=3 November 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071120043216/http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/fox-hunting-and-the-ban/features/banned-blood-sports|archive-date=20 November 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Jackson |first=Steve |publisher=Badger Pages |title=Badger Baiting |url=http://www.badgers.org.uk/badgerpages/eurasian-badger-11.html |year=2006 |access-date=5 November 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071016051115/http://www.badgers.org.uk/badgerpages/eurasian-badger-11.html |archive-date=16 October 2007 }}</ref> fox hunting persists, although this argument can be countered with the fact that [[hare coursing]], a more "working-class" sport, was outlawed at the same time as fox hunting with hounds in England and Wales. The philosopher [[Roger Scruton]] has said that the analogy with cockfighting and badger baiting is unfair, because these sports were more cruel and did not involve any element of pest control.<ref name=scruton/>

A series of "Mr. Briggs" cartoons by [[John Leech (caricaturist)|John Leech]] appeared in the magazine ''[[Punch (magazine)|Punch]]'' during the 1850s which illustrated class issues.<ref name=class1>{{cite web|url=http://john-leech-archive.org.uk/keyword/hunting.htm|title=John Leech Hunting archive|publisher=Andrew Cates|access-date=11 February 2008}}</ref> More recently the British anarchist group [[Class War]] has argued explicitly for disruption of fox hunts on class warfare grounds and even published a book ''The Rich at Play'' examining the subject.<ref name=class2>{{cite web|publisher=London Class War|title=Class War Merchandise|url=http://lemming.mahost.org/classwar/merchandise.htm|access-date=3 November 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080920121124/http://lemming.mahost.org/classwar/merchandise.htm|archive-date=20 September 2008}}</ref> Other groups with similar aims, such as "Revolutions per minute" have also published papers which disparage fox hunting on the basis of the social class of its participants.<ref>{{cite web|publisher=Red Star Research/Revolutions per minute|year=2002|title=The Rich at Play|url=http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/rap/rapframe.html|access-date=14 November 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070915170129/http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/rap/rapframe.html |archive-date = 15 September 2007}}</ref>

Opinion polls in the United Kingdom have shown that the population is equally divided as to whether or not the views of hunt objectors are based primarily on class grounds.<ref name=tele1>{{cite news|newspaper=The Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1999/07/27/nhunt127.html |title=New poll shows public not prepared to outlaw hunting |last=Clover |first=Charles |date=27 July 1999 |access-date=11 February 2008 |location=London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071103121423/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F1999%2F07%2F27%2Fnhunt127.html |archive-date=3 November 2007 }}</ref> Some people have pointed to evidence of class bias in the voting patterns in the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] during the voting on the hunting bill between 2000 and 2001, with traditionally working-class Labour members voting the legislation through against the votes of normally middle- and upper-class Conservative members.<ref name="Orendi">{{cite thesis |last=Orendi |first=Dagmar |title=The Debate About Fox Hunting: A Social and Political Analysis |publisher=[[Humboldt University of Berlin|Humboldt Universität zu Berlin]] |type=Master's |year=2004 |access-date=13 October 2007 |url=http://www2.hu-berlin.de/gbz/downloads/pdf/DagmarOrendi_MasterThesis.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090318202521/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/gbz/downloads/pdf/DagmarOrendi_MasterThesis.pdf |archive-date=18 March 2009 }}</ref>