The other side of the arguement is-
It isn't nature. Foxes are at the top of the food chain and have never been hunted by other predators over long distances. When wolves were present in this country they may have chased scavenging foxes away from their food and occasionally caught and killed one. For wolves to chase a small animal such as a fox over long distances in the way that hounds do would not give sufficient 'reward' for their expenditure of energy. If foxhounds had to rely simply on the foxes which they catch for food, they would starve very quickly indeed.
When the hounds catch a fox above ground, they will bite at the nearest part of the fox available, often the hind legs or rear quarters. Many post mortems on hunted foxes have shown extensive and massive injuries to the abdomen, lungs, heart and hind quarters but have found no evidence of injury to the head or neck. The fox will die quickly, often in a matter of seconds or a minute or two, but death is very rarely instant. This only deals with the actual kill at the point where the fox has been chased and suffered sometimes for hours beforehand, causing great suffering.
About 40% of foxes killed by hunts are cubs killed during the cub hunting season - hardly old and sick.
A recent scientific study published in the scientific journal nature proved that hunting plays no part in the control of fox numbers. In 1km square areas across the country fox faeces were counted to assess the size of the fox population in three consecutive years. The second count showed numbers to be virtually the same as the first count after a year of full hunting. The third count was also virtually the same as the first two after a year in which hunting had been suspended due to the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease. So with or without hunting, fox numbers stay the same. Their populations are regulated by the availability of food supply and territory, not by hunting.
A majority of people in the countryside support a ban on hunting. It is country people who experience at first hand the havoc, disruption and intimidation by hunts and are therefore more strongly opposed to it. This is not a town versus country issue, it's cruelty versus humanity.
Banning any activity which harms no one else would be wrong
NONSENSE!
If the people who argue this really believed it then they would be leading campaigns to bring back bear baiting, **** fighting, whaling, the ivory trade, and to repeal all animal welfare legislation giving people the right to cruelly mistreat any animal as long as they don't affect any people while doing so.
It has long been accepted that laws protecting animal welfare are perfectly legitimate and are almost universally accepted. A ban on hunting would give wild animals the protection from cruelty that domestic animals currently enjoy.
Foxes are not unique in killing more, sometimes much more, than they can eat at the time. This entirely natural phenomenon known as surplus killing, is widespread among other carnivorous animals such as wolves, lions and tigers. If a predator is able to catch an animal it will do so, even when it is not hungry, because the meal can be saved for another day when food is short. When this happens with foxes in a hen house it is an unfortunate but entirely natural response to an artificial situation.
A recent study from the University of York has found that lamb losses to fox predation is 0.4% of lambs born, or one in 250. The vast majority of lambs lost die of malnutrition, hypothermia and disease. The cost of carrying out fox control far outweighs the minimal losses to fox predation. Half of our farmland is grazed by cattle, where foxes are no trouble. The other half is predominantly arable; foxes kill three of the major pests to arable farmers - rabbits, voles and mice. So over much of Britain, foxes are actually a benefit to farmers.
where a rider goes out & lays a trail for the followers to chase 
