Last year we set off on our hols driving to the airport about 3.00am and we saw a few of them on the roads around Poolsbrook park. As I've mentioned before, we have chickens, and so far, not had any problems with foxes coming in the garden but I know other people who have lost chickens to foxes.
Which begs the question, whats the difference between a fox hunting a chicken and a dog hunting a fox. There isn't one really, its part of nature. And as for the man on the horse half a mile over the hill, from the foxes perspective, he's not a factor.
I have no strong views either way about fox-hunting, I'm not interested in it, and it has no bearing on my life. But as Constant Readers ought to know, I do so hate political hypocrisy, and this is the perfect example.
You could argue foxhunting is cruel, but then isn't fishing. A man catches a fish by sticking a hook through its mouth, then drags it out of the water where it almost suffocates, hangs it from the mouth to be weighed, throws it in a net so it can't escape, then at the end of the day, lets it go again, so that he can do it again the next day. Why is that not cruel, and if it is, why did Labour not ban recreational fishing. If any politician had the balls enough to be honest to the electorate, they would tell us that fox-hunting was banned because its seen as being done by toffs, but fishing is done by the common man. Nothing to do with cruelty, and everything to do with the politics of envy and class war.
The only solution I can see is to replace fox-hunting with politician hunting, much more justifiable.