The goverment research document is an excellent source of reasonably trustworthy info on this one. http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/finalreport.htm Bad CO (anti) separates standard hunting (killing with dogs) from hunting with dogs, but killing by shooting. Thereby maintaing that mainstream foxhunting is pointless as counts for a small number of foxes killed. Good CO doesn't see the difference between the 2 dog hunting methods (accounting between for a large number of foxes killed). Bad CO maintains fox not a serious pest in the first place. Good CO (pro) surprised by small % of lamb / poultry deaths attributed to foxes and says that he's got a point there. Good CO say that farmers tolerate use of land by hunts as it controls foxes for them. Bad CO says hunting is a sport carried out for farmers by farmers and land use is therefore purely sporting self interest. Bad CO say that farmers beleive the whole fox is pest thing because of deeply ingrained (wrong) beliefs. Good CO reckons that farmers are rather more practical. Neither can guess at the likely growth in fox population if hunting banned and therefore the likely growth in fox related deaths. Not really thrashed out: Does the 'selective' old foxes only claim for standard fox hunting hold any water if the percentage kiled by them is so small. If you want to control the population surely pre breeding age is better anyway? Both agree on serious effect on country social life and livelihood. Get on your soap box!