A VERY Brief History of Fox-Hunting In Britain

 

This was originally posted on the Fox, Wildcat and Wolverine Study blog and was a reaction to a post by either a pro fox hunter or someone who did not know the true history of foxes in England. The idea of the original poster was to convince “young people” that fox hunting was a necessary tradition rather than some well-to-do people enjoying chasing a cat-sized dog around on horses and having their hounds tear it to pieces “for fun”.

The poster was spurting out his expert opinion which was the same old arguments heard since the 1900s. The fox is “vermin” –it has never been officially classed as such- and the hunts, as sporting folk, are doing a service of vermin control. The counter to that argument which no current day ‘sportsman’ can counter is simply put: by the mid to late 1600s naturalists and writers were noting that the fox, like the boar and wolf, were becoming extinct. Prior to 1700 “scarcities” in foxes were noted. Great job. Well done. “Vermin control” was almost 100% effective.

One might ask, “Why do we still have foxes in the UK?” I’m so glad I asked that question. You see, vermin control had nothing to do with the hunting and killing –like every other animal and bird (and the slaughter was vast) the fox was hunted and killed purely for the fun of it. The great ‘sportsmen’ of the Golden Age of fox hunting (19th century) wrote in their books and journals what fun it all was and even noted that it was cruel in the last minutes of a foxes life…but that was well worth the “pleasure” it gave them. One particular notable wrote in his book introduction that as a young boy he saw his dogs kill and tear up a fox and he loved it –again it brought him great pleasure and that pleasure never left him in manhood; seeing the fox torn to pieces was a delight.

These people had to have their sport. Thousands of foxes were imported into England every year and often newspapers would report how foxes were on the way by cart to such-and-such’s estate. It was a hugely profitable. Russia, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Spain all contributed to what we now see as “the Little Red Dog” –the British fox. And to this we can add North American Red Foxes and species released after the collapse of the UK fur farming industry as noted by Hayley de Ronde. The importations etc were widely written about so why eradicate ‘vermin’ only to import huge numbers of ‘vermin’?

I prefer not to give the pro-hunt writers name as he offered up nothing new and instead, as these are standard falsehoods, I shall simply correct the record.

Fox Hunting

‘Fact’: Ever since New Stone Age when people started keeping hens, farmers and foxes have been enemies. In the wild, a fox will hunt and kill a single animal of prey and take it back to its den to eat or to keep. But on a farm, in a hen house, where there are many birds, a fox will kill all it can, although it can only take one hen back to its den. The fox may try to bury some of its kill. This seems cruel and pointless. But if you are a hunter, you never know when you will catch your next meal, so you have to kill what you can when you can.

So it's no wonder that farmers and foxes are enemies.

Above: "It was after our chickens!"

_________________________________

Neolithic or paeleolithic peoples (The Stone Age began about 2.6 million years ago, when researchers found the earliest evidence of humans using stone tools, and lasted until about 3,300 B.C. when the Bronze Age began) hunted everything and anything for food, clothing, etc. The early farmers grew wheat and barley, which they ground into flour. Some farmers grew beans and peas. Others grew a plant called flax, which they made into linen for clothes. Neolithic farmers kept lots of animals. They herded wild goats and oxen and although the Romans were not the first to introduce chickens to the island (they were brought here in the Iron Age, hundreds of years before the Romans arrived) it was due to Roman influence that they became popular and first came to be viewed as 'food'. This would be the Bronze Age not the Stone Age. So that quite easily checkable fact is ignored.

Most foxes if they get a chicken will grab and run off with it. The idea that it kills every chicken it can then goes back and forth collecting the others to bury is ludicrous in the extreme -is the farmer in a comatose state? No chickens were being kept in the Stone Age and there were no chicken coops and therefore, guess what? Foxes could not have been the great enemy of poultry keepers in the Stone Age.

There are any number of Victorian photographs as well as accounts in fox hunting books of farmers keeping foxes as pets and often alongside farm dogs. Also, as I will note further on, farmers helped maintain fox coverts.

Victorian girl and pet fox

______________________________________

The worst attack on chickens that I have seen was in Germany on the farm where animals were locked away securely every night to prevent predation (because they were not lazy, bad farmers). The chicken coop walls were covered in blood and I asked the farmer what had happened -a fox? He pointed out that the coop had been barred shut and told me that in 40 years he had never lost a chicken to anything other than a hawk. What I was looking at was the aftermath of rats attacking the chickens. Rats attack wild pigeons and pigeon nests and rarely show any quarter.

I ought to point out that the whole medieval farmers fighting chicken killing foxes is probably another pro hunt "fib". The evidence from archaeology is that foxes like other fur bearing animals were hunted in Anglo-Saxon times (if not before)....for the fur not for poultry defence.

An illustration of The Unearthing of a Fox in the 14th Century scanned at high resolution from a book printed in 1831. Believed copyright free.

_______________________________________

‘Fact’; From the earliest times farmers have always tried to stop foxes stealing their hens. In the 16th century (Tudor times) a Norfolk farmer began to train his dogs to track and kill foxes.

Foxes, like wolves, bears and anything else were hunted for sport and it is quite clear in all of the books by the "great sportsmen" that fox hunting was not considered much sport until other prey started to become short in number but the first hunts as such were by nobility in the 16th century.

I would like the name of this farmer who had so much time to spare in a period where chickens were not the main income of a farmer but were so important that he gave up his chores to hunt. In fact it was, as far as we know from records studied so far, a group(s) of farmers in Norfolk and it is very possible that this was more sport using any stolen chicken as an excuse. In fact, fox and rabbit hunting were money earners as their fur decorated clothes –coat collars, coats themselves, gloves, hats and so on.

Ibn al-‘Awwam, a Muslim Arab farmer living in Spain, wrote The Book of Andalusian Agriculture—35 chapters describing agronomy practices, including cattle and poultry raising, gathered from across Babylonia, Greece, Syria, Rome, and Iberia. Translations into French and Spanish range over 1,000 pages.

_________________________________

There is also another aspect to hunting that many ignore or do not even think about –food. In the UK we like to pretend we are a “nation of animal lovers” and constantly speak out about other countries were dogs are killed for meat and yet in England the rabbits killed provided material (skins) for clothing but also a meal for a family. The fox was the same; providing thicker and more luxurious fur during winter but also much needed extra food –and this took place in Europe also. The idea that farmers were so concerned about their chickens that they had to literally form local defence groups is preposterous.

It was hunting for fur and also food and for some it was hunting for fun pure and simple. The same thing takes place in some Welsh valleys every weekend where sheep, horses and cows are the main animals and any predation of fowl is down to bad farming practice.

The Rev. William Heathcote (1772–1802), on horseback (son of the 3rd Baronet); Sir William Heathcote of Hursley, 3rd Baronet (1746–1819), holding his horse and whip; and Major Vincent Hawkins Gilbert, M.F.H., holding a Fox's mask. The Heathcote's family seat was Hursley House. Daniel Gardner portrayed the three gentlemen on the hunt in 1790.

______________________________

‘Fact’: Instead of killing foxes when they attacked the hen house, farmers started to go out to hunt foxes. By the 18th century fox hunting was not just a way of protecting the farmers' hens, it became a 'sport'. Wealthy lords could afford to keep packs of dogs trained to hunt.

See my previous comments. Fox hunting had become a 'sport' by the 17th century at latest with strong indicators that it began in the 16th century. According to Sir Harry Johnston in British Mammals (Woburn Library 1903) p. 126:

“During the rule of the Plantagenets foxes are mentioned, but somewhat contemptuously, as beasts of venery. Early engravings seem to indicate that the fox was pursued to his earth by a single hound followed by sportsmen on foot, who then proceeded to dig him out”.

“beasts of venery” are defined as: “any of the animals (such as red deer, boar, wolf, hare) that might be hunted in the forests in medieval England” and as for the rule of the Plantagenets well the house of Plantagenet (also called house of Anjou or Angevin dynasty, royal house of England) reigned from 1154 to 1485 and the lowly fox seems to have been a case of “Well, if there is nothing else to kill…”

Johnston also notes (p. 126) that the fox has been :

“Artificially protected as it has been since its pursuit on horseback became a favourite and well-established sport some two hundred years ago…”

Many writers of the 1800s had attempted to find out when horseback hunting of foxes began and the majority decided that circa 1700 was near enough. Some did attempt to push “The Sport of Kings” claimed by desperately looking for any mention of a royal hunting on horse (even if the fox was not mentioned).

Sir Harry Johnston, by Elliott & Fry.

______________________________________

As an aside there is a line from Johnston that made me laugh out loud. There are people who hate domestic cats. They will claim that “millions of birds and mammals” are killed by pet cats each year. The guessology involved in that research is laughable in itself and the claim by anti-cat people that it is an invasive species so should be locked up… I would use the term “mentally unhinged”. So the cat is the scapegoat for the decline in species according to the 21st century way of thinking. Now let’s look at Johnston’s line that made me laugh (again p. 126):

“..the fox is no doubt answerable for a decided thinning of our indigenous birds and beasts”.

Victorians butchered in droves. Hunting and killing seals and deer, hares, rabbits, all types of reptiles and amphibians, birds both small and large and making many extinct “for fun and sport”. Even the hedgehog had a bounty placed on it and was shot, poisoned and bludgeoned. Like today it seems that humans required a scapegoat for what it is doing. But Johnston was using the argument to show why the hunting of foxes was a good idea.

However, the damned foxes were killing sheep and lambs –or were they? The 'sportsmen' who knew their estates and farms (their hunting countries) refuted claims of foxes carrying off lambs -the foxes were not large enough and a reward to present evidence that a lamb was killed and carried off by a fox was still unclaimed by the late 19th century. Some claims that pheasants, ducks, geese and other birds as well as lambs were victims of foxes were looked into and it was reported that either game keepers or farm hands were doing the stealing and simply claiming "a fox dunnit".

The large Hill foxes I still do not believe killed full grown sheep –the type of sheep involved was a small variety but still not something a fox could carry off. I have no doubt that the odd lamb was taken. Shepherds tell me that large roaming sheep flocks can expect to lose 10 or more sheep each season through illness, accidents and so on. A single fox killing a tough Welsh hill sheep –I did ask that question off-hand once and the responding laughter went on for some time.

One thing that I learnt in my time as a UK Police Forces exotic animals advisor was that there were some very shady practices used by farmers –and this came straight from their own mouths when I spoke to them about non native cat incidents. I was told several times that during lambing season any stillborn lambs were “put on the wall” or “thrown over the hedge” to await “disposal. It was an eye-opener to be told that foxes and in some cases large cats “disposed of the dead lambs –all clean and tidy”. These farmers had not had any fox predation going on but I did warn that a fox is not going to distinguish between a dead and live lamb if encouraged but was told that the lambs were “extra diet” as “the place is crawling with rabbits” and as even the old ‘sportsmen’ stated “a fox will ignore nearby prey if it can get a rabbit”.

Anything such as chickens killed by a fox was paid for from a fund set up to pay for damages. Pet cats and small dogs were pursued into cottages and homes and torn to shreds by the hounds and even foxes were ripped to pieces in someone’s dining room as the lady of the house, screaming, took refuge on the table as crockery was smashed everywhere –“what a hoot!” And on more than one occasion a Master of the Fox Hounds refused to pay compensation because some upstart had something killed by hounds.

There is another point missed out here; every hunt master/estate owner made sure that foxes were fully protected by their tenants and game keepers -if someone dug up and stole a fox (other hunts were not beyond doing so) or a covert made for foxes was not maintained then the game keeper could say goodbye to his job and home or expect a public chastising –or all three. Foxes could take ducks, chickens or pheasants so that they “were healthy come hunt season”. There was a fund as noted to (grudgingly) compensate anyone who could prove a fox took their chicken or other bird –through checks made the human theft was discovered in a number of cases.

Hunters were consistently complaining about taxes they had to pay "just to take part in our sport". Hounds were starved -"the breaking up" at the end of a hunt was where the fox, after being mutilated by having its tail or a paw cut off and "treed" (holding it up to a tree branch or just high up enough to get the hounds into a frenzy) was thrown to the hounds with the scream (repeatedly) of "Tear it up! Tear it up!" and "within a few minutes all but the head had been consumed of the fox". This is why the main trophy of hunts are "masks" (fox heads) and brushes (tails). More than one hound is noted to have "felt the crop to show it its place" when a hunter tried to retrieve the head from its hungry mouth. Oddly, the hounds were handed out to tenants “out of season” to take care of and walk but prevent from chasing any fox they saw. The tenant really had no choice if they wanted to keep their home.

The Fox Hunt, William Dent, 1784. -politics got in on the act

_____________________________________

"Wasted horses" refers to hunters (horses) pushed to such extremes that they collapsed and died -sometimes several in long hunts. Hounds were also known to be "in no fit physical state to return the three miles home" some died from exhaustion and others received injuries requiring them to be “dealt with” (killed) –and a good number died while pursuing foxes across railway tracks –to the great annoyance of the MFHs. The financial annoyance these losses caused were more important than the animals which could be replaced. There are several noted hunts where a rider declares that he is "not wasting" his 45 guineas horse in any further pursuit.

There is a record of one post hunt dinner in which the fox head was placed in the punch bowl and the punch stirred using the fox tail. Many widows and ladies “received the favours” of the huntsmen –the psycho-sexual aspect of fox hunting is well known but never been studied as far as I am aware.

Cubbing season was when guests were invited by private invitation -rather than those smelly commoners- and given a date and time to observe hounds getting their "first taste of their work". This involved digging out fox cubs and letting the hounds run them around and kill them. No other reason and then everyone had a jolly good chat about the fun. If a young hound was too eager to get at a holed fox “it must not be spared the crop” while others that “behaved” had to be made a fuss of.

‘Fact’: The evening before a fox hunt the lord and his rich friends got together for a feast. The next day they rode out on their horses following the hunting dogs.

A hunt was also an event that the local farmers and country people would join in. For them it was not a 'sport', it was a way of killing the animals that were killing their chickens and lambs.

Foxhunting became more and more popular in the 19th century. The railways meant that people from the towns and cities could come and take part or watch.

And fox hunting remained popular well into the 20th century.

Where to start? The feasting may have been for guests with a fox hunt taking place next day. Some went fox hunting 3-5 days a week. The main dinner took place after the hunt which was usually a "chaps only" event and at these all sorts of jolly things took place. If the fox was still whole it might be roasted and certainly a 'fun' story of a fox head being eaten is told in one 'sports' book of the time. At one or two dinners the fox head was placed into the punch bowl and stirred around using the fox tail as noted.

People who were tenants had no option but to yell "Tally-hoo!" if they saw the fox being hunted. Were they not to 'support' the Master in this way then their jobs and homes were gone. Tenant farmers again had to attend to cheer the hunters on and if "everyone" supported the hunt one has to ask why other landowners forbade hunting on their land and even farmers objected -eventually using wire to stop riders entering their fields? As the “supreme power of the Squire” faded so did the opposition grow.

Eventually more and more people took legal action against hunts who were dumbfounded by the sheer cheek of these yoikes and even claims for damages caused got a polite "go to hell". By the early 20th century the various hunts, but not all who still declared this a "true sport", were using the excuse in courts (and only courts) that they were hunting vermin -yes, "pest control" started being used as an excuse and one has to ask if after centuries of humans keeping chickens and other fowl why were they still allegedly losing them to foxes? Perhaps careless management and not having to carry out any serious maintenance work or sheer stupidity was involved?

The only people who claimed that fox hunting was "popular" were the hunts and 'sportsmen' involved and this ignored the truth completely. Do not be fooled; this was not some vicious predator (the size of a cat) being valiantly hunted down. From the treatment of hunters (horses), hounds, foxes as well as tenants this was a cruel pastime from start to finish and was not supported "by the entire country as a whole”. If you objected to the absolute cruelty of the “breaking up”, as one writer did in a letter, then their "manhood" was brought into question and the dirtiest word in the hunters vocabulary was "humanitarian" (its there in their books)

Fox Coverts

Fox coverts planted around Wiverton Hall in the 19th century shown on the 1899 map.

‘Fact’: By the end of the 17th century there was no woodland left in the Vale of Belvoir. All the land was farmland. But in the 19th century, landlords began to plant new woods.

This was not for the value of the trees - it was to provide cover for foxes.

Now this is strange so let’s look at this again:

The purpose of fox hunting is to kill the foxes who eat the farmers' hens. If you killed all the foxes, that would be good for the farmers.

The purpose of fox hunting as a 'sport' is to have a good day out, riding horses in the countryside and killing a fox at the end of it. Killing all the foxes would not be good for the people who enjoyed fox hunting as a sport.

Lords and wealthy landowners wanted there to be foxes so they could hunt them. The woodland coverts were planted to encourage foxes so that there would be foxes to hunt. It is recorded that John Musters of Wiverton Hall near Langar was the Master of the South Nottinghamshire Fox Hounds. He planted woodland coverts and dug artificial earths (fox dens) in them…so that he would have foxes to hunt.

This was no 19th century innovation. Foxes had been transported to England since the 1600s and by the mid 1700s those foxes purchased by hunts and sent to estates were placed in artificial coverts and left to "learn their country" so that they could give a longer run by evading dogs through fences and hedges. The knack of keeping and raising foxes was established by the early 1700s and everything from hygene to den construction was set down in print often in fine detail. How to “stable” wild foxes and keep them fearful of humans was established (as noted in The Red Paper along with the appropriate illustrations). Building artificial coverts to keep foxes in is something that continues right up to 2021 which tells you something about the fox numbers –also why hunt crews attempt to snatch urban fox cubs each year.

Like breeding the right type of hound (according to each MFH) and hunter (horse) was seen as a precise science at which a gentleman could excel. The same applied to the keeping of foxes; a great deal of work was put in by people so that the hunt had good and healthy foxes for the hunting season.

Victorian fox hunting -all this for a domestic cat sized animal

____________________________________

The 19th to early 20th century also found a large number of jackal and wolf sightings and incidents. Travelling menageries were often blamed but we now know that these were releases by hunts in England and there are even reports of "stabling" of jackals by a hunt and wolves placed in convenient "natural coverts". Quite literally the hunts tried to look for something "better than a fox" that could out-run, evade and when cornered "put up a good account of itself" -in other words fight the 'precious' hounds.

This, and much more, is all in written and documented history but pro hunt supporters don't want people knowing this. The blog poster seemed to be selective in order to make it seem the woodland planting was for the environment and coverts for nature.

A cartoon of 1850 in 'Punch' magazine by John Briggs shows a protester trying stop a fox hunt. Click to enlarge the picture.

_______________________________________

‘Fact’: Not everyone was happy about fox hunting. In the 1850s there were people who went out to try to stop fox hunts because they thought it was cruel to the foxes. The playwright, Oscar Wilde wrote that 'the English country gentleman galloping after a fox' was 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.'

He was complaining about rich lords as much as about the cruelty of fox hunting.

"There were people" seems to ignore the fact that there were organisations but these were "only Humanitarian" after all and "people" makes it sound like a few eccentrics. "They thought it was cruel" seems to imply that these humanitarians had no idea and were wrong.

Then we come to that last line: "He was complaining about rich lords as much as about the cruelty of fox hunting" This is a pure pro hunt classic line. TV 'celebrity' Alexander Armstrong used this very same line when his love of killing things in the countryside was brought into question. He stated out-rightly that people were basically attacking others who were better off and using the hunting as an excuse.

The line that he loved the 'fun' did not help

That is what is called today, "dropping a bomb" into a conversation -it reveals all.

Many other celebrities have also tarnished themselves over hunting such as TV gardener (a BBC employee) Alan Titchmarsh who like a “bit of a ride out” with the hunt; Comedian Jennifer Saunders ditto. There was the publicised occasion when actor Martin Clunes cheered on a hunt while filming and this infamous ‘animal lover’ cheered the hunt because it was “British” and “traditional”. Another BBC garden expert, Monty Don adopted the same defence of “just because you don’t understand or agree with it” when a co-presenter was found to have a hunt connection.

Others are so desperate that when the National Trust finally banned hunting on its lands hunts called it “ethnic cleansing” which is so ridiculous that it tends to sum up the mindset of pro hunt people.

Current British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that for him there was a "sexual element" to fox hunting and with that claim more or less spoke for many past and present day huntsmen.

Banned

‘Fact’: In 2004 Parliament passed the Hunting Act which banned fox hunting with dogs.

It is still legal to shoot foxes on your own land if they are trying to kill your livestock.

But the argument is not over!

Fox hunting groups started using dogs to follow trails - trail hunting. There is no fox.

A scented trail is laid across the countryside and the dogs follow it. It is like fox hunting - but with no fox.

This is all staggering (not really); "It is still legal to shoot foxes on your own land if they are trying to kill your livestock" which is so out-rightly ridiculous a statement it has to receive a response.

The 'fun' face of the 'sport' in the 2020s

______________________________________

Firstly, even on Face Book, there are pro hunt people posting videos of their dogs tearing at and throwing a dead fox about. "Shot in a field yesterday" is a taunt used since there are clearly no bullet wounds - the joking responses make it clear the dogs killed the fox as "they are good shooters!" One particular fox was killed on the edge of a forest -where were the threatened livestock?

Cattle farmers are shooting foxes regularly. Where is the threat to cows, calves, bulls or horses from an animal the size of a domestic cat?

There are shooters who go out to shoot and kill for pleasure some times every day and they proudly pose for photos with the fox they shot and are lauded as a "credit to the shooting hobby"...."hobby" and "pastime" are not shooting to protect livestock compatible words are they?

What about snaring which is still wide spread and in most cases for fox fur but also killing birds of prey, badgers (a protected species allegedly) small deer, rabbits and domestic pets -not protecting livestock but cruelly killing for gain. I know of five cases in the last year where livestock have been (allegedly) accidentally killed by shooters who thought “it” was a fox.

If it is all quite legal activity why are pro hunt supporters threatening, causing damage to property and even physically assaulting people who speak out as anti-hunt (not hunt saboteurs but villagers who are against the 'sport'? The same people who carry on badger baiting and beat up and cut up the faces of people trying to stop their illegal activity against a protected species –not really out to protect livestock is it?

"Drag hunts" as anyone knows are used as excuses to hunt foxes 'unintentionally' yet in the “classic literature” it is for the purpose of getting a fox. And then we come back to why artificial fox coverts are still being discovered and built and why are fox cubs still being stolen and thrown to fox hounds in 2021?

A mixed field of horses at a hunt, including children on ponies

____________________________________________

‘Fact’: Since the Hunting Act was passed, fox hunts (without foxes) have become more popular. There are now 176 foxhound packs in England and Wales.

However, some anti-hunting campaigners complain that hunts only pretend to follow trails and that foxes are still killed by dogs.

See my previous note. Foxes are killed and it is deliberate and it has been filmed. Here we also have another pro hunt lie that fox hunting has become more popular and there are 176 foxhound packs in England and Wales. Well, in the early 1900s there were over 400+ hunt groups around England and these attracted a few hundred riders but hardly any foxes; it was the Face Book/Social Media entourage gathering of the time with someone who knew a person who was going to a hunt telling someone else and it was all sherry and address books (and for the ladies to attract “the attentions” of the ‘sportsmen’)

Fox hunting was unpopular and even some involved in it foresaw its demise so 176 hunts we ought to point out are even less than when this article was written because two very well known hunts have called it a day and some "packs" in Wales are basically any dog kept in a village -I have seen cross Labradors, jack russells, "pick-n- mix" terriers and even a Yorkie being taken out on a Sunday hunt.

I ought to note that we have something to 'thank' the hunts for: mange -many of the 'sportsmen'-cum-authors in the 1800s note weak foxes with "the scab". They write that this had been “unknown prior to the importing of foxes.” The English took foxes to Australia for 'sport' and introduced mange there -and possibly to the United States though it was officially used to infect coyotes in one state to "control numbers" because shooting, snaring etc was just not enough obviously. Yes, like the introduced Mixomatosis humans caused suffering beyond hunting. The sportsmen of course took none of the blame for this as it was all down to the improper facilities fox dealers kept the animals in before selling.

Fox hunting was and is considered by its aficionados as sport and “fun” and even some hunt websites today call it such.

The fox was hunted for fur and food and when the “common folk” got spare time and a few ales in them they considered it a sport because their “betters” could have the pleasure of sport so why couldn’t they –and nobles looked down on foxes. A few “But, Milord –the foxes are killing my chickens which means I can’t make money and pay my taxes” to the local lord who would not be without his tribute and who cared if the peasants killed foxes. Job done.

Only once all of the boar, wolves and other venery beasts were gone did the “better offs” decide that fox hunting was their sport of choice; no doubt the dormouse breathed a sigh of relief that the hounds were not after it.

It was never about “vermin control” since the Stone Age. It was simply about food, fur and sport and the enjoyment of killing in the latter case via paid membership to a fox hunting club each with its own adopted insignia, uniform and covering a defined hunting “country” (the hunt followers today adopt their own easily recognised if somewhat country joke ‘uniform).

Hunt "foot followers"

____________________________________________

It was blood sport they exported to Australia and North America and where there were no suitable animals in the “colonies” then jackals, coyotes or wolves would do…along with anything else.

This is a very potted history of fox hunting in Britain along with responses to the “idiot board” arguments used by supporters who really have no idea about their own ‘sport’ and its history.