In the absence of management by man (“leaving it to nature”) fox numbers will only plateau when shortage of food as a result of overpopulation and disease suppress reproductive activity or a significant rise in mortality results. This does not represent a healthy vigorous population.
Foxes potentially carry a number of significant diseases transmissible to man and domestic animals including rabies, canine distemper, alveolar echinococciosis, angiostrongylosis and sarcoptic mange (see ref Simpson, 2010 below).
Control of the urban fox can only be achieved by a continuous programme of trapping and humane destruction. Urban foxes, which have lost their instinctive fear of humans, are more amenable to trapping than rural foxes. The practice of dumping trapped urban foxes in the countryside where they are unable to survive is both inhumane and harmful owing to the possibility of cross infection from urban to wild.
The combination of shooting, snaring and hunting as was practised in varying degrees across the country represented a well-tried management system for the rural fox that would be very difficult to improve. Since the banning in England, Wales and Scotland of hunting with hounds, wildlife managers have regrettably been forced to rely more heavily on the less humane and less selective methods of control namely snaring and shooting. But if biodiversity is to be preserved fox numbers must be controlled. The current campaign by single issue animal rights organisations to ban snares is therefore not in the interest of biodiversity in particular the conservation of ground-nesting birds such as curlews, golden plovers and lapwings.
The majority of rural foxes culled in the UK are shot using a rifle. But wounding rates using a rifle can be up to 48% and for a shotgun as high as 60%. Although killing rates increase with the skill of the marksmen, wounding rates do not decrease (ref 2003).
Non-lethal (artificial) methods of population control, such as the laying of contraceptive baits, which are attractive to research groups and single issue organisations, would be impractical, expensive and ethically and biologically questionable. Furthermore they would pose a risk to other wild and domestic species.
The dispersal effect of hunting is valuable in preventing concentrations of foxes in areas where there are vulnerable livestock (ref 2002b).
Hunting provides a vital search and dispatch system for detecting debilitated, wounded and diseased animals in the countryside (ref 2002b)
Prior to the Hunting Act the rural fox population was in good shape precisely because it was managed. Now the rural fox is persecuted as a pest and the population is suffering as a result. The moderation ethic has been lost (ref. J.C.Reynolds 2000, Fox control in the countryside).
Hunting with hounds is a vital and essential tool in wildlife management which should be returned to the countryside (ref 2012).