These debates never go well. What usually happens is that someone mentions hunting, various people come along and call people who go hunting names of varying levels of offensiveness, someone attempts to explain why they hunt, they are then personally called names at the more uncouth end of the spectrum and remove themselves from the arguments, and eventually someone anti-hunting says 'well, none of the hunting people are engaging with us which is proof that it is indefensible/they are inbred toff twits.' 
I am going to try and put across my point of view and answer some questions. I'll hopefully do it in a rational way with no name calling or over-emotional ranting.
I hunt and have hunted with foxhound, draghound and bloodhound packs over the last 35 years. I've hunted with some posh packs and some farmers pack and most types in between. I've followed on horseback and on foot and in a car. I come from a working class background but I place much of the credit for me getting to where I am today with the opportunities given to me many years ago when I was very little by my father's friend and his wife who were hunting farmers.
I'd like to point out that hunting a quarry animal with a pack of hounds is illegal now. However when the Hunting Act 2004 was brought in a political fudge was made of it, leading to dissatisfaction among both the anti and pro hunting groups. In my opinion hunting is not an activity that a great deal of parliamentary time should be devoted to - it was a well publicised figure at the time of the ban that roughly 100 times as many hours were spent debating how to ban hunting as were spent debating whether to invade Irag. That balance of effort is wrong, and the amount of effort still be spent on changing the law is also wrong in my opinion - I won't vote for an MP candidate based on their opinion on hunting when education, health, welfare, defence, etc are much better uses of their time. I feel that if the law was clearer on the matter i.e. hunting is definitively banned, then any repercussions would be valid. As it is though, the law is deliberately vague in several areas.
Firstly, it is not illegal to use hounds or dogs to flush a prey to an alternative method of killing a fox. It is only illegal to purposefully hunt and kill the fox with hounds or dogs. The number of hounds or dogs to be used differs according to the intended method of killing the fox. For example, if the fox is to be shot, only 2 dogs may be used to flush in open country and 1 dog if the fox is to be flushed from underground, and this is the reason for the terrier men. However if the fox is to be killed during the act of it being flushed by a bird of prey, 3 or more hounds may be used. (This being the most obvious example of the ludicrousness of the Hunting Act as it stands - I don't know of any hunt who had ever previously even considered the use of a bird of prey as part of their activities, it had never occurred to them until Tony Blair suggested it!) It is not illegal for a hound to accidentally kill a fox either, if it can be proved that it was intended to be killed in a legal way and an accident report is submitted - this was introduced in order to ensure that there was no pattern of 'accidents.' As it is, however, some hunts are more prone to accidents than others, just as some sabs use illegal and immoral techniques in their 'monitoring' activities. Tony Blair was trying to cover all bases and keep everyone happy with an incomplete and ineffectual bill, and failed to keep either side happy at all.
To say that all hunters partake in illegal activity is akin to saying that everyone who drives a car is speeding. Most people are very happy to hunt within the law and enjoy trail hunt where a fox based scent trail is laid, myself and my family among them. We go for the thrill of riding our horses across country normally out of bounds to us, the pleasure of spending time with friends (gossiping and sharing a hip flask are undeniably enjoyable parts of the day) and watching hounds work. Hounds do not need to be hunting a prey animal in order for hound work to be exciting - bloodhounds hunt what they call 'the clean boot' - a runner who has spent some time with the hounds at the meet who then runs across country for the hounds to pick up their scent. With my local foxhound pack a fox urine trail is laid through woods and fields where they would once have hunted foxes, however there is a complex relationship between the hunt and farmers and landowners.
The relationship between hunts and farmers has developed over many decades and is in part responsible for certain aspects of the countryside you see today. Some farmers use hunts for providing a fallen stock service - taking away animals that cannot be used in the human food chain for whatever reason (usually because they are old or injured) as over the last few decades the number of licensed abattoirs and incinerators has decreased and meant that some farmers have no cheap way of disposing of an injured animal humanely and economically.
There are also farmers who require a pest control service. Not all farmers have a problem with foxes as predators, but some do. It is very easy to say people who lose animals to predators should look after them better, but again this is a complex situation. I had a farmer friend years back who raised pigs and piglets for the meat industry outside. Most pigs are raised inside in fairly unsavoury conditions, and I am always delighted to hear of farmers who put their animal welfare first - certainly pigs are intelligent enough that being kept outside improves their quality of life. My farmer friend had his fields surrounded by high voltage electric anti-fox fencing, yet would still lose approximately 60 piglets a year to foxes. Only one breach of an electric fence was needed in order for an entire litter of piglets to be killed - a fox will not kill just one if they see there are 8 to be had. In the winter, when it snows, it was obvious where the fox would get in - some foxes would learn that an electric shock (dulled by a thicker coat in the winter) was worth the prize to be had on the other side. This farmer friend would welcome the hunt on his land. These days if such a situation arose the terrier men would be informed of the location of the problem fox, and they carry out the pest control services legally while the mounted field enjoy the farmer's hospitality and for that day are able to ride across his land.
We hunt frequently across land that is also used for keeping game birds on. Once upon a time it would have been not uncommon to see the fox creep out of a corner of the woods and live to see another day while hounds and terrier men went to work in the woods. Now it is more likely that all foxes in that wood will have been eradicated to protect the game birds - a lot of money is made entertaining shooting parties from London and the birds must be protected at all costs for the wealthy businessmen to shoot. Gamekeepers won't make a decision as to which foxes are a problem and which are not, they remove them all.
Which brings me to the way they are removed. I saw earlier in the thread that some posters were quite horrified by the idea of lamping. Since foxes are mainly nocturnal, lamping is actually the only effective way of identifying your fox. In the moment that they turn to gaze at the bright light you are provided with the opportunity to identify that it is a fox (and not a badger or deer) and it is momentarily standing still enough for a clean shot. Lamping is legal. Shooting (provided the marksman is proficient) is an extremely effective, non-selective way of removing all foxes from an area. It doesn't discriminate, and there is no 'survival of the fittest' permitted.
Turning to my experience of saboteurs. As I mentioned early on, I appreciate that not all folk who are anti-hunting are violent lawbreakers, but neither are all pro-hunting folk. However the ones that are operating outside of the law, carrying out provocative and dangerous activities are the ones that bring themselves to wider attention, much like the pro-hunters who break the law are the ones that feature in the news but the law abiding ones quietly go about their lawful business. I have seen saboteurs trying to use scent and sounds to call hounds across a dual carriage way - no regard for the hound or the driver of a vehicle on that road. I have been followed by people in black masks - they were trespassing on private land and filming the group I was with which contained children. I have been told to ride slowly through a forest as the last time the hunt was there wire was strung between trees at a height to seriously injure or decapitate a rider and to slice a horse's legs to the bone to bring it down. Our old huntsman had his horse taken hold of by the reins and it was then stabbed in the chest with a sharpened stake, when it reared up it was pulled over by a sab and fell, crushing the huntsman and breaking his ribs. I have been out following drag hounds and bloodhounds in the past that have been targeted by sabs, thus demonstrating the total lack of understanding sometimes about exactly what is going on.
I cannot defend the actions of a very small minority of hunters who bring the rest of us into disrepute. But nor can it be denied that there violence and abhorrent behaviour committed by those who claim to be protecting animals either. While those extremes of personalities exist and are involved, it will always be difficult to carry out an informed debate. The outrageous actions of hunters and sabs that are circulated on social media are the the actions that have been captured on film (which is often heavily edited before being published!) and designed to increase any divide and decrease any willingness of each side to understand the other.
I written absolutely loads here, and don't feel I have covered even a fraction of the matters involved. I hope I've managed to clarify a few things. I am sure at some point someone will still call me scum or a posh twat. As long as everyone is civilised I will happily come back to contribute further tot the debate though.