"YABU and a bit Tory."
Would people quit using the term "Tory" as a term of abuse, already? Someone's choice of party to vote for is their democratic right, and their own choice, made often for a whole host of reasons and not just because of one issue, and should be respected.
"The whole point for me is not that killing fluffy little reynard is wrong, but taking pleasure in it, making a game out of it is sick."
The way I see it is that if the hunt is happening anyway, there's no problem with people following the hunt. It makes no difference either way to the fox - it's only our perception of it - and the only thing that matters is whether it affects the fox, which it doesn't. I absolutely disagree with fox hunting for pleasure unless there is a need to cull the fox, but if there is a need to cull the fox, why not hunt behind?
"If the pleasure is in the hunt not the kill, then why are hunts refusing to endorse non lethal hunting, chasing human decoys leaving scented trails. No, the hunters need the kill."
The answer is, because the other methods of fox culling are far more cruel, and there remains a need to cull foxes, ergo a need for lethal hunting.
"Fishing for food is not really the same thing as fishing for sport but neither one employs the pageantry and carnival of fox hunting. It is nor required that the fish feel terror and suffering for hours before it is caught and killed."
Fishing for food is irrelevant in this context. Fishing (catch and return) for sport is cruel and hideous and should be banned. The fish feels terror and suffering for minutes - is that ok as it's not "hours"? Furthermore the pain doesn't stop when its released as the hole in its mouth still needs to heal. That could go on for weeks
I don't understand the term "pageantry and carnival". Fishing may not be on horseback therefore not interesting to watch (assuming you're interested in horses), but I don't see what that has to do with anything. Again, you're confusing what matters to the animal with what doesn't.
"And you are right, you are no expert on hunting"
Who isn't?
"the fox endures hours of terror being chased by hounds before being torn to pieces, the idea that the dogs make some kind of surgical incision to painlessly euthanise the fox, is laughable. If you have ever been bitten by a dog you will know they give little thought to the suffering of those they attack."
Dogs who attack humans are seldom are able to kill instantly. Something of a scale issue, usually (anyone thinking of towel-related space invasions here, or just me?). I'm not sure anyone's mentioned "surgical incisions" so please, if you want to make a rational argument, stay rational.
Dogs are not thinking of the suffering they're inflicting. They're thinking of not letting their prey get away. Best way to do that is kill it instantly, which if you see any trained hunting dog catching prey that it's supposed to kill (as opposed to, say, a retriever type gun dog) it will kill it in one bite. Dogs who attack humans aren't seeing them as prey, they're usually defending themselves or their property (or similar). It's not about a meal.
The foxes don't usually run for hours - usually minutes at a time - but even if the hunt goes on a long while I maintain it's better than being shot badly and left to die over a week or more.
It's a balance of necessary evils and when a better option becomes available, I'll take it. In the meantime, I maintain it's the cleanest, safest, most effective and most animal friendly option available.