Well, if nothing else dear Steven, I'm glad to have distracted you from
these awful-sounding Millionaire Dope Addicts beating on each other - we too
have such traditions, but there is little activity in the House of Lords on
Sundays.

I suppose I ought to offer a semi-serious response, although I must admit
that this very evening, I have discovered in my local shop a 'Traditional
Ruby Red British Fortified Wine', whose charms have beguiled me, not less
because of the olde worlde hunting print design on the label!  :op

>SB wrote: "Why is it necessary to show a "justifiable need"?" [for taking
an animal]

I consider that nature, natural systems & their 'components' are of value -
both instrumentally & intrinsically.
As modern humans, we have the ability to assess (more or less) the impact
which a particular interaction with nature will have.
If a proposed interaction (eg fox hunting) is likely to have a negative
impact on a given natural system, that is, if this interaction is likely to
cause some 'dis-benefit', then it is my view that there ought to be some
reasonable justification for causing this dis-benefit - perhaps that as I am
also a member of this system, my claim to life is equal to that of the fox,
so, to avoid starvation, I eat the fox - if I can.
But the hunters don't eat foxes - neither does their existence depend on
culling foxes.
Admittedly, not everything I do rests upon some justifiable need - but there
again, I like to think that if my actions are likely to impact negatively on
natural ecosystems, that I have considered the necessity of my actions &
considered alternatives. I suppose this rests on a Tayloresque notion of a
'claim to be respected' - but expanded to natural systems, such that a
natural system generates such a claim.
Fair enough, if you don't think that natural systems generate such a claim,
then this argument isn't likely to cut much ice!!
There's another problem with this I suppose, in that it might be suggested
that fox hunting doesn't create any ecological dis-benefit (as I think you
yourself suggested SB). Well, let's make some allowances - *if* fox hunting
were to grow from being a relict pastime of a diminishing English
aristocracy to being a more popular occupation of the masses (akin, perhaps
to soccer in the UK) and if such fox hunts were effective at catching foxes
(as they are presumably designed to be), then the impact on fox populations
might be significant, thus creating an ecological dis-benefit. The aim of
fox hunting is therefore to create an ecological dis-benefit, which, imo,
needs justification.
Alternatively, if the aim of fox hunting is not to kill foxes, but rather to
provide a reason for gathering together in a traditional fashion, jumping
over hedges & generally having a nice day out in the country, then why risk
the ecological dis-benefit at all? Why not just hunt another dog?
If the most convincing argument from the pro-hunting lobby is that they
should be allowed to continue these gatherings, steeped in tradition &
ritual, and if the killing of foxes is only incidental to all of this, then
is it really necessary to involve foxes at all?
Conversely, if the pro-hunting lobby wish to argue that foxes need to be
culled, then let English Nature or DEFRA do it - DEFRA, for example, have
been extremely effective in culling badgers - although their rationale is,
at best, questionable.

The hunters may argue that tradition itself is sufficient justification for
the taking of foxes. I'm not convinced by this.
The argument here might run something like: 'We've done it for a hundred
years, so we should do it now'; or else, 'It was right before, so it will be
right in the future.'
I think this is both vacuous and erroneous - both accusations based in
problems of induction, that is, the problematic inductive leap from
observations about the past to judgements of the present/future - there's
nothing in the former which entails the latter.

Anyway - apologies for my verbosity!
I would add, finally, though, that I have some sympathy with your 'so what'
response SB, in that of all the problems facing UK wildlife, hunting with
hounds is way down on the list of serious issues - as is, I concur, that of
GM crops. I would suggest that the continued destruction of habitat remains
the biggest threat.
To control the hunting of native species would, however, be a useful tool if
it were part of an overall message of 'hands off wildlife unless you have
to'.....or some such thing.

All the best,
W