Beyond Tradition, What is Fox Hunting, Animal Welfare, and Public Interest in Ireland?

In this episode, Clinical Animal Behaviourist Barbara Hardman responds to a publicly circulated Instagram video advocating against the proposed ban on fox hunting in Ireland. 

https://www.instagram.com/antler_challenge?igsh=MWR0cHRpbWVhbTl2cg==

As the Animal Health and Welfare (Ban on Fox Hunting) Bill 2025 progresses through the Dáil, this episode examines the claims being made in defence of fox hunting and asks whether they stand up to scrutiny when viewed through the lenses of animal welfare science, behaviour, psychology, ethics, and public evidence.

Using short excerpts from the original video for context, where I critically analyses recurring arguments around animal “purpose,” equine bravery, mental health, resilience, parenting, community, and rural life. I separates genuine human needs, such as connection, wellbeing, and belonging, from the practices being used to justify them, and challenges the idea that animal harm is necessary to meet those needs.

This is not a personal attack, nor a rejection of people’s lived experiences. It is a claim-by-claim examination of rhetoric, assumptions, and evidence, grounded in professional expertise and public-interest discussion.

With public polling indicating that a clear majority of Irish people support a ban on fox hunting, this episode also explores questions of equity, representation, and responsibility, including who gets to speak for “community,” and who bears the cost when animals have no voice at all.

📧barbara.j.hardman@brighthorse.ie

🌐https://www.brighthorse.ie/

🌐https://www.brighthound.ie/

☎️+353 85 143 8688

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

My name is Barbara Hardman. I'm a clinical animal behaviourist with the ABTC and APBC, otherwise known as a CAB. I hold a BSC in zoology and an MSc in Equine Science, and I work with canines and equines in behavioural modification and clinical cases across Ireland. I'm starting this episode by clearly stating who I am and where I'm coming from because this podcast was inspired by a video that's been circulating Instagram in relation to a proposed bill before the doll errand to ban foxhunting in Ireland. In the video that's circulating social media, each contributor introduces themselves by name and their profession before offering their views in support of continuing to foxhunt. I want to be transparent from the outset. I fundamentally disagree with many of the claims that are made in the video. This episode is not about attacking the individuals, nor is it about questioning people's personal experiences or emotions around foxhunting. It is about examining specific claims that are being presented publicly in this video in the context of an active piece of legislation. It is about assessing whether those claims stand up to scrutiny when viewed through the lens of animal behaviour, welfare science, psychology, and public evidence. Throughout this episode, I'm going to be using short excerpts that are publicly available in the video. These clips are included solely for the purpose of criticism, review, and analysis, only where it is necessary to accurately represent the claims that are being discussed. I will then respond to those claims, drawing on my experience as behavioural scientist, welfare and ethics in animals, both canine and equine. Hunting and fox hunting in Ireland is not a private matter. It involves animals that cannot consent, it affects land use, it also affects communities, and it is currently the subject of legislation being debated in Ireland. My aim here is to unpack the arguments being made and explain why many of them are misleading, incomplete, and are unsupported by the evidence. Before jumping into the main discussion, I just want to briefly explain why this episode is structured the way it is and why I'm using short audio clips from the video in question. This is for transparency. The video I'm responding to is publicly published on Instagram. The contributors have clearly identified themselves, their name and their occupation, as well as their views in relation to the proposed fox hunting ban. In order to accurately represent those arguments and let their voices be heard, I will be playing short excerpts in the video. These clips are included so that listeners can hear the claims directly in full context rather than relying on me paraphrasing. I've deliberately chosen to structure the episode in this way because there are recurring themes and arguments. The issues raised are not unique to the one speaker. They reflect a broader narrative that frequently appears when we're discussing hunting, traditionalism, and the use of animals. My responses are therefore directed at the claims made and not a personal character, intent, or lived experience. When I agree with aspects of what are being said, for example, the importance of community, access to nature, physical activity, and social connection, I'll say so clearly. Where I disagree, I'll explain why, and I'll do so by referring to behavioural science, welfare and ethics, and the available evidence. Without hunting, these animals would not exist.

SPEAKER_05 3:17

And I'm employed here at Special Huntsman. I work and care for these hounds every single day, and it is my dream job. The hounds in these tenants have been pregnant for almost 300 years. If hunting was done, I would be unemployed and these hounds would actually be gone as they would have no further buttons. Please vote against the bill. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 3:34

One of the very first claims that you heard in that video, and one that appears to be repeated in different forms, is an argument that without fox hunting, the animals involved, particularly the dogs otherwise known as hounds, would no longer exist. This claim is often framed emotionally, because we love and care about the dogs, and suggests that a ban on hunting would inevitably result in these animals being destroyed, and I quote, as they would have no purpose. This is a classic example of something that's known as a straw man argument. A straw man argument works by misrepresenting the opposing position as something extreme or catastrophic, and then arguing against that distorted version instead of engaging with the real issue. In this case, the implication is that a banning fox hunting is the equivalent to condemning animals to death. That framing does not stand up to scrutiny. A ban on a specific activity does not logically or ethically require the destruction of the animals currently involved in the activity. There are numerous alternatives and outcomes that are not acknowledged in this argument, including rehoming, repurposing animals for non-lethal activity, changing of breeding practices, or simply a gradual reduction in the numbers over time. Hands and hunting dogs are absolutely beautiful creatures. If this is a dream job and we love the animals, why would the necessary consequences of no longer hunting foxes be their euthanasia and destruction? You either love the dog and you love what you do because you love the dogs, or you don't. There's also a question here of the idea of no purpose. What happens to these dogs when they can no longer hunt? Are they retired? Do they live a long and happy life? Is the idea that once they have no purpose or injured during hunting, which can and does happen, have shorter lifespans. When this happens, what happens to that dog? The suggestion that animals must be used in order to justify their continued existence raises deeper ethical concerns. It treats animals as resources whose value is conditional on their utility to humans. Now, this happens with horses and the dogs involved. And rather than treating them like sentient beings, which they are, with their own intrinsic worth, loving an animal and caring for them is fundamental and incompatible with the idea that their life only has a value if they perform a specific function. This argument also relies heavily on emotional leverage. By presenting the false dilemma, hunting or death, it bypasses any kind of meaningful discussion about welfare, ethics, and responsibility. In animal welfare debates, this tactic appears frequently. If a practice is challenged, the response becomes, then the animals would all be gone. But this is not evidence-based reasoning, nor is it a responsible way to engage in a policy decision that affects animals' lives. When legislation is proposed to end a harmful and unethical practice, the relevant question is not whether the animals can continue to be used in the same way, but how society takes responsibility for the animals whose lives have been shaped by those human choices, and the ending harm does not require abandoning care. In fact, it demands more accountability, not less. Hunting makes horses brave and confident. This assertion is widespread within equine and hunting cultures. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of equine behaviour, stress, and learning. We need to understand that bravery is not the same as learning and being supported during a stressful situation. Being brave about something means being scared of it and doing it anyway. A fireman is brave. They never stop being scared of that fire because it would kill them. Brave is the wrong word that we want. When it comes to modern equine disciplines, we want confident, calm horses. We don't need brave ones. We are no longer riding into battle. From an ethological and behavioural perspective, that's the horse's natural behavior. Horses are prey animals whose primary evolutionary response to a perceived threat is flight. In hunting environments, horses are typically surrounded by large numbers of other horses, moving at speed, exposed to unpredictable stimuli, noises, pressures from the riders, and heightened arousal. In these conditions, the elevated adrenaline and cortisol levels are not indicators of confidence, nor are they of learning. They are markers of stress. And stress is the detriment to learning. When horses are in that heightened level of arousal, they actually do not learn well in that situation. They are more likely to make errors in their riding and jumping over fixed fences. I have seen horses jumping over or attempting and the riders jump over a fixed fence, a wall, hitting both their legs and doing a full rotation and falling. And riders picking up the reins and getting back on to do it again. And the reason they do is so that they can try and support learning and confidence and bravery. The horse could have been seriously injured, and so could the rider. And learning does not occur effectively during high stress. What that horse is actually learning is I have no other choice. I cannot say no, and I have to do it. When the horse is operating in a state of fear or extreme arousal, the brain prioritizes survival responses over information processing. The galloping, the jumping, the compliance, often observed in hunting fields, are therefore not evidence of bravery or confidence in learning, but of a horse responding instinctively to the herd movement and a perceived threat. It's frequently mislabeled as bravery in these contexts. It's more accurately described as flooding followed by learned helplessness. Flooding occurs when an animal is exposed to an overwhelming stimulus with no ability to escape or control the situation. When repeated, this results in shutdown response where an animal ceases to resist not because it's confident, but because it has learned that resistance is futile. What we humans are likely seeing in these horses is learned helplessness, not a brave or compliant horse. Horses that display learned helplessness may appear outwardly compliant and can, but this state is incompatible with the genuine confidence or positive learning. It also carries significant welfare risks and health and safety risks to the rider, by the way. Stress impairs any kind of coordination, decision making, or physical awareness, increasing the likelihood of injury during fast-paced group riding and jumping. And we have seen this throughout the research. When we do not offer horses a chance to say no, it increases the risk of more dangerous jumps being taken, injuring both the horse and the rider. Equestrian training that genuinely builds confidence relies on a controlled exposure, choice, consistency, and the ability for the horse to opt out when they are overwhelmed and to readdress our training strategy. Environments that prioritize speed, pressure, and conformity do not meet these criteria. Reframing stress based on compliance as bravery obscures the welfare implication and prevents meaningful discussion about what is ethical, what is evidence-based equitation, and what good training looks like. Claiming that hunting produces better horses does not make it so. Hunting is good for mental health and builds resilience.

SPEAKER_01 11:34

I'm a hospital doctor. Hunting is great for mental well-being. Immersing oneself in nature really clears the mind, not to mention physical well-being. Exercise is so valuable. Hunting's also good for teaching life lessons, like overcoming fear. Jumping on disputes or dreams that are human. There's only one way to get over them, and that's just to get over them. I'll carry that with me throughout my life. I think it's really important we preserve it for future generations.

SPEAKER_00 11:59

Several of the contributors in the video argue that fox hunting is beneficial for mental health, well-being, resilience, and personal development. These claims are often framed around the immersion in nature, physical exercise, and the idea that overcoming fear builds character. While some of the elements mentioned have genuine value, the conclusions drawn from them are deeply flawed, particularly from a human psychology perspective. Spending time outdoors and engaging in physical activity, the experience of social connection are all well-supported contributors to benefiting mental health. However, none of these benefits are dependent on hunting, nor do they require the pursuit and the killing of an animal. Conflating the benefits of nature and movement with the act of hunting itself creates a false equivalent that obscures the ethical and psychological considerations that we need to take on board here. One particularly concerning claim is the suggestion that a way to overcome fear is to simply, quote unquote, get over it by forcing oneself through frightening experiences. From a behavioral and psychological perspective, this is not how fear is safely or effectively addressed. Evidence-based approaches to fear reduction rely on gradual, controlled exposure, choice, predictability, and a sense of agency. We also use things like systematic desensitization and counterconditions even within human psychology. Simply overwhelming an individual, whether that's an animal or a human, does not build resilience. It risks entrenching the fear and triggering shutdown responses. Kick on and carry on is something that we talk about a lot in the equestrian industry, and I have no time for it. It is no basis in actual human psychology, and it is detrimental to people's welfare. The distinction matters because this approach is being described closely resembles that of flooding, a method that I've already mentioned and can be detrimental to psychological well-being. Flooding can suppress outward signs of fear in the short term, but it doesn't resolve the underlying emotional responses and can increase anxiety, learned helplessness, and harm over time. Also, it implies that fear in these situations or anxiety is a bad emotional response. It is not. Riding horses in and itself is incredibly dangerous. Actually understanding and assessing the situation in a very clinical and critical way is so important to keep you and your horse safe. Sitting there and saying, hmm, I feel a little bit anxious and worried about this jump. My horse seems a bit on edge, fuck it, I'm gonna kick on and get over it because that's the only way to get over your fear, is an incredibly dangerous position to put you and your horse in. Your body is telling you something and you need to listen to it in order to safely approach and navigate a jump, in order to keep your horse safe and to actually promote learning. It's also important to consider the implications from a medical or caring professional that's speaking outside their area of expertise, which this individual is. They have quite happily said, I am a doctor saying this, holding professional titles, but does not confer the authority across all domains. It doesn't. Just because you're a doctor doesn't mean that you understand how to actually support behavioral modification, fear, and mental health. These statements should be grounded in established psychological science, and presenting them in an oversimplified and inaccurate way creates inaccurate narratives about fear and resilience, risks normalizing harmful approaches to well-being. Finally, there is an ethical dimension that cannot be ignored. Supporting one's individual mental health by subjecting animals to stress, injury, and death raises serious questions about the proportionality and responsibility. Mental health is vital, but it cannot ethically be built on the practices that inflict harm on sentient animals who have no choice in the matter. Well-being is not achieved by domination, suppression, or forced exposure to fear, let alone the killing of an innocent animal. These arguments and these claims deserve careful evidence-based scrutiny. Hunting builds responsibility, character, and family bonds.

SPEAKER_04 16:09

We have to contribute to that to local economy, but all our suppliers are local hardware stores or local vets, local areas. Which means we would not be putting money back into local people.

SPEAKER_00 16:21

Another common argument presented in this video is that fox hunting plays a vital role in teaching our children responsibility, building character, and fostering strong family bonds. These claims are often framed around caring for ponies, learning about commitment, presumably husbandry and mucking out, brushing and caring for them, and spending meaningful time together with one's family. Teaching children responsibility and empathy and care for others is unquestionably important. However, these values do not depend on hunting, nor do they require the use or harm of animals. Caring for a horse, learning husbandry, and developing a sense of routine and accountability can all occur outside of the context of hunting and is incredibly important for children. What is implied by several of these statements is a false exclusivity. That without hunting, the motivation to care for these animals, to parent intentionally or to engage with family life would somehow disappear. This framing is deeply problematic. It's just the responsibility and connection are conditional to the participation in a specific harmful activity rather than being an inherent value that could be nurtured in more ethical ways. There is also an important distinction between teaching the care and normalizing use. When animals are positioned primarily as tools for character building or social outcome, their welfare risks being subordinate to our human goals. Responsibility grounded on empathy requires recognizing that animals are sentient beings and their own needs and limitations, not as instrument for human development. Family bonds and shared experiences are valuable, but they do not gain moral weight simply because they occur within a tradition. Ethical evaluation requires asking not only whether an activity brings people together, but also whose expense. The practice relies on animal stress and harm cannot be justified solely by the benefits that they confer to the participants. Responsibility, character building, and connection in a family unit can be built through care, consistency, and respect for the animal. They do not depend on hunting, and they do not require the normalization of an animal suffering as a developmental tool for your family's cohesion. Hunting is a vital role, community, and social cohesion.

SPEAKER_03 18:35

I've been hunting since I was nine, and the reason I love it so much is the social aspect, getting to meet everyone every Sunday out in the fore.

SPEAKER_06 18:43

Social opportunities are limited. And what I see is not a tradition but a vital social network. It brings people together across generations, it supports mental health, it provides a sense of belonging in community. If fox hunting is removed, we risk worsening, isolation, loneliness, and inequality in rural areas. Any discussion about it then must consider those human consequences as well.

SPEAKER_00 19:08

Finally, the recurring claim throughout the video is that fox hunting is essential for community life in rural Ireland. Contributors describe it as a vital social network, a source of belonging, and safeguard against isolation and loneliness and inequality. Now I would highly argue about the inequality bit, considering that generally speaking, people who hunt are in the minority. We know this from the research: 11% of people to 17% support fox hunting to continue. It is quite an expensive hobby to have, you know, and a lot of hunting takes place midweek where people can take time off work to go and do it. So the idea that it supports inequality is very much contested in my view. It is an affluent rural pursuit, is what they like to call it. It is a blood sport, and it does not support inequality. Community, social connection, and opportunities to gather are undeniably important in Irish communities, particularly in rural areas where services and infrastructure are limited. However, attributing those benefits to hunting itself is misleading and misidentifies the problem, and in doing so risks entrenching inequality even further. The reason that rural Ireland has limited services and infrastructure is because our governments have failed to provide them. It is not substituted by hunting an animal, and that is not how we address inequality in those communities and the lack of services that are there. What's repeatedly described as a community benefit is not unique to hunting. The sense of belonging, shared purpose, intergenerational connections that people value and should exist independently to the practices that rely on harming an animal. The community is the benefit here, not the hunting. It's so important to acknowledge the issues of access and exclusion. Participation in hunting requires a significant financial, social, and cultural capital. Horses, equipment, land, access, time, place, activity firmly are out of reach to the majority of people. Framing hunting as a representative of rural Ireland ignores the reality that it is accessible only to a relatively small and affluent minority. The claims that removing fox hunting would worsen inequality inverts the situation. Claims that removing fox hunting would worsen inequality invert the situation. Inequality already exists when a practice is accessible to a few while being presented as a community necessity. Moreover, the animals involved, horses, dogs, or hounds and foxes, have no agency or voice in this so called community, yet bear the greatest costs. There is also a broader structural issue being overlooked here. When rural social life becomes dependent on a private, exclusionary activity, this reflects a failure of public policy rather than Rather than a justification for the preservation of a harmful tradition. The responsibility to foster inclusive community spaces lies with the government, investment in rural services, not with the continuation of a practice that causes harm to animals. A society serious about reducing isolation and inequality must prioritise accessible ethical forms of community building. Hunting is neither a necessary nor an appropriate solution to the social challenges faced in rural Ireland. Lastly, to place all these claims in context, that this is not simply a cultural debate or difference in personal preferences. This is an active piece of proposed legislation before the Dole Erin. The stated proposal of the bill is to amend the Animal Welfare Act from 2020 in order to remove the exemption that currently allows fox hunting and to prohibit organised fox hunting on animal welfare grounds. Because this is a live legislation issue, it's also a public interest issue. When people speak publicly in favour of fox hunting and it's framed in the representation of rural Ireland, community life, or the national mood, those claims must be tested against the actual available evidence, including public opinion data. The recent polling commission of Ireland suggested that a substantial majority of public support is there to ban foxhunting as a sport. A very small proportion opposed, and a minority were unsure. Even allowing a typical polling limitations, the overall picture is fairly consistent. Fox hunting does not appear to reflect the majority of public sentiment in Ireland. This matters for two reasons. First, public debate can be distorted when a minority actively is present, as if it speaks for the countryside or the community more broadly. A practice can be meaningful to those who participate while still have ethically unacceptable to the wider community, particularly when it involves an animal suffering. Secondly, the legislation exists precisely to set boundaries around what our society considers is acceptable, especially when there are vulnerable and voiceless animals concerned. In this case, those animals are at the centre of the practices, the hounds, the dogs, the foxes, the horses. They cannot consent, they cannot opt out, and they cannot be heard in a public process. Their welfare is therefore central to the ethical concern, regardless of how strongly any group feels about that tradition. So when we talk about public opinion, the point is not to reduce the ethics to a popularity contest. The point that is repeatedly framed in the video that a ban would be out of touch with rural Ireland or to remove a universally valued community pillar is not supported by the available evidence. When all these standards are brought together: animal welfare, behaviour, psychology, community, and public opinion, the picture is clear. The arguments presented to support fox hunting rely heavily on emotion, tradition, and personal benefit while consistently failing to engage in the evidence, ethics, and exclusivity. What people repeatedly describe as being a valuable value is not hunting itself. It is the community, it is the connection, it is the time outdoors, it's the physical activity, it's the shared purpose and belonging. These are legitimate human needs, but they are not unique to fox hunting and they do not require animals to be harmed, stressed, or killed in order to exist. Public opinion matters here because it exposes a gap between who is speaking and who is being represented. When polling consistently shows around 70% and some report 80% of the Irish public support a ban on fox hunting, it becomes clear the practice does not reflect a shared equitability within the community activity. It reflects the interest and experience of a relatively small, privileged group of people. Equity is at the centre of this discussion. An activity that requires significant financial resources, land access, cultural capital cannot reasonably be described as inclusive, nor can it be justified as a social necessity when the same benefits can be accessed through accessible ethical alternatives. Most importantly, animals must not be treated as collateral in debates about human well-being or tradition. Horses, hounds, dogs, foxes are sentient beings whose welfare is directly impacted by these practices, and yet they have no voice in the conversation. Any ethical assessment that centers around only human benefit while ignoring animal costs is incomplete. This episode is not about vilifying the individuals who spoke in the video. I have been very careful not to include their names and their professions, even though they have done so publicly. They voice an opinion that has been talked about many times within equine circles and hunting circles. This episode is very much about slowing down the conversation, even though I'm pretty sure I talked very fast, examining the claims carefully and asking whether they hold up when viewed through the lens of evidence-based animal welfare, ethics, psychology, and community responsibility. If we are serious about building strong rural communities, if we are serious about supporting mental health in this country, and we are serious about building family bonds, teaching responsibility to children and care, then we have to be willing to do so without causing the harm to animals. We can do this without framing harm as a necessity. We can do it without framing it as an inevitability, or in some cases that it is somehow virtuous. This is a standard in modern Ireland that we need to meet. I, Barbara Hardman, clinical animal behaviorist, I am in favour of this bill.