Damien, you need to get out of the city once in a while, that liberal fog is rotting your brain.
I assure you, no such hierarchy exists out here in the big, wide countryside, where a farmer will kill a fox or a rat with precisely the same amount of forethought as he would swat a fly. The calculation is expediency, and nothing more. And regardless of any argument from the Theory of Evolution, philosophy still generally holds the human race to be fundamentally different to the animal kingdom, being capable of morality and self-awareness. We don't make a taboo out of killing people because we're the most intelligent animal; we do so because as beings, we set ourselves apart and above animals and therefore do not treat each other as animals.
I'm surprised to see you justifying your position on an ill-defined appeal to higher morality ("it just is"). If that's your view, that's fine. However where this thread has been over and over again in the past 4 years is into the territory of what gives one group of people the right to criminalise an activity enjoyed by another group of people. "it just is", is not sufficient justification. Nor is an appeal to "democracy". One of the fundamental ingredients of a stable democracy is the understanding that the winning side will use its power responsibly and not victimise the losers (which, incidentally, is why Egypt is going to hell in a handcart. Morsi won the election, but seems not to have understood everything that entailed). Yet, in "banning" fox hunting, that is what Parliament did. There was no public health issue and the fox as a species was not under threat. There was simply the fact that one group of people didn't like what another group of people was doing, and being the larger group, they acted to ban it.
Thankfully such misuses of our democratic process are very rare. It is on a point of democratic principle that I hope to see the Act repealed.