SIR - In echo of Maggie Hughes I am not an urbanite yet am against hunting. Hunt supporters claim that anti-hunt protesters are ignorant of country living as they have no better argument.

Supporters argue foxes kill livestock. In North America and Canada to protect sheep from coyotes and bears effective methods include placing a dog, donkey or a llama with a flock. Efforts in the USA to eradicate coyotes resulted in bigger litters, partly one presumes due to less competition for food or was it nature's way of preserving the species? Hunt supporters argue hunting spreads foxes out across the country, however, isn't this just transferring a 'problem fox' to someone else? With less competition for food the fox may thrive better! A hunt is not necessarily going to kill the 'problem fox' anyway! Supporters claim few hunts end in a kill thus it is an ineffective method of culling. Natural selection/survival of the fittest is natures way of controlling numbers.

Animals with a spinal chord and nerve endings will feel pain so why waste government money on 'scientific' studies investigating potential stress to a hunted fox? Vets wouldn't cut open a dog without an anaesthetic! It is hypocrisy to allow hunting of foxes, hares and deer to continue in Britain when the RSPCA prosecutes people for cruelty to domestic animals and hypocrisy to protest (as I do) against whaling, milking moon bears gall bladders, eating dogs and cats etc in other countries.

Other pathetic arguments supporting hunting include tradition and employment. However, Britain considered cruel and banned bear baiting, hanging and slavery. Hunting associated employment can continue with drag hunting.

In my opinion hunt supporters think they are of a higher social class thus have rights to do what they want because they have money! I challenge hunt supporters to give a reasoned argument.

Mrs P Young, Cherry Orchard, Wotton-under-Edge