SADLY I was not to read the contents of Allan C Steele's reply (Letters, November 24) to my previous letter(November 23) on the politics of wildlife. As usual the tactic is to completely ignore the lack of evidence of any law breaking by fox hunts.

The Hunting With Dogs Act uses the term “flush” in relation to driving a fox to the guns. I find Mr Steele's description of the farmer or smallholder with a gun somewhat comical as he obviously does not understand how difficult it is to force a fox to break cover. This is the practical reason why foxhunting developed, as it was an effective way of flushing a fox.

It would appear that he fails to see the moral dichotomy in his argument. I am sure he knows that people control rabbits, rats, pigeons and other pest species but there is no such moral outrage. The sports which he targets are those with social connotations. I know many people who dislike football and even though it has been responsible for many unfortunate deaths (Heysel, Hillsborough and so on) they do not try to prevent others from enjoying whichever pastime they enjoy. To cite bullfighting, badger baiting and dog fighting is a total non sequiteur as these pastimes are illegal in this country. Fox hunting is legal.

This is just another example of attempting to deprive others of something that they do not wish to do. I have never been foxhunting but I also have no desire to control others and deprive them of their pastime.

David Stubley,

22 Templeton Crescent, Prestwick.