A FLURRY of activity in your Letters’ page, following the Boxing Day, meets demonstrates that this issue still causes both divide and inaccuracy.

I believe that whether someone supports or opposes hunting in any form is a personal matter but it should be based on facts, not fictions.

RELEVANT NEWS:

To that end please could I correct a number of the more lurid mistakes in last week’s letters.

• Hunts liaise with the farmers whose land they cross so that they know where stock is and what to avoid – they do not ‘cause havoc’ and livestock are not at risk of worry or attack.

• The fact that trail hunting came into being after the hunting ban does not indicate that they are fox hunts – they are the legal alternative to fox hunts

• Foxes are not and never have been ‘captured and starved to be released with injuries’ – that is totally illogical.

• Drag hunts are a human laid trail over a pre-determined course and nothing to do with traditional fox hunts or the modern equivalent of trail hunting.

• Hunts do not and never have dug out cubs ‘to keep until the next hunt’.

Hopefully the above points will enable your readers to make a more informed decision and I would urge people to study both sides of the argument, including scientific and actual facts, rather than just the emotive comments of fanatics on either side.

Jonathan Jackson

Bartestree