I HAVE been an avid reader of Points of view over many years. In all that time I don't think I have ever encountered a more badly argued case than that put forward by Colin Richey in support of a re-introduction of legalised blood sports, Daft hunting act must be repealed, Echo, March 7. I can only assume that Mr Richey has had his head stuck in a bucket for the last 40 years, so outdated are his comments.

Firstly, Mr Richey rolls out the old chestnut that the anti-hunt movement was driven primarily by class jealously but he is betrayed by his use of the word 'toffs' which is always employed in this connection.

In fact the 'toffs' argument was just one of many bogus side issues set up by the Countryside Alliance in a vain attempt to divert attention from the focus of the Hunting Act; the real purpose of which was to outlaw the hunting of wild animals by dogs (hounds) where this was being undertaken for sport.

Thus, the practice of digging foxes out after they have been run to earth by hounds, or bolted from the earth to make them 'run again' has also been outlawed. Does Mr Richey seriously want to see a return of these nasty practices? Perhaps he'd like to see the badger-baiting laws repealed at the same time?

Mr Richey also claims that hunting has been part of the countryside since time immemorial. Not so; historically, fox hunting is a relatively new sport, evolving from around 1750, with an emphasis not on killing foxes but on chasing them for sport.

Read any hunting reports before the 1960s, when hunting first seriously began to be challenged, and you will find that a fox which was 'chopped' (ie killed early in the chase) was a bad fox. A 'good' fox on the other hand was one which provided a long and varied chase.

Mr Richey also states that there are a great number of occasions when the fox and stag evade capture and death — which rather contradicts his 'means of control' argument.

In any event, is this a sound reason in itself to subject a wild animal to the extreme stress of an unnatural chase for, as he puts it, 'a great day out'?

Here, though, Mr Richey's desire for 'a great day out' actually provides support for the current state of affairs for he makes the case for drag-hunting, which in essence is what the Hunting Bill has created.

The real pleasure for many who follow hounds is the art of venery (ie hound work) and the unfettered ride. This can be accomplished far better by drag-hunting – where a false trail is laid — than by hunting a fox where for many hours during the day the field (mounted riders) will be dragging their heels while the huntsman draws for a fox. Perhaps you don't want the Act repealed after all, Mr Richey. Which is it?

Mr Richey claims he has often been impressed by the spectacle of a Boxing Day meet but then he went home! Had he stayed with the hunt for the rest of the day (pre-ban) he may well have been subjected instead to the spectacle of an exhausted fox finally overtaken by hounds; an awful sight never to be forgotten.

Perhaps the next time you put pen to paper, Mr Richey, you could at least take the trouble to research your chosen subject. I suggest you read The Wild Host – the History and meaning of the Hunt written by huntsman Rupert Issacson. This book totally discredits all of your arguments and openly admits the one thing that the hunting fraternity doesn't like the public to hear, namely that foxes are killed in the name of sport and for no other reason.

Oh, but I forgot, Mr Richey, you know better don't you, after all, you've seen a few redcoats on Boxing Day so that must mean that hunting is all right then!

Give us all a break Mr Richey, stick to what you know rather than pontificating on an issue where you have demonstrated a total and complete ignorance of the subject and its complexities.

Dr John P Salvatore

Clyst Heath, Exeter

(by email)