JOHN Phelps makes a stunningly bad argument in his recent letter Human control of foxes not necessary, June 17, 2009. In this letter he concludes from the fact that the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management has a membership of 500 and there are 15,000 vets that only three to four per cent of vets support hunting. How ridiculous! The League Against Cruel Sports has a membership of 5,000 or so and yet there are 60 million people in the country. If we used John Phelps logic this would mean only 0.008 per cent of the population oppose hunting!

The argument against hunting is blighted by bad logic, dodgy statistics and tendentious opinion dressed up as facts.

For example, Mr Phelps claims that it is a 'simple fact' that fox control is not necessary. It is, in fact, his view that a lot of people do not share. One of the key benefits of predator control is the maintenance of the balance of nature in a managed landscape. Indeed, a recent survey carried out by ORB for the Countryside Alliance, Moorland Association and National Gamekeepers Organisation found that the majority of the public support predators being controlled.

We know from scientific studies that lynx and wolves which used to roam this country predate on foxes. I believe that such predation would have had a positive effect both in limiting numbers and also in maintaining the health of the prey species. The form of human control which best mimics its effects is hunting with dogs.

Giles Bradshaw

Rose Ash

(by email)