Your coverage of the Boxing Day meet of the Southdown and Eridge gave more coverage to the demonstrators' views than their numbers justified (The Argus, December 27).

However, that may be understandable given how noisy and rude they were.

Opponents of hunting have difficulty keeping animal welfare in perspective.

The Burns Report, published by the Government in 2000, and the independent Middle Way Group report, published last year, enable an independent reader to draw the following conclusions about cruelty to foxes.

In the event of a ban on fox-hunting, two-thirds of the fox population will probably continue to die annually, with deliberate culling being a substantial factor in that mortality.

Foxes will be killed by methods that are not preferable to hunting from a welfare point of view.

Indeed, close pursuit and the kill above ground or properly conducted terrier work - if the fox goes to ground and requires culling - are more selective and no less humane than methods that would be used in the event of a ban.

It is true we go hunting because we enjoy it. We enjoy following the hunt and watching hounds work and we enjoy the experience for so many other reasons.

We rarely see a kill and that is not why we go. What we do is not cruel. All legitimate country sports are founded on the entirely natural, instinctive and innocent challenge that occurs when seeking to take the quarry species in its wild and natural state.

Hunt supporters are more removed from hunting than those who enjoy shooting and fishing. It is no more cruel to enjoy "hunting" in that sense than it is to enjoy a TV programme which shows natural predation by wolves, for example.

The Scott Henderson report commissioned by the Labour government in 1949 found most arguments against hunting to be misleading and misconceived.

Many people continue to be confused or prejudiced about this issue.

-Dominic Webber, East Sussex county chairman, Countryside Alliance