The Big question: Has the hunting ban really changed anything, or should the law be redrawn?

Why are we asking this now?

Today, to the cry of "Tally Ho!" and a blast of the horn, more than a quarter of a million people will ride out on the biggest day in the hunting calendar. Some 300 hunts – mounted, clad in scarlet jackets and with a pack of hounds skipping about their horses' hooves – will make an unmistakable sight as they continue a country tradition stretching back centuries. And, as always, scores of foxes will die.

Isn't all this supposed to have been banned?

People on both sides of the argument certainly used to think so. Before the Hunting Act 2004 was introduced, hunt supporters spoke of thousands of job losses and the devastation of an already fragile rural economy. The threat of legislation galvanised the creation of the Countryside Alliance. Some 50,000 people were so incensed that they signed the "Hunting Declaration", saying they would "openly and peacefully refuse to accept such an unjust law". However, campaigners for animal rights said that the act would prevent cruelty to wild animals, insisting unnecessary suffering was being caused to foxes, deer or other animals as they were chased to the point of exhaustion, then ripped apart by a pack of dogs.

So what's going on?

After the ban was introduced, hunts were determined to stay in business so they could return to their favoured way of hunting, if they were to win the fight to repeal Act. Many lay scent trails for the dogs to follow, enabling hunters, horse and hounds to enjoy the illusion of a chase. They still employ huntsmen, and offer a free fox-control service to farmers.

There are also what some regard as loopholes in the law. If a pack of hounds is following a scent trail when it accidentally runs into a fox, the dogs and kill the fox, this is not against the law. Animal rights campaigners say the use of foxes' urine – rather than an artificial scent – and the laying of trails through areas foxes are known to frequent, enables such "accidents" to happen regularly.

Hunts have also taken to using birds of prey to kill the fox, or they may also simply shoot them. Foxes that go to ground can also be dug out and shot.

Has anyone been prosecuted?

According the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 31 people in the UK have been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, hunting with dogs and a further 15 people are awaiting trial. The penalty for being found guilty would be a fine that could range from £50 to £750.

However, the High Court has been asked to clarify the law in respect of the first huntsman to have been prosecuted under the Act, which is seen to be a test case. Tony Wright, a huntsman with the Exmoor Foxhounds, was found guilty of hunting with dogs in a private prosecution taken out by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS), but appealed and was acquitted. He used dogs to flush out a fox, but then shot the animal and says he believes that this was within the bounds of the law.

This month Kerry Barker, appearing for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), asked the court to agree that the definition of hunting with dogs should include using them to "search for" a wild animal. "If searching for a wild mammal with dogs is not illegal, then it is difficult to see how Parliament's intention of preventing cruelty and bringing an end to the sport of hunting can be met," he said. Hunt supporters say that this definition means that people who come across a wild animal while walking with their dog could be breaking the law.

Is the low number of prosecutions a sign that people are generally obeying the law?

Probably not. A group of MPs has spoken of "mounting evidence" that hunts are acting illegally or subverting the original intention of parliament. Police have spoken about the difficulties of enforcing the law, given the large size of the typical rural bobby's beat. And this month the RSPCA, LACS and International Fund for Animal Welfare felt the need to launch a website to help officers and the CPS better understand the law, as it was "a recent piece of legislation" and "not surprisingly many police wildlife crime officers and CPS prosecutors have limited experience in dealing with illegal hunting".

But surely fewer foxes are being killed?

Not so anyone has noticed. During their deliberations before ban, the Burns Committee estimated that between 21,000 and 25,000 foxes a year were killed by the 200 registered packs of hounds in England and Wales. However, no one has ever kept an authoritative count and the current picture is unclear. The hunting community says the Act has not saved the life of a single fox and animal rights groups say it is difficult to tell, so if there has been any decline, it is likely to be minimal.

So is the animal rights community up in arms?

No. The mainstream movement as represented by the League Against Cruel Sports believes the Act has been a success. Barry Hugill, a spokesman for the charity, says: "About 75 per cent of the electorate thought it was a good law and I would hate to see it repealed. There are very few other things where you get a 75 per cent approval rating. It has only been in force a few years. It's very early days but I think it's working reasonably well. Of course there are a die-hard bunch of sadists who will never be happy until they get a kill. But quite a few people have said they are going hunting now because they can do it with a clear conscience as there is no killing involved. And every Boxing Day since the Act came in, hunts have claimed more people are going hunting. So what on earth is their problem? If more people are prepared to take part in cruelty-free hunting, it is a real indication that the Act has been a success." While hunts claim to be attracting more people, the LACS's support has been falling – from about 40,000 when the Hunting Act came into effect in 2004 to about 33,000 now – but sees this as a sign of success as fewer people feel the need to join the cause.

Is anyone trying to make the law tougher?

The Labour MP John McDonnell has tabled a motion in the House of Commons calling for a "reckless behaviour clause" to be inserted within the law, to catch hunters who lay urine trails near foxes' known haunts in order to "accidentally" catch one. He says drag hunts, which use artificial scents and ensure they keep away from wild animals, show that ethical "hunting" is possible.

So if hunts can still operate, are they happy?

No. Decidedly not. They believe it is a bad law, an infringement of their liberties and will continue to campaign against it. "It is in the interests of animal welfare, the economy, the police, field sportsmen of every kind, Parliament and the wider community to rectify the situation, sooner, not later," says Simon Hart, the chief executive of the Countryside Alliance. "There is only one answer to the Hunting Act and that is repeal."

Is there any chance of that happening?

Not under Labour. But the Conservative Party's leader, David Cameron, has promised a free vote on the issue should his party win the next election.

So is the legislation against hunting meaningless?

Yes

*Wild animals can still be chased and ripped apart by dogs – as long as it was an "accident"

*Even if foxes are hunted illegally, it's difficult to catch the culprits and prove they meant to kill the animal

*Foxes, if they could talk, would doubtless express surprise their lot is supposed to have improved lately

No

*Being shot is a better way to go than being torn apart by a pack of dogs

*Many hunters have respected the law, even if they don't like it and continue to campaign against it

*The heat has been taken out of the issue. Hunters and animal rights campaigners are no longer at each others' throats