Letter : Fox-hunting necessary to protect ecological balance

From Mr James Gibson-Watt

Sir: Paul Vallely, in his article "Blood sports meet their Waterloo" (3 March), reports the Ministry of Agriculture as saying that foxes are "not a significant factor in lamb mortality nationally". Maff must know that, regionally, the impact of foxes can be severe, and large areas of the country have fox populations that do serious damage to sheep farmers' flocks (and, in consequence, to the local economy as well).

Here in mid-Wales the business of fox-hunting is just that - a serious and essential business. Foxes have unlimited cover in the extensive woodlands and take thousands of young lambs. Any supporter of the John McFall's Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill should spend a lambing season in mid-Wales. They would then discover that controlling foxes is an essential component of the maintenance of the delicate balance of the countryside. They would find that foxes are a serious pest, in particular when their population density rises, as it has done over recent years. Young lambs are easy prey and foxes take them with impunity. Fox culling is necessary and wise.

What Mr McFall sadly does not realise is that his Bill will certainly, if eventually passed, stop farmers legally protecting their flocks. There is no alternative to the use of dogs, which he would outlaw, to flush foxes out of dense woods so they can be shot - the quickest and most humane means of control.

All true country people want to protect wildlife from badger-baiters and hedgehog-footballers and support that section of his Bill. But to achieve this, McFall does not need to stop farmers, gamekeepers and woodmen from controlling a livelihood-threatening killer which, if controlled, represents a tolerable nuisance but, if left unchallenged, will destroy the balance between man and nature over large parts of the UK.

Yours,

JAMES GIBSON-WATT

Hay-on-Wye, Powys

3 March