WITH autumn upon us and winter approaching, and hunts return to the countryside, the Echo asks whether the Hunting Act should be repealed

DENISE WARD, producer of the hunting film A Minority Pastime, thinks that the ban should remain in the UK

WHAT possible reason could there be for repealing the Hunting Act?

Hunting was banned by a large majority in the elected parliament of our country, and the ban is supported by the vast majority of the population both rural and urban.

So why is it even being discussed?

On a beautiful day in October 2005 when hunting dogs invaded my village and attacked a screaming deer, I began to find out. What I went on to discover was a hidden reality so shocking that I have made a film to expose it to the public.

Every season it seems, hunts go out of control.

Animals are torn to pieces, foxes are killed in open spaces and stags are being attacked for sport.

And yet it is seriously suggested that the ban on this activity should be repealed.

The pro-hunt lobby claims that hunting is humane population control – a claim referred to as 'twaddle' by eminent professor of environmental science, Stephen Harris.

This claim is also obviously ludicrous in the context of artificial fox earths allegedly being built by some hunts.

It is being seriously proposed that because some hunts allegedly evade the ban and prosecution, that repeal should ensue? But then this is a world in which the activity described by Baroness Mallilieu as follows: 'It is our poetry… it is our art… it is our pleasure' includes such practices as cub-hunting – the annual training of new hounds trained to kill on fox families trapped in their home location by select members of the hunt.

In a civilised world people curtail their personal gratifications in line with their country's law.

In the past force majeur swept aside all impediments for the privileged.

So, should the country repeal the Hunting Act now? I don't think so.

SARA RUTHERFORD, Countryside Alliance regional director for Gloucestershire, wants the ban removed.

AS the new season approaches I would remind readers of a comment the Prime Minister made earlier this year: "Everyone knows the Hunting Act isn't working." Mr Cameron joins politicians from all parties, the media, the police, judges, vets and senior civil servants in holding this view.

Hunts continue to operate within the law as best they can but have been placed in an intolerable position. The law is confusing, hard to interpret and has made wildlife management a far harder task than it has ever has been.

The hunting community was never going to merely pack up and stop, so adapting to life under the Hunting Act has been a short term and difficult strategy.

However, hunt staff are also living with continual harassment from animal rights activists and are under threat of prosecution every time they leave kennels with hounds. Repeal of the Hunting Act is needed so that they can continue to carry out their jobs.

The Government is committed to "holding a free vote on a motion on the Hunting Act". However, we all understand that hunting cannot be a top political priority. So repeal, while explicitly on the agenda, is not imminent. Some people question whether the pursuit of repeal is necessary. With a law so flawed and unworkable, they argue, why risk a vote?

Simple: if we want hunting to prosper long term, we must have repeal.

Ninety seven per cent of Hunting Act convictions since the Act came into force in 2005 relate to poaching or other casual hunting activities, including at least seven people who have been convicted of hunting rats. In Gloucestershire the conviction figure is zero.

The Hunting Act is being used by the police to tackle poaching, lending a veneer of success-through-numbers to an Act that is now almost unanimously regarded as a dismal failure. Poaching was illegal before the Act and would continue to be illegal without it.

The Countryside Alliance and the hunting community have worked hard and have proved the case against the Hunting Act, but we must hold our nerve and work hard for repeal of the Act to secure a long term future.