So Mr Hankey (Mailbox, January 19) is not a hunter himself but chooses to defend the act of hunting as a traditional sport.

So were cock fighting and badger baiting, but that hasn't stopped decent MPs wanting to rid these shores of such atrocities. As for his chickens, I would ensure that the hen run he has is efficiently and safely secured.

To give him his due, and he is honest enough to intimate, that hunting as a reason for pest control is futile, which is more than the hunters say. They continually bleat that hunting contains the fox population and gets rid of the sick and the old, thus maintaining a vibrant fox population. These fit specimens are obviously the ones that attempt to take Mr Hankey's chickens!

That hunting takes so few foxes, deer and hares, as a percentage of population, can only point to the fact that hunting is for pleasure and the bloodlust attached. If you want to get rid of foxes, just build more roads as that's where most deaths occur. Foxes are territorial and their lives depend on food availability, which is another reason for their mortality.

Another interesting idea proposed in the letter is that Government time was taken up to create a Hunting Act. That's the way we do things in this country. If something is found to be repellent and cruel, then it's dealt with by bringing forward an Act of Parliament.

The Hunting Act 2004 was very popular and remains so. However, David Cameron, Leader of the Conservative Party, if elected, will again revisit this Act by giving a free vote in Parliament and if a successful outcome is reached to legalise this cruelty, then he will follow it with a Government Bill. So, having mourned the loss of time, Mr Hankey supports the notion that it's ok to revisit it and "waste" more time.

Finally, that the Act is "flawed" is partly true in that it needs strengthening with a recklessness clause so that hunts cannot take dogs near areas where wild animals are laying up, as if they do they will follow a dog's nature and chase and probably kill the animal. The idea is that as a law needs revision and because of this it should be abandoned and repealed, therefore rewarding the few who pursue hunting, is lamentable.

David Cameron says that the Hunting Act is constantly being flouted and therefore it needs repealing. Flouting the Act is illegal. Is he saying that all such Acts, if they are flouted, should be torn up, reinstating the status quo? He is indeed suggesting a state of lawlessness, which if followed through could mean that manslaughter and murder could be decriminalised if the public chose to flout them.

It's about time that the leader of the Tories saw the perpetrators of acts such as illegally killing wild animals as lawbreakers and instead of him attempting to protect his hunting friends he should condemn them.

Christine Harris, Loughborough.