I think the return of hunting would be a backward step (Mercury, August 26).

First look at the pro side. Foxes kill fowl, if not properly secured, they could spread rabies (although there's no real proof of this), and they keep a few people happy tally-ho-ing around the country on horseback with dogs.

Now look at the other side. A normal working man with a modest income (if he's fortunate enough to have work, or if he hasn't, on the dole), wants to catch a rabbit that runs wild like the fox. Yet he can be fined.

He wants to catch a fish, but needs a licence. No job, no money, no licence – if he gets caught, he's fined. The fish is wild and belongs to nature like the fox.

If he wants a bird to eat, and if he cannot afford to buy one, he needs a gun licence to go shooting, but is not allowed to use it freely. No, the birds belong to the farmer. If you have a licence and if you pay him, you can only take so many and have to give him the rest to sell.

Think carefully before you agree to a change in the law. Children have lost pets and been frightened for many years because of hunting dogs pursuing a fox through residents' back gardens

You know there is not a more colourful sight than men and women dressed in their fancy clothes riding across the countryside.

But do they really need to have a fox in front of them and will a deer be next?

G Harrington, Blaby.