Letters like the one from Christine Harris' (Mailbox, September 16) regarding hunting crop up periodically, usually with the same arguments, many of which are vague in substance.

Words like "innumerable" and 75% are included.

How many is innumerable? During the hunting season I haven't read of many instances of illegal or accidental hunting. Perhaps I read the wrong papers.

And 75% of whom?

I doubt whether the British public as a whole even bother to vote on such subjects, and when they do, very rarely more than 25%, so how many is 75%. Many of the anti-hunting lobby living with the "urban" fox will never have seen one in the wild, or witnessed the scene after a fox has got into a chicken run. A fox kills, and not necessarily to eat.

If ever the "cute" urban foxes get too many for the scraps put out for them, watch out for the pets, cats, rabbits and the like which will go missing. Then maybe this "75%" will dwindle as the cuteness disappears.

I sit on the fence regarding hunting. I have never been to a meet, but I do like to see a balanced and factual article, not a rant at a certain sector of the community.

When Parliament votes on such subjects, it is usually with one eye on the electorate.

John Chesterton, Wymeswold.