IN reference to Mr and Mrs Taylor's letter (November 23), to say "those against hunting are not ignorant of the facts" and then write that it is more humane to shoot foxes is an absolute joke!

Shooting is quick and painless if you're clever enough to hit the target between the eyes.

Even the best marksmen will tell you that they miss occasionally. Just which wild animal is going to stand still long enough for it to be done cleanly?

One of my first ever memories in the hunting field was when I nearly stood on a fox with my pony. It had been shot and was dying.

It was just skin and bone, and looked as though it had been there for days. It could only try to drag its back legs away.

If the hunt had not been there that day to finish off that animal, how long would it have taken for it to die?

Hounds often kill the sick and old first, leaving the rest to be moved around the countryside.

Would Mr and Mrs Taylor be able or willing to cover as much country as we do to make sure there are no injured animals caught in wire, snared or badly shot?

The Burns Report supported hunting. It is as humane as any other method, the fox is either dead or a little tired, not maimed or poisoned.

As far as the 'pomp and ceremony' goes, why not? It is tradition and we are damn well proud to uphold the countryside values. Would footballers wear jeans on the pitch?

Emma Robinson,

Ebberston, Scarborough.

Updated: 11:18 Friday, November 26, 2004