The ban itself is a government decision - like the PEL system. Can anyone defend both?

Probably not but - like them or not - you do have to accept both pieces of legislation as fact - and now proceed on that basis.

The point is to control a population to ensure that it does not cause economic or ecological damage.

The 'crimson kipper' list has been endless. The claim that this cruel method has any effect on controlling fox numbers is the 'fatest halibut' of them all. This has been recently demonstrated this for us by the fact that hunts can kill far more foxes by flushing and shooting them. Yet still the smelly old fish is 'plaiced' before us - as if it were fresh-caught and relevant.

It is now a fact that this law is now in force - there is no longer any 'fight against the ban' - to draw every grievance (real or imagined) into and to hide behind.

The issue now is a simple one that stands alone. Do you support moves to make legal again - the tearing apart of terrified and exhausted foxes by hounds - only for the sporting pleasure of a few?