I WRITE with reference to the article "Hunt ban a waste of time" (Shuttle/Times and News, July 10) which stated MP Dr Richard Taylor's views on a ban on hunting.

I feel there are several misconceptions in his statements.

I would like to ask Dr Taylor if he has ever witnessed the end of a hunt?

When the fox is caught it is literally torn to bits, and rarely dies of a blow to the head or neck, as is often claimed. Surely this cannot be called anything but cruel.

Other methods of fox control are available.

Unskilled marksmen may shoot and injure foxes, as opposed to them being killed outright, but doesn't this suggest animal welfare laws in general should be tightened up, not just hunting?

Furthermore, foxes, just like any other wild species, will control their own population levels with regard to food and shelter availability.

It is a mistake to believe that the right to hunt is a town v country argument. Many people who live in the countryside are against hunting and vice-versa.

I agree that people should not be dictated to, and that there are many other matters which should be granted parliamentary time.

However, as an MP, perhaps it is somewhat ignorant to assume this matter is not important to members of his constituency, who did put him there in the first place.

Therefore, maybe it should go to a vote.

Each person eligible to vote gets one vote each - for or against hunting - and democracy decides.

EMILY GEORGE

Belvedere Crescent

Bewdley