FIERY it may have been at times, but the opening of the hunt debate was still understated, given that the result, four steps down the parliamentary line, could be the transformation or ending of a long tradition.

Home Secretary Jack Straw believes it's time to come off the fence.

While we think plumping for the second of the three options open to MPs - compulsory licensing of hunts, rather than a near total ban on hunting with dogs, or self-regulation - is tantamount to remaining uncommitted, we agree with him that it's time for commentaters to join protesters in being unequivocal.

So far, we've attempted to ride a neutral course through the debate, serving - as we do - a broad readership stretching to both ends of the issue.

We've listened to all shades of opinion. But there was always going to be a time to come off the fence. And, with the hope that our contribution will be judged in the spirit which has underpinned the free Commons vote, that time has arrived.

We'd never dream of condemning people, in principle, for pursuing pastimes with passion, and defending them with the same zeal. The hunting fraternity are no different.

Jobs have been an issue, we know, since Worcester MP Michael Foster reignited the debate in 1997. Heritage has been another.

But, in truth, it comes down to whether you're comfortable with the idea that an animal - call it a pest if you prefer - should die after being run to the ground in the name of sport and sociality.

Millions of words have been spoken and written on the subject, but none of them so far has convinced us that one job or social event would be affected by hunters following a drag, rather than a live animal.

The only reason for participants' passion for the stirrup cup and chase to cool would be if it lacked a vital ingredient - the kill.

Pest-control must happen. But not in pomp and glory. Ultimately, that's something we can't defend. The thought leaves us with no alternative but to support the fullest ban.