PAUL ANDREWS 2 The Beeches, Great Habton York YO17 6RS So has fox hunting finally been abolished? I hope not.

Some thirty years ago I went on a few hunts and enjoyed them. Three years ago, as the threat of abolition drew near, I went again. I wanted to remember what it was like. Since then, I have hardly seen a fox, but have had some splendid rides through forestry land and over the moors – rides which I would not have been able to have without the hunt.

I have listened for years as the arguments on fox hunting went on. I have heard some of the most fanatical proponents of abolition go on at length about “hooray henrys” on horseback, as if the red coated huntsmen represent the descendants of our brutal Norman conquerors and the fox, the downtrodden Saxon lower classes. So all good left-wingers are expected to support the fox, and the whole debate has become a political rather than an animal welfare issue.

Now, although I have never met one yet, I suppose there must be a fair few “hooray henrys” about who go on hunts – just for the social occasion. I hope I am not looking through rose coloured spectacles, but even if every lord in the land were to behave like the fond caricature of a “hooray henry”, there would simply never be enough of them to ride on all of the hunts. But supposing it were true that all huntsmen are “hooray henrys”, is that, in itself a good reason to abolish hunting? Should yachting, for example, be prohibited or made more difficult or expensive, if that is a sport which is imagined to attract “hooray henrys”?

The reality has to be different from the myth. There are certainly a lot of very rich people who go fox hunting, and there are some prestigious hunts which only the very rich can afford to belong to, but by far the majority of the fox hunters I know are ordinary farmers – people who are able to keep horses on their own land, but who are not necessarily so well off, these days. The “followers on foot”, who do not ride, are respected and able to join in social events.

Now it may be true that, amongst farmers, animals are valued according to their use and pests are dealt with ruthlessly. Even so, horses are not kept for their use, but for recreation. It is natural for people who grow up with farm animals to love horses and hunt foxes – but fox hunting is far from a ruthless form of pest control. Coppices are allowed to grow to give foxes “cover”. There are no hunts in the breeding season. Many huntsmen know where foxes breed, and watch the cubs – taking care not to disturb them. They are concerned about modern forms of pest control – for example, gamekeepers who employ professionals who use guns with infra-red sights to catch foxes at night. The threat of extermination from these men is far greater than it ever was from the hunts. With the end of fox hunting, how long, one wonders, before the fox becomes an endangered species?

Unfortunately, nobody seems to care about farmers these days. Their only use is to provide cheap food for the masses in the cities, and for this purpose they are allowed to be ruthlessly exploited. They are treated as a minority whose votes don’t count. Their opinions, values and way of life are sneered at, instead of respected, by the mavericks from the cities who run our politics and our country’s bureaucracy.

So this law represents the supreme triumph of city values over rural tradition – the triumph of prejudice, ignorance and power over reasoned debate. It has very little to do with animal welfare or preservation.

There is a price to pay for all this. The rule of law depends on public consent and acceptance. While the law is impartial, it will be respected. If the law is seen to be prejudiced, it will lose respect, and even the most law abiding people will make up their own minds about which laws they think they ought to obey.

We have already seen how weak and frail the law is – for example, when the superstores broke the Sunday Trading Laws, and forced the Government to change the law in their favour. So, if we want a society which is ordered by law - and not anarchy - we can do without laws based on prejudice which do not command majority public support.

This brings me to a personal question: would I defy the law and go on another hunt? Well, I have faced most of life’s rich experiences – but I have never yet been to prison! So, if it’s in a good cause, why not try it? Well, perhaps not – not now, anyway. Perhaps I’d rather wait until next year and see how things go, before I make any rash decision.

The point is this: the fact that law abiding people like myself should be even thinking in this way should give our rulers in Westminster cause to be concerned about their own folly.