IN asking "where is the evidence that the fox is vermin?" G Metcalfe (Letters, July 17) makes a point which gets close to the heart of the hunting issue, yet which rarely generates much discussion -- that of the right of individuals to define and control what they consider to be animal pests.

Imagine that you have a nest of rats in your back garden, an infestation of mice in your home, or moles digging up your carefully-tended lawn. In each case, they constitute little more than an inconvenience.

Indeed, in the case of rats and mice, you may simply feel uncomfortable knowing that they are there and want rid of them.

I suggest that most reasonable people believe they have a right to control what they deem to be pests on their property by eradicating them.

Who, then, are people like Mr Metcalfe to be telling other people what are and are not pests or vermin on their own property?

And if those who oppose hunting are really offended by the fact that hunters actually enjoy the activity, then what have they to say about pest control professionals who enjoy their job?

Mr Metcalfe, who is clearly against hunting and worried about the welfare of animals hunted by dogs, should acquaint himself with the observations of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to the Burns Inquiry into hunting.

They essentially conclude that, of the alternative methods of vermin control, hunting with dogs is in many ways the least worst option from an animal welfare perspective.

DAVID STOCKER, Public Relations Officer (North West England), Countryside Alliance.