Sir, - Valerie Whitby's attempts to smear polling commissioned by the Countryside Alliance (D&S letters, June 18) shows how sensitive obsessive anti-hunting campaigners are about the lack of public support for their campaign.

To put the record straight the Alliance was criticised for using advertising with the phrase "59pc say keep hunting" instead of "59pc say don't ban hunting". To most reasonable people those two statements actually mean the same thing and that is why the Alliance is appealing against the ASA ruling.

The ASA accepted that the poll showed that there was no majority of public opinion for a total ban on hunting - only 36pc of respondents supported the view that hunting should not be allowed to continue. In the last few years public opinion has swung dramatically against a ban on hunting. As people discover more of the truth about the issue, rather than believing anti-hunt propaganda, opposition to a ban increases. None of the last six polls conducted by ICM, NOP and YouGov asking people whether hunting should be banned, regulated or left as it is, have found a majority for a ban.

Hunting is enjoying massive levels of support across the country - 500,000 people supported the Liberty and Livelihood March in 2002, 275,000 people turned out to support hunting on Boxing Day last year, and more than 3,000 people went hunting for the first time during National Newcomers Week last autumn.

You don't have to be a genius to work out who is really in the minority and we will continue to use the "59pc" poll, and all the others, to illustrate that the majority of the public don't want a ban on hunting.

RICHARD DODD

Regional Director, Countryside Alliance NE

Belsay,

Northumberland.

No majority

Sir, - Valerie Whitby stated (D&S letters, June 18) that the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint from the League Against Cruel Sports that a pro-hunt poll had "flawed methodology and unreliable results".

This is only one side of what the ASA found. The ASA has accepted that a poll commisioned by the Countryside Alliance in December 2002 does support the Alliance's claim that there is no majority of public opinion for a total ban on hunting.

Darren Hughes from the Countryside Alliance's campaign for hunting said: "The ASA, like most objective observers, has accepted that there is no majority of public opinion for a total ban on hunting". The ASA partly found that using advertisements with the phrase "59pc say keep hunting" was a misleading claim.

So there are two parts to what the ASA found. Not one as Valerie Whitby would have us believe.

If hunting with dogs and country sports in general are to survive both sides of each debate and inquiry have to be shown and argued fairly. As long as common sense and objectivity are used hunting with dogs will never be banned. As the Burns inquiry found, a ban on hunting with dogs could bring into question the welfare of foxes.

PHILIP SEVER

River View,

Middleton St George.

What a sight

Sir, - I was motoring on Ripon by-pass on Sunday and what a pleasing sight met my eyes. A group of elderly people were picking up litter and filling bin bags.

What a credit to Ripon these people are, especially when one knows it would not be the old'uns who dropped the litter in the first place.

B ALMACK

Gargrave,

Skipton.

Justice not done

Sir, - I refer to the report about my conviction for allowing my dog to foul (D&S, June 4). This was the sequence of events.

I took my dog for a walk to the picnic area in Richmond and carried with me provisions to remove any mishaps as is my usual custom. As I approached the car park there were two cars parked, one at the footbridge with a passenger in front and child in the back. The other car was beside the ticket machine.

I was very aware of this man in his car as he never took his eyes off me, and kept looking back as I walked to the picnic area.

At one point I turned and saw the car that had a passenger and child reverse out of the park and the man jumped out of his car and ran toward me. I was so scared I thought he was trying to grab me and evaded him by running to the river edge and then home. My hands were shaking so much I could hardly get my key in the lock.

Five minutes later my husband came back from town with a work friend, saw how upset I was and rang the police.

My husband and friend got in the car and drove to the car park. They blocked the warden in. He told them to move the car or he was calling the police.

My husband's friend said the police were already on their way. My husband came home to check on me. His friend waited for the police then came back to the house.

The police then brought this man to my house. I was in a terrified state. The policewoman tried to calm me.

My husband asked them to leave the property which they did, at no time did I see any ID, no uniform or warden control car.

I have taken my dog on this walk for 12 years. On the odd occasion of an accident I have always cleaned up as I would have on this occasion given the chance.

My solicitor dealt with the court papers and he pointed out it would be hugely expensive to plead not guilty as I would have to pay the council's costs. With hindsight I feel that justice has not prevailed in this case.

When I worked for Richmondshire District Council as a cleaner we had to wear our ID where it could be seen. I wonder if anyone else been approached in this terrifying manner?

NORMA CLARK

Mill Croft,

Richmond.