Five years ago, fox hunting with dogs was banned. RIAH MATTHEWS spoke to hunting enthusiasts and anti-blood sport campaigners to find out what has been happening since the ban.

IT was seen as a victory for animal rights activists and a kick in the teeth for hunters everywhere.

The Countryside Alliance claimed it was "against their human rights", while the League Against Cruel Sports described it as their "proudest moment".

The Hunting Act 2004 came into force five years ago this week, making hunting with dogs in England and Wales illegal.

In an interview with the Evening Post at the time, hunter man Bill Eastwood vowed to carry on, saying: "We believe the Hunting Act will be overturned."

Five years on, the ban is still in place.

But with the possibility of a Conservative government after the next election, the hunting issue is back on the agenda.

Tory leader David Cameron has promised his voters that, if his party wins the election, they'll have a say on whether to repeal the hunting ban.

The ban is still a subject that evokes passion from both sides of the argument.

Bill is now chairman of the Grove and Rufford hunt and it's almost business as usual for him and his fellow sportsmen, who hunt in north Notts and South Yorkshire.

The main change they've had is that they now lay an artificial line for the hounds to find, which mimics natural hunting as closely as possible.

This way of operating has ensured the hounds and the huntsmen use similar skills to before, while ensuring they keep to the law. But Bill and his fellow hunters are still hoping for a repeal of the act.

"It's a badly written act and hasn't achieved what it intended to," says Bill. "It was intended by those who promoted it to stop us going out in red coats and riding on horses. They were fighting a class war that ended 30 years ago."

When the ban was proposed by the government, the main argument against it from the Countryside Alliance was that it would cause huge job losses within the hunting community.

But, for the Grove and Rufford hunt, this hasn't been the case.

Bill says: "There are probably a few more hunting with us now. The jobs would have been lost if hunts had stopped. It was a genuine statement at the time."

Chris Williamson, East Midlands spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports and also the Labour leader at Derby City Council, believes this is an example of the Countryside Alliance's desperation.

He says: "There was a lot of misleading propaganda put out by the hunting fraternity ahead of the ban, claiming wholesale unemployment would ensue as a result, which hasn't been the case at all."

The League Against Cruel Sports still has volunteers who go out and monitor the hunts, in order to ensure they are sticking to the law.

Chris says: "In our experience most of them do comply. We have found examples where they have tested the law and where they've flagrantly disregarded the law, and a number of those have been brought to book through the law courts."

The league has successfully prosecuted hunters elsewhere in the country but, as yet, there haven't been any prosecutions in Notts, although last October the police arrested two men from Newark on suspicion of hare-coursing. They are due to go on trial next month.

The police hold regular meetings with hunters, the RSPCA and the league, and take any complaints very seriously.

Another sticking point of the hunting act is the way it is worded.

It is difficult to know whether hunters are breaking the law if they come across a fox while hunting legally. The wording of the act has been criticised by both sides, and in February 2009, the High Court was asked to define what activities were covered in the hunting ban.

Judges ruled the law banning hunting did not include "searching" for wild animals to flush them out.

Although hunters and hunt opposers have always been in conflict, Bill finds anti-hunt campaigners more frustrating than ever, particularly when they try and sabotage the hunt.

He says: "We've been fortunate not to have seen them too often during the ban, they've been out two or three times.

"But you're still talking about 40 to 50 people with balaclava helmets, carrying big sticks, using foul language and intimidating children. And they're trespassing, and they're breaking the law."

Despite his frustration, Bill seems confident that his days of hunting in the traditional way are far from numbered, especially if there is a change of government.

He said: "I'm convinced that Cameron, Hague and a number of other people won't go back on what they've agreed to do. They might have won the battle, but we're going to win the war."

On the other side of the argument, Chris is equally sure the ban will stay in place.

He says: "I think those that are celebrating the likelihood of a repeal of the act are, in my view, very premature in those celebrations.

"All the opinion polls at the moment are suggesting that the Tories are unlikely to get a large majority and we'll probably be in hung parliament territory. In those circumstances, a ban is very unlikely to go through.

"The chasing and maiming of a wild animal is morally repugnant and it has no place in a modern, civilised society."