I READ Daniel Mottishaw's letter "Flaws in case for fox hunting ban" (Your Views, February 24), and consider that his own contribution to the debate was pretty flawed itself.

On the subject of hunting ban-related unemployment, Chris Williamson was merely pointing out that the mass unemployment predicted by the pro-hunt industry prior to the introduction of the legislation, simply never happened. Where is the flaw in that?

Bill Eastwood's sorry suggestion that it's because "there are probably a few more hunting with us now" is pure conjecture to cover up the initial disingenuous claim.

Similarly, the hunt industry's prediction of the countryside being scourged by hordes of ravening foxes and other Doomsday scenarios never happened, either.

Furthermore, Mr Mottishaw claims that for Mr Williamson to speak of "the chasing and maiming of an animal" is also a flaw. Well, Mr Mottishaw, the purpose of a hunt is to chase animals (so there's no flaw there) and when they are cornered the hounds tear them to pieces.

Now my OED defines maiming (in a nutshell) as injuries causing permanent damage. I think being torn limb from limb would easily qualify for that definition, so where then are the flaws in Mr Williamson's article?

Whilst I agree with Mr Mottishaw that the countryside has to be controlled, that is only in terms of controlling the depredations of over-exploitative farmers and landowners and does not include the extermination of indigenous wildlife.

JOHN TRUSCOTT Kent Road Mapperley