WILL this year's Christmas meets really be the "last hurrah" for foxhunting or is that just wishful thinking by its opponents?

One thing is certain in this whole messy business, the traditional Boxing Day meets - held on Monday, December 27, because Boxing Day falls on a Sunday - will be the first since the Bill to ban hunting with dogs was forced through Parliament by the use of the Parliament Act on November 18.

But as it does not become law until February 18, 2005, fox hounds, harriers, beagles and bassets will be meeting completely lawfully this year and there is a full calendar of meets involving 16 packs across Worcestershire and Herefordshire.

And there will be for ever more if the Countryside Alliance, the campaigning organisation for the countryside, has anything to do with it.

"Make no mistake, these will not be the last ever Boxing Day meets," said the CA's West Midlands regional director Clare Rowson.

"Hunting will continue and the temporary ban will eventually be removed.

"Last year, more than 250,000 people attended hunts across the country and we are in no doubt this year will be bigger and better than ever. Everyone is invited, so please go along. Don't feel guilty, because this was legislation passed through prejudice rather than evidence."

Certainly there is great anger among the hunting community in the way the banning Bill was forced through, especially as the Prime Minister and several leading members of the Cabinet voted against it.

As The Times newspaper - not a noted supporter of hunting - said in a leading article the day after: "Hundreds of hours of parliamentary time have been wasted, many more hundreds of hours of courtroom time lie ahead and perhaps thousands of hours of police time might be consumed if and when this measure is implemented.

"It has been a ludicrous spectacle politically and utterly divisive socially. Nothing positive will come of it. This has been an episode of parliamentary madness."

The problem with the Hunting Bill is that it moved out of the area of animal cruelty and into one of perceived social antagonism.

Had it been passed purely on the grounds of cruelty to foxes and hares, any future Government would have great difficulty repealing it.

But when one of the people at the very heart of the debate, Peter Bradley - MP for The Wrekin and Parliamentary Private Secretary to Rural Affairs Minister Alun Michael - broke ranks afterwards and said with ill-concealed glee it was "class war" and an assault on "toffs" in "manor houses" rather than anything to do with foxes, he gave the Tories, if and when they return to power, plenty of excuse to turn the clock back.

You can't pass a law just because you don't like people. The problem for Labour was that ever since they were elected in 1997, certain factions in the party had wanted to ban hunting. Both from the cruelty aspect - the party had received substantial pre-election donations from animal aid groups - and because of the social issue.

"Getting back at the Tories for what they did to the miners" became a familiar theme.

Of course, this ignored the fact that many Labour supporters are hunters too. Indeed later in the House of Lords, it was Labour Lords who voted down the banning bill, not Tory landowners.

Hoping to find straightforward cruelty grounds for a ban, the government set up the all-encompassing Burns Enquiry, which looked at every aspect of hunting with hounds.

While both pro and anti sides found some comfort from its findings, the report came to the conclusion that hunting was no more cruel than any other form of fox control, such as snaring, gassing or shooting.

As all the others were to continue, it would be illogical to ban hunting.

Indeed, Lord Burns - the man best placed to know - when asked the specific question of whether he considered hunting cruel replied unequivocally "No".

The pro faction were entitled to ask their opponents, what part of that answer don't you understand.

Lord Burns also voted against the banning bill in Parliament. The cruelty argument received a further setback when Alun Michael's subsequent Portcullis House hearings, set up after the Burns Enquiry to try to find a way through the conflict, came out in favour of continuing hunting, but by licence.

This was never going to be accepted by diehard opponents, who amended the Government's own licensing Bill to a complete ban, which was the legislation eventually passed.

This may cover familiar territory, but I repeat it to give some clue as to why the current situation has arisen.

The hunting community feels it is entitled to ask the Government that if it was going to set up enquiries - three in all - why didn't it accept their recommendations? What was the point of it all?

Also the claim, sometimes made in letters to this paper, that the hunt ban Bill has "saved" the fox is just not true.

The fox is not and never likely to be a "protected" animal. There are far too many of them about. They can still be killed by any other method and the paradox is that in Scotland, where hunting was banned in 2002, twice as many foxes were killed in the 12 months after the ban than in the 12 months before.

Not one of Scotland's 10 hunts has disbanded, although foxes are now flushed out by hounds and then shot. Scottish foxes probably wish the law had never been passed.

Leading police officers have already admitted a hunt ban in England and Wales will be very difficult to enforce in view of the remoteness of some of the terrain and the level of proof needed.

But anyway, Tim Bonner, the Countryside Alliance's hunting spokesman, has maintained hunts will continue within the law.

"It will be done lawfully, it will be done sensibly and it will also send another message that the hunting community is viewing what is happening as a temporary setback, as a result of a cock-up by Alun Michael and one which will soon be rectified."

In which case, this Christmas certainly won't be the last tally ho ho ho.