HUNT campaigners have reacted angrily to an academic report which claims a hunting ban would not cause an explosion in the fox population.

Hunt supporters claim the study by Professor Stephen Harris, of Bristol University, is misguided and slammed the professor's decision to release the results before a three-day hunting hearing next week.

Proposed legislation would effectively ban lowland fox hunting - a traditional pursuit in North Yorkshire. Pro-hunt campaigners warn of a massive increase in the number of foxes.

Professor Harris studied the number of fox faeces collected in 160 randomly-selected areas between the same six-week period in 1999, 2000 and 2001.

There was no significant increase in the number of faeces

found during last year's foot and mouth crisis - when hunting was banned.

Professor Harris, chairman of the Mammal Society, said: "It shows quite clearly that hunting plays no role in regulating fox

numbers."

The research, which was funded by the RSPCA and International Fund for Animal Welfare, will be presented to next week's Westminster hearing.

RSPCA director of communications John Rolls said he hoped the survey would "silence once and for all" the pro-hunting lobby.

But the study was immediately attacked by the Countryside Alliance. Frank Houghton Brown, Master of the Middleton Hunt, said the report by Prof Harris was "drivel". He said: "The report's author was sponsored by the League Against Cruel Sports, so he is not going to produce evidence which contradicts their opinions.

"At this stage we should concentrate on the independent Burns Report, which has stated fox-hunting is the least cruel form of control."

Two-thirds of people who hunt would continue to pursue their sport even if it was banned by Parliament, according to a poll out today. The results follow interviews for Country Life magazine with 500 people involved with hunting, nationwide, aimed at measuring the hunting fraternity's depth of feeling over the threat to hunting with hounds. The findings show that 47 per cent of those canvassed would consider breaking the law in defence of their right to hunt and about two-thirds (63 per cent) would also break the law by continuing to hunt even if it was banned. Almost half (44 per cent) were prepared to break the law in both instances.

Updated: 11:39 Thursday, September 05, 2002