SEVERAL articles in defence of hunting have appeared in The Herald recently and in the interests of balance, which I like to believe The Herald still stands for, I would like to respond to some of the points raised.

In Katie Grant's article (August 9), she refers to hunting as sport. I would warrant that, in the eyes of most people, 40 or so riders, their horses, a pack of hounds, and a number of questionable individuals on foot (who seem to serve no purpose other than witnessing a violent death) versus one small mammal do not a sporting contest make.

I would also take issue with Katie Grant's claim that ''millions of people follow the hunts''. The Countryside Alliance hasalready been reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Authority for making such exaggerated claims. In fact, the hunters' own figures state that approximately3000 people follow the hunts in Scotland.

On August 16, Chris Starr wrote of the ''English animal rights lobby'' when referring to the League Against Cruel Sports and stated that the IFAW headquarters is in Massachusetts. I take exception to the inference that as these organisations are not Scottish-based they should not be lobbying on behalf of the Scottish Bill. Between them, anti-hunting groups number some 200,000 members in Scotland and therefore have a perfectly valid right to lobby the Scottish Parliament.

Also on August 16, James Galbraith tried to frighten anglers into believing that their activities would be targeted next. The League Against Cruel Sports has never campaigned for a ban on angling and has never stated any intentions to do so in future.

The most astounding piece in The Herald of August 16, however, had to be the leader comment. Apart from the quite vicious attack on the integrity of Lord Watson who is merely representing the wishes of those who voted for him, it also contained statements that I feel ought to be backed up with hard fact. ''The contents of the Bill are clearly damaging Dewar's administration'' - how so?

''A ban would result in rural job losses.'' Why, when there is the viable alternative of drag hunting? Or are we to believe that if you can't witness the violent death of an unfortunate creature then there is no pleasure to be gained from riding? The leader went on to question whether the average person even had an opinion on the matter, when poll after poll has shown that they most certainly do. The most odious part of the leader, however, is that which tried to play on nationalistic sympathies by claiming that English groups are attempting to interfere in our new Parliament. Just how low is the pro-hunting lobby prepared to stoop?

P McDermott,

12 Markdow Avenue, Glasgow.

August 17.

AS Director of Advocates for Animals and spokesman for the Scottish Campaign Against Hunting With Dogs, I trust you will allow me to correct your misleading and, at times, false report today, English pledge backing for anti-hunting fight.

It claims that Mike Watson's Bill to end hunting with dogs ''is being driven by wealthy English-based lobbyists''. This is untrue. Advocates for Animals, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the League Against Cruel Sports which make up SCAHD are equal partners in this alliance. Together we speak on behalf of over 200,000 of our Scottish members.

Your report also claims that SCAHD is ''preparing to open a campaign 'war room' in Edinburgh staffed by seasoned veterans'' from south of the Border. Again untrue. Advocates for Animals has made office space available for the campaign, to be staffed by its own personnel and by others from the local area.

It is claimed that ''Advocates for Animals had a budget of just #43,615 in 1998''. Untrue. Our accounts clearly show a budget of over #90,000. (Neither IFAW nor LACS has given Advocates for Animals any money for this anti-hunt campaign.)

In your editorial you claim that the Scottish Parliament by discussing a ban on fox-hunting is being seen as anti-countryside. This may be how the Countryside Alliance and The Herald wish to portray it but it is certainly not being seen as such by the majority of the people of Scotland.

The campaign is about two things: first, the overwhelming benefit to animal welfare if the brutal and barbaric pastime of hunting with dogs is banned and, secondly, ridding Scotland of uncivilised and indefensible behaviour.

Les Ward,

Director, Advocates for Animals,

10 Queensferry Street, Edinburgh.

April 16.