The Hunting Act 2004 had a number of consequences, many of them detrimental to the foxes and stags it was allegedly drawn up to protect. More shooting of these species has almost certainly led to more injured animals in the countryside, although hard data is difficult to gather. Foxes in particular still need to be controlled. We doubt that control is being carried out as effectively and humanely now as it was when hunting was permitted.

Another consequence of the change in the law was to dramatically alter the activities of the League Against Cruel Sports, turning it from a protest group campaigning against hunting, both on and off the field, into a monitoring organisation apparently prepared to take on a quasi-policing role assisting in what it sees as the enforcement of the law. Yet it is a role to which the League is entirely unsuited.

Let's be clear, the Western Morning News has no argument with any properly constituted group that campaigns for what it believes in. When we extensively reported the debate on the hunt ban, prior to the passing of the Act, we sought to represent the views of both sides. We accept those opposed to hunting and other country sports have strongly and honestly-held opinions and we respect totally their right to express them and to lobby others to follow suit.

We concluded when the final draft of the Hunting Act was passed, that it was fundamentally flawed legislation, difficult to enforce, a distraction to the police and damaging to relations between the two sides in the rural community. We shared the concern of many in the hunting community that it would lead to a loss of rural jobs, the break-up and destruction of hunting packs and the undermining of a long and honourable tradition. We're happy to concede that on that point we were wrong. Hunts have flourished since the Hunting Act, support for the pastime has increased and the role of the hunt in the rural scene has, if anything, been enhanced since the law was changed. Few huntsmen and women believe things are ideal but they are managing to get by, at least until MPs get the chance to vote on the ban for a second time, at which point the law might be changed.

Yet the League refuses to accept that its work – for now – is done. As its annual report on hunting, out today, reveals it is busying itself with "monitoring" hunts, manning a telephone for people to report "suspicious" behaviour and inviting the police to its "training sessions" to help them enforce the law. It is hard to imagine a pressure group in any other walk of life being allowed to pursue such an agenda with the apparent complicity of the forces of law and order.

It is the job of the police and the courts to enforce the law, and so far the very modest number of convictions for illegal hunting indicate that there is not too much for them to worry about, despite the difficult and sensitive nature of the issue. The League, with its actions, threatens to inflame a largely settled situation awaiting a Commons vote. It should stick to lobbying and leave law enforcement to the police.