Most letters concerning the boar seem to be written in defence of the rights of these animals to inhabit the Forest.

Some of the facts presented have been incorrect or biased and then used in arguments to further the case for allowing the boar to remain uncontrolled in our midst as a wild animal. One letter stated that because he had not seen boar, although he was with a boar expert, then there could not possibly be more than a few animals in the 45 square miles of forest let alone the 600 estimated by the Forestry Commission.

He ought to come to Ellwood where up to 15 were seen in one group. I regularly meet boar families whilst walking my dog this time of year just before dawn and late evening. Using the same argument, I could say that there must be thousands.

This is, of course, a ridiculous argument. They are not indigenous to the Forest, they were dumped here six years or so ago as failed farming projects and since then they have bred, well, like pigs.

When boar were last in the forest the human population could be counted in the hundreds. The king and his pals kept the boar down. Since the Industrial Revolution and the invention of the automobile our population has soared in this area.

Although, I'm sure, that at heart boar are mostly harmless, I'm uneasy about having them as my neighbours and challenge the wisdom of allowing uncontrolled breeding.

My guess is that the Forestry have already conducted culls (by definition 'a reduction of excess population') and unless this is carried out regularly then we are storing up trouble for the near future. A letter last week headed 'I can no longer walk my dog because of the boar' struck a chord with me.

Why not let realism rule and allow the right people deal with the situation with the expertise and skills available to them?

– Richard Matthews, Ellwood.