Forget the fox, the police are the pigs in the middle and have frequently been called so by both sides in the hunting debate. The saboteurs and protesters all believe that we support the hunt, while the huntspeople frequently complain that we do not do enough to protect them.

Matters are set to get even worse for the police. Parliament’s vote for an outright ban on hunting with dogs fills many of my fellow officers with dread. Not because the police are pro-hunting — the service is determinedly neutral — but because of the practical implications of enforcing such a ban.

Let me outline the problem. For the past 30 or so years forces across the country have spent huge amounts policing hunts. We have struggled to uphold the right to demonstrate of those opposed to hunting, while protecting the rights of those who want to hunt. Trying to maintain the balance between two irreconcilable groups is difficult, so policing hunts is a constant drag on resources and manpower, requiring us to set up special units to deal with the excesses of both sides.

You might think a ban on hunting with dogs would be welcomed by the police as putting to a swift end our unpopular role as piggy in the middle. Sadly not, as it appears the legislation may turn out. I expect that significant numbers of hunters will flout any ban on hunting. We envisage being called in by both sides, the “huntwatch groups”, and by those who wish to make themselves martyrs to what they see as an infringement of their human rights.

To be effective, legislation needs to be enforceable: enforcing the Act will be difficult. It is impractical to stop and arrest huntspeople on horseback and seize the hounds and horses they use to commit the offence. No police force has the resources to do this; nor would they be able to accommodate horses or a pack of hounds, to the required welfare standards, until the case came to trial. The alternative is to report offenders for summons, as we would for a motoring offence, but the work required to summons a 30 or 40-strong hunt on horseback makes this almost impossible.

One proposed solution is to video offenders so that they can be summoned later, such as happens at football disturbances. This is effective only when the individual can be clearly identified and if it can be shown that by his presence he was committing the offence.

The saboteurs learnt that the way to stop being identified was to wear a mask or a balaclava. Even when legislation giving the police powers to remove such masks was brought in, the protesters’ riposte was to get everybody to turn up with their faces painted as tigers.

What is also not clear is where the Government expects enforcement of this legislation to sit in terms of policing priorities. We will work hard to enforce the legislation in such a way that it does not destroy our efforts to reassure rural communities that they feature as much in our attempts to prevent crime and disorder as in urban areas. But enforcing a ban on hunting with dogs would not contribute in any way to meeting the priorities set out in David Blunkett’s National Policing Plan. Nor have issues around hunting with dogs appeared as a priority in any of the Crime and Disorder Partnerships plans in any district council or unitary authority area.

Of course, good laws are largely self-policing. The public rely on common sense to know what is right or wrong. However, the Countryside Alliance says a ban will cause significant difficulties in policing rural communities because those who regard themselves as the greatest supporters of law and order will overnight be turned into criminals. The police will, of course, try to enforce any new law. If it means we come into conflict with our rural communities, that is the price of democracy.

If, and this is a big if, this legislation in its final form is “good” legislation, hopefully there will not be too much enforcement for the police to do. However the police resources spent on hunting will still be needed because those who have campaigned so hard for a ban on hunting are targeting shooting next. Several hundred shoots were disrupted last year. If you thought that demos at hunts were dangerous, think about the possibilities when a protester walks in front of the guns.

The Government has got itself into a predicament. The status quo is difficult to enforce. The current proposals could be significantly worse. There is no easy solution, but as one of the people charged with picking up the pieces after the introduction of any legislation, our plea to Parliament is simple: give us law that can be enforced.

The author is Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary and the rural policing spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers

Times Recommends

• Five golden rules for regulating banks
• Uighurs’ cry echoes round the world
• It is not just democracy that is illegal