When the ban on fox hunting came into force in February it brought to an end more than one bloody tradition.

For years the start of the hunting season meant clashes between supporters and saboteurs, usually culminating in a round of arrests.

The violent passions involved made for scenes like a rural West Side Story with the saboteurs on foot facing the hunt on horseback.

Insults and punches were thrown and alleged weapons ranged from whips and sticks to chains and teeth.

In February 2000 an anti-hunt protester claimed a hunt supporter bit off his finger as he waved placards at the South Downs and Eridge Hunt.

Jonathan Broise resigned last year as leader of the Chiddingfold, Leconfield and Cowdray Hunt, claiming aggression from saboteurs had wrecked his marriage, cost him his job and left him in fear of his life.

In 1999 it cost Sussex Police £135,000 to monitor the hunts with 77 officers a week on average turning out to stop clashes between the two groups.

Of course, not everyone who supports or opposes a hunt has seen the inside of a police cell but there have always been those who flared up in a confrontational situation.

The situation is different now but the tensions have not gone away. The saboteurs call themselves "monitors" and see their new role as gathering evidence to help the police prosecute any cases of illegal hunting. The hunts call them "vigilantes" and say there is nothing official about them.

I went out with a group of monitors on the first meet of the Crawley and Horsham Hunt near Horsham and spent an afternoon ducking through hedges and ditches and listening out for the sound of hounds in cry.

After years of pursuing the hunts through open countryside, the monitors know the copses, covers and fields as well as the hunters do.

The key weapon for both sides now is the video camera. There was no violent confrontation between monitors and supporters but instead a kind of video stand-off with people coming as close as possible to film each other.

Both sides traded insults, hunt supporters with children present shouted "Paedophiles!" as monitors filmed them and one stood in front of the monitors' minibus for a good five minutes, stopping it from moving up the road.

The tension and anger between the two sides was palpable and their fiercely-held views remain utterly incompatible.

The police presence was minimal but effective. Only two police cars were out but they were on scene within minutes wherever the groups gathered and it was made clear that anyone on either side who caused trouble would be arrested.

National guidelines on policing the hunt indicate that officers should only attend a hunt when there is likely to be public disorder.

Chief Superintendent Paul Pearce, of Sussex Police, who is co-ordinating hunt policing, said: "We're not working on the presumption that hunts are going to hunt illegally.

"The policing is now based on intelligence. We have had a few people reporting what they believe to be illegal hunting but we have found no evidence."

Monitors said this policy jeopardised their safety and left them open to attack by hunt "goons" if they left the main roads.

Their spokesman, who asked not to be named, said: "We used to get helicopters out, even police on horseback, because we were 'disrupting' the hunt."

They said the main troublemakers were not the hunt but the foot followers. They also claimed that since the ban started some groups of men had been moving from hunt to hunt looking for a fight.

A spokeswoman for the Crawley and Horsham hunt said she knew nothing about aggressive foot followers.

She said: "A week ago we had saboteurs out in black balaclavas with sticks and chains. We are doing nothing wrong.

"We try to evade them because they are very threatening. We have a large number of children and people who feel intimidated by being filmed.

"We tell all our members not to get into a confrontational situation. We're not intimidating them but we will film them and we will follow them."

Countryside Alliance South-East regional director Peter Setterfield said: "We expect hunt monitors and animal rights protesters to uphold the law and not trespass on private land where they are not invited.

"People off public highways acting in an irresponsible way could be inflammatory. We have never been the instigators of violence."

The problem with policing a hunt is that it is almost impossible for police or monitors to follow it wherever it goes.

Hunts can no longer legally pursue and kill a fox with hounds but the law allows for the "accidental" killing of a fox which means a group out trail hunting can legitimately say their hounds picked up a fox's scent and killed it before they could stop them.

Mr Setterfield said that where trail hunting takes place, which involves laying a line of scent for hounds to follow, the laying of the trail was being filmed and the video handed to magistrates to be kept as evidence if monitors accused the hunt of illegally killing a fox.

Monitors said that it was impossible to trail hunt through woodland and that if hounds are going through a wood they are probably after a fox. Mr Setterfield said this was incorrect and that trails were often laid through trees.

There are also loopholes which allow hunts to go out with large birds of prey like golden eagles and send them after foxes. Mr Setterfield said no Sussex hunts were hunting with birds of prey.

Offences under the Hunting Act carry a fine of up to £5,000 but they are not recordable or notifiable and anyone convicted will not be given a criminal record.

The nature of the Act means both the hunts and the monitors have grounds to proclaim victory over their enemies.

Mr Setterfield said: "There have been 12 intended prosecutions under the new Act. All have failed bar one, where the person was a poacher.

"The sabs have lost and they don't like it because we're still hunting. A lot of anti-hunting is political - they don't like privileged access to land. That's what's at the bottom of it, not animal welfare."

The monitors' spokesman said: "I have always compared them to spoilt children, blocking up country roads, chasing the wildlife and having it all their own way. Now they're stamping their feet and carrying on."

The hunts remain convinced the Act is a temporary measure and a change of government will see them back hunting as normal.

The monitors hope if they collect enough evidence and secure some prosecutions they can close the loopholes in the Act and make it a more solid legislation.

It seems the video-camera battles will only cease if a day comes when hunting finally fades into a forgotten past.

Until then hunts and monitors will turn out every weekend for the great British traditions of surveillance and horn-blowing.