The Government's "Big Society" idea could mean anti-hunt monitors are given the job of policing the controversial ban on hunting in the West, because police cuts mean officers will no longer be able to tackle wildlife crime.

That is the view of the head of the League Against Cruel Sports, which has dozens of monitors keeping watch on hunts across the region, from Exmoor to the Cotswolds.

But Douglas Batchelor's comments sparked outrage from hunt supporters.

The League's chief executive wrote a "blog" essay pondering whether David Cameron's "Big Society" idea, where volunteers take on jobs previously done by the state, could mean an increased and official role for hunt monitors.

Those monitors, and others from different animal welfare organisations like the International Fund for Animal Welfare, have kept the issue of hunting in the public eye in the West.

More than half the monitoring of hunts in Britain takes place in the region, and monitors regularly present video evidence to police and prosecutors with claims of illegal hunting.

Mr Batchelor said he wanted to see a similar situation to the enforcement of cruelty legislation on domestic animals, where the RSPCA regularly brings prosecutions against pet owners or farmers, particularly since cash-strapped police were already cutting back on enforcement of wildlife crime.

"Those charged with managing police budgets can understandably be attracted by the notion that the work and costs associated with enforcement of wildlife crime legislation could in effect be delegated to voluntary sector organisations such as the League, the RSPB and the RSPCA," he said.

"Superficially it sounds like the perfect 'Big Society' concept allowing the police to concentrate on what they are more familiar with and better trained for, and leaving the voluntary organisations to enforce welfare law.

"There will be many in the hunting and shooting fraternity who will be horrified at the prospect of voluntary organisations taking on responsibility for policing their activities. Already we have seen questions in court about the methods used to gather evidence and the admissibility of that evidence in court. We have seen witnesses challenged on the basis they previously campaigned against the cruelty of hunting.

"If local policing in response to local concerns is to be the way forward, the police are going to have to devote more, not less, resources to dealing with determined law breakers in the hunting community. At the moment there is worrying evidence that far too many hunts are involved in deliberately illegal activities."

But the Countryside Alliance gave Mr Batchelor's musings short shrift. Spokesman Tim Bonner said: "LACS is living in an alternative universe if it thinks that its rag-bag selection of animal rights activists are safe to monitor anything other than their own blood pressure.

"The Government has made quite clear its concern about snooping and the surveillance state. Lurking in bushes filming people as they go about their legal activities is at best odd and at worst a form of harassment.

"Hunts have effectively tested the law and policed themselves since the Act came into force in 2005 with such success that there have been only a tiny number of successful prosecutions.

"The last thing stretched police budgets need is further police time and money wasted investigating the spurious allegations of the anti-hunt brigade."