David Thomas suggests that 'the challenges to the Hunting Act reflect the view of some that entertainment and tradition should trump the fundamental interests of wild animals' (see [2005] Gazette, 14 July, 16).

Nothing is further from the truth. Quarry species in developed countries, their natural predators having long been eliminated, actually benefit in welfare terms from the conservation and targeted control operated over many centuries of legitimate hunting.


Surely the challenges to the particular Act he refers to demonstrate rather a lack of willingness to be governed by unconstitutional laws. Those laws were pushed through Parliament in the face of logical opposition for party political reasons based on the outmoded concept of class hatred in the face of the rights of we humans and to the positive detriment of the welfare of the animals themselves.


There should be much common ground between those of us who legitimately harvest wild creatures - whether for food, or as Mr Thomas calls it, 'entertainment', and those who aspire to treat our farmed animals better. But remarks of the kind complained of will do little to bring about a consensus.


Clive Rees, Swansea