I WAS extremely interested in G R Holwill's letter Where do you draw the line on cruelty? Points of view, March 10.

I feel that protecting our wildlife from wilful cruelty is extremely important. However, I also feel that the current Hunting Act fails to do that.

In answer to the question posed, the line on cruelty should be drawn — precisely there.

A law seeking to prevent wilful cruelty to wild animals should do just that. Cruelty is cruelty, howsoever it is caused.

If animals need to be controlled then in each circumstance there will be a range of options. The test as to which is preferable can be made on the grounds of least suffering and utility.

Attempts were made prior to the Hunting Act becoming law to ban all wilful cruelty to wild animals. However, these attempts were thwarted by anti-hunt MPs. These MPs wished to ban hunting, not cruelty. They then went on to remove any test for cruelty from the Hunting Act.

Alun Michael, the Rural Affairs Minister, told the Commons that legislation would be based on the principles of "cruelty and utility...rather than a list of activities to be banned". The ensuing law was not based on such principles.

The truth is that the Hunting Act bans many activities which are not cruel and leaves legal activities which are.

The law has been declared in court by the CPS as 'virtually unenforceable'. It needs to be repealed and replaced with an enforceable law which clearly defines wllful cruelty and makes it illegal. That is where the line should be drawn, not where it is now which is on the basis of ignorant prejudice.

Giles Bradshaw

Rose Ash, South Molton

(by email)