JOHN Phelps' letter, We already have law preventing cruelty, Points of view, June 27, neatly exposes the confused motivations behind the Hunting Act.

It has previously been claimed that the purpose of the law is to prevent cruelty to animals.

Mr Phelps claims that there is no need for a revised law to protect wild animals from cruelty because the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 already does so.

However, hunting with dogs is excluded from this Act. Anti-hunt MPs opposed its inclusion in the law because doing this would obviate the need for their precious Hunting Act.

Cruelty is not the issue. It makes no difference if you are being cruel or not. Indeed my activities, which merely involve dispersal, are illegal unless I shoot the deer; something which is obviously infinitely more cruel.

Rather than being against cruelty, Mr Phelps claims it is against the sporting aspects of hunting. Surely this cannot be the case. The Act has no impact on the mounted field who are arguably there just for the sport. The time I went hunting on horseback, I did wonder what I should be doing to remain within the law. Maybe I shouldn't have enjoyed myself?

There is a basic principle that laws should identify an evil and make the commission of that evil illegal. If you are not committing the evil then there should be no crime.

The Hunting Act fails to do this. It makes no difference whether or not you are being cruel or engaged in a sport to whether or not a crime is committed.

Giles Bradshaw

Rose Ash, South Molton

(by email)