SAYING something is not true is very different from providing proof to verify a case. Douglas Batchelor's letter, Points of view May 11, is strong on denial, but does not give one shred of evidence to justify his contention that hunting with hounds is wrong and unnatural.

As one of four former executive directors of the League Against Cruel Sports who have changed their mind on banning hunting, I am happy to say that I am a consultant on animal welfare to the Countryside Alliance.

I am also a consultant to the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group and the Council of Hunting Associations. That these bodies are concerned about welfare is surely something to be welcomed rather than ridiculed?

The comparison between the way in which hounds and wolves hunt is not "laughable" as Mr Batchelor states, but scientific fact and there are numerous scientists and studies into predator/prey relationships that I can quote in support of this view.

It is the natural instinct of all dogs to hunt, to one degree or another, and this is one of the reasons why the flawed Hunting Act required the High Court to clarify exactly what "hunting with dogs" means.

In the light of this judgement, outstanding cases have now been dropped and we shall see how well this law works in the future.

However, if, as Mr Batchelor claims, hounds have to be trained to hunt, it would have been far easier to make such training illegal and thereby end all hunting at a stroke.

Of course being caught by hounds is not pleasant, but it is quick and certain. Just consider for one moment the various ways in which foxes die in the wild, either through the actions of man or nature.

All can involve long periods of suffering.

The use of scenting hounds, that are selective in choosing the old, weak and injured animals, and importantly do not wound, must therefore be compared with those situations.

Explain that in a public opinion poll and we might see a different result.

James Barrington

The All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group

(by email)