REGARDING the letter by Mr G K Holwill Where do you draw the line on cruelty? Points of view, March 10, he and other opponents of hunting may well ask that question of themselves.

Do they object to stags and foxes being killed by dogs — which they have done for thousands of years — simply because they are handsome animals, the latter with dog-like characteristics, as has the wolf.

He mentions bear-baiting and willful cruelty to domestic dogs and cats. I am totally opposed to such cruelty but he misses the point that the former is a captive wild animal and the latter are domesticated pets.

How about birds, such as budgerigars, and fish confined in cages and tanks? Some would describe that as cruelty.

Does Mr Holwill object to crocodiles grabbing the legs of wildebeest and zebras and eating them as they attempt to cross a river, or lions separating elephant cubs from their mothers before moving in for the kill?

Mr Holwill and other opponents of hunting should watch TV wildlife programmes for their further education. Cruelty abounds in nature but without it species would become extinct.

Stags and foxes are wild animals and their only natural predators are dogs, hence the formation of packs of hounds in order to cull their numbers.

Their other former predators were wolves and bears and I understand that someone has plans to reintroduce them to this country. Then traditional hunts would become obsolete. Hooray!

Colin Richey is another regular correspondent and I usually agree with his sensible views and his letter on hunting was no exception and did not deserve Mr Holwill's criticisms.

The anti-hunt legislation introduced in the dying moments of the last Parliament is the most inane and ridiculous legislation ever introduced in parliamentary history and a complete farce.

It was approved by people with no knowledge of how nature works and must be repealed at the earliest opportunity. It is nonsensical.

M Lewis

Rackenford, near Tiverton

(by post)