THE letter from Kathy Moyle Points of View, April 9 deserves comment. Headlined "Why must we treat our foxes so badly" she writes: "The level of suffering this involves (the traps), both to foxes and wild domestic animals that get caught in cruel traps is immense."

I quite agree. But without the hunt there are now many more snares. In my dictionary a domestic animal "is one bred or kept by man as a pet or for purposes such as the supply of food". Foxes therefore do not come into this category.

Does she eat eggs for breakfast? There is no protest from her that foxes tear apart poultry. After all, the fox has to feed her cubs and herself, yet often leaves some animals massacred and uneaten, which is why it is regarded as a pest and not a pet.

Some writers have a fox fixation and do not seem to bother about welfare of other wild animals. Clearly there is a bias against the hunting fraternity who do not wish to exterminate any animals, but to limit their numbers and hence their destructive habits. Indeed, quite the contrary, they wish to see the maintenance of a healthy population of foxes and deer.

Finally, how many more letters do I have to write pointing out that cruelty abounds throughout the animal kingdom, the worst perpetrator being the human animal who does not just kill for food. The idiotic Anti-Hunting Act is an affront to all people with more knowledge of the natural world than some of our masters (such as Peter Main) and must be abolished.

M Lewis

Rackenford

Tiverton

(by post)