I VERY much thank Mrs V Jones for her views regarding my use of dogs to disperse deer, Giles should think himself very lucky, Letters, July 9.

I wholeheartedly agree with her that I am very lucky to have red deer crossing my land; we are all lucky to have these wonderful creatures around.

Mrs Jones also writes that it would be good if others could visit my land to see the deer.

That would give me great pleasure, and I rather hope Mrs Jones might care to pay such a visit herself.

If Mrs Jones does visit I am sure she will be glad that I refuse to abide by the condition laid down on the Hunting Act for the exemption of flushing out.

This is that the deer are shot. Not just one but, as the courts have ruled, the whole herd. To me, to kill a herd of deer would be a crime against nature. That would be pure evil.

By not having men on my land with guns I not only enhance the welfare of the flushed deer but also the safety of any visitors.

Where practicable landowners and hunts should consider non-lethal alternatives to killing wildlife and the shooting condition should be removed from the Hunting Act.

Further to my letter of July 8 — Groups should back new legislation — it fills me with sadness that the League Against Cruel Sports is not supporting Lord Donoughue's Wild Mammal Protection Bill, which would make all deliberate cruelty illegal.

LACS chief executive Douglas Batchelor gives the reason for not supporting cruelty being made illegal as follows: "The problem with that suggestion is that someone would actually have to be cruel to the animal before they could be charged with any offence."

Surely this is not a problem but a positive thing. It seems to me it is a basic facet of a good law that one should have to be doing something wrong in order to break it.

Giles Bradshaw

Rose Ash