I WOULD like to pick up on a point made by Joan Jones in her letter Larger predators hunted to extinction, Points of view, March 21.

Her letter bemoans the loss of the larger predators in this country and she goes on to state "if they had been left alone there would be a balance in nature which would make interference by man entirely unnecessary".

Large predators such as wolves, wolverines and lynx play a key ecological role and their loss has indeed made the interference by man necessary to attempt to restore the balance of nature.

In the absence of a predator an animal population grows until it either exhausts its resources or its numbers are checked by disease.

On top of these factors predators also serve to pick out weaker ageing, wounded and diseased specimens because they are easier to catch.

This has a considerable benefit in terms of animal welfare because it spares these animals a gruesome death.

The opposite is true of shooting which is not selective, and in fact often wounds rather than killing.

In the absence of larger predators to chase down and kill foxes and deer then the next best way to manage their populations is by hunting them with dogs.

I find it hard to understand why Joan Jones wants foxes and deer to be chased, caught, killed and torn apart by wolves and lynx, and yet so strongly objects to them being hunted by dogs.

Giles Bradshaw

Rose Ash

South Molton

(by email)