IN response to John Phelps' recent letter Anti-hunt legislation needs to be tougher, Points of view, August 28, I do not support extending the Hunting Act to make people whose dogs accidentally flush out, chase or kill wild mammals criminals.

Anyone who lets their dogs off the lead knows they might chase a squirrel, hare, fox or deer and this would therefore constitute reckless hunting. To criminalise them for this is ridiculous.

Millions of wild animals are both deliberately and accidentally killed every year. Many of them are first wounded and die horrible deaths. A tiny proportion of this death and suffering is down to dogs and an even tinier proportion is down to hunts whose dogs do not wound but always kill quickly. Why victimise these people? Why not have legislation that seeks to reduce all animal suffering rather than perpetuate social conflicts stoked up by dog-obsessed animal rights extremists?

Having answered Mr Phelps' question, would he like to respond to some of mine?

We know from peer-reviewed scientific research that in some circumstances where foxes are shot more than 60 per cent of them are only wounded.

Does Mr Phelps accept that in such circumstances it should be illegal not to have dogs on hand to locate and retrieve or kill any wounded animals to prevent them suffering further?

And why shoot and wound a fox first only to then kill it with dogs? Why not just kill it with the dogs and avoid the additional suffering?

Why do anti-hunt organisations refuse to acknowledge the massive suffering caused to animals when they are shot but only wounded?

The way forward is to regulate all forms of country sport and wildlife management to ensure that the best method is used in the specific circumstances with regard to benefit, need, effectiveness and least suffering.

The recently proposed Hunt Regulatory Authority is along the right lines but should be extended to cover all such activities that affect wildlife.

Finally, given the level of dissatisfaction on all sides over the Hunting Act, we clearly need MPs to have a free vote on how to move forward.

Giles Bradshaw

Rose Ash

(by email)