SO, Colin Richey is feeling sorry for himself, Points of view, April 25, for having been a given a 'shellacking' (his word) when his previously ill-informed comments on the hunting debate were rightly criticised by myself and others.

Desperate it seems to extract himself from a debate in which he has been found lacking, he asks at the end of his current letter if we can "all agree to disagree."

I'm sorry Mr Richey but life is not that simple.

In your latest letter you state that foxes are 'mistreated' (by implication in unlawful hunting) and you admit that fox hunting is cruel, although you say it is not 'high on my cruelty list'.

If you accept that hunting wild animals with hounds is cruel then with whom are you disagreeing? The sentiments you have expressed it seems to me are at one with the overwhelming majority of the public who recognise that hunting with hounds is unnecessarily cruel.

I do believe, however, that you have arrived at some very odd conclusions over the Hunting Act and other laws which protect wild animals for you seem to believe that police forces up and down the country are dedicating hugely inappropriate amounts of police time in detecting possible breaches of animal protection laws at the expense of detecting or preventing other crimes. This is simply not the case but having created this ridiculous scenario in your own head, you then present this as an 'opinion' from which you will not be shaken, seemingly as a way of putting yourself forward as some kind of hard-done-by popular champion of free speech. I find this puzzling.

If you have accepted that hunting foxes with hounds is cruel, then do you not accept that it is time for you to have a little rethink about your conflicting statements?

Public opinion has decided that hunting foxes, stags and hares for sport should be banned.

The debate in the run up to the ban was fierce but the pro-hunt lobby lost.

Now incredibly some hunting apologists are back spouting the same discredited arguments about hunting that the general public have already rejected. Yes, following the hunting ban prosecutions for illegal hunting with hounds will be rare but so are prosecutions for badger digging and badger baiting. I would hazard a guess that badger baiting might be a bit higher on your list of cruelties than fox hunting, Mr Richey, but these are blood sports nonetheless, all of which were once legal.

The answer is not to repeal those laws, which are designed to protect wild animals from unnecessary cruelty, but to ensure they remain on the statute book and are strengthened if required.

So, Mr Richey, you must decide whether you wish to be bracketed with the apologists for hunting or to be seen as an advocate for the end of cruelty to animals no matter where an individual species might sit in your cruelty list. But please don't try to illicit our sympathy for having been so roundly criticised when you have added nothing to the debate other than misleading populist guff.

Dr John Salvatore

Clyst Heath

Exeter

(by email)