GILL Purser's recent letter, A hunting supporter would react like this, April 20, perfectly demonstrates the injustice of the proposal by Protect Our Wild Animals to make it illegal for people's dogs to accidentally chase wild mammals and then exempt everyone from the law except members of hunts.

In her letter she accepts that even if people make every attempt to control their dogs there will be the occasional 'slip'. This applies to hunts as well.

Anyone who lets a dog off the lead in the countryside knows that occasionally they will put up a deer or a fox.

The difference is that hunts, no matter how carefully they control their dogs, will be criminalised for these inevitable, occasional slips.

Hunting is an intentional activity. Because it can be hard to prove intent, Gill wishes people to be made guilty of hunting even when it cannot be proved that they are.

Of course, we all know that the law will not be applied. It is worth pointing out that as long ago as 2006 POWA's representative Peter Bunce went on the record as stating that my use of dogs to deliberately flush out and chase deer was 'harmless' that the law against it was 'an anomaly' and that I should not be prosecuted for breaking it.

To quote further from POWA: 'the truth is, the Hunting Act is flawed'.

We need to ditch this absurd law and replace it with a sensible one, which truly protects wildlife and can be applied consistently to everyone, not one formulated as part of a vendetta by animal rights groups.

Such legislation is the hallmark of a civilised society. The Hunting Act is the hallmark of the ignorant incompetent bigotry of Labour MPs.

Giles Bradshaw

Rose Ash

(by email)