Your opinion piece "Temporary lull in battle over countryside's bad law" (April 22) claims that the Hunting Act is a 'bad law'. Many people involved in the hunting scene from both sides would agree.
I am sure we would also all agree that the declaration that there is a 'countryside war' by the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) is extremely regrettable.
War is in Clausewitz's famous words 'the continuation of politics by other means' however perhaps we could continue this countryside war by other means – namely politics. This would entail civilised open and honest debate.
One serious impediment to any satisfactory resolution of the hunting issue has been the belligerent refusal by anti hunters to admit that the current Hunting Act is flawed. However this might be changing; during a recent debate between the current CEO of LACS Joe Duckworth and previous CEO James Barrington when challenged about the illogical nature of many of the exemptions in the Hunting Act, Mr Duckworth suggested that perhaps they should be got rid of.
This could well be a milestone in the Hunting Debate and marks a potential U-turn in policy by LACS from unconditional support for the entire Hunting Act to actually opposing a large portion of it. If LACS do change their policy to one of opposition to much of the Hunting Act it would raise further questions. They have themselves expressed the view that the exemptions allow for 'humane pest control'. Why would they want the law changed to outlaw activities that they do not regard as cruel?
James Barrington's idea – rooted in a principle expounded by the professor of ethics at Durham University Geoffrey Scarre that there ought to be no right to be cruel to animals – is campaigns for the removal of all exemptions from the Hunting Act so that any activity which a court found to be cruel would be illegal.
Such a law would apply to everybody – including hunters – and LACs who have themselves sometimes been accused of cruelty for the way they have managed their deer sanctuaries.
LACS currently oppose the law making all cruelty illegal and I think this is a great shame.
Their campaign slogan 'Keep Cruelty History' is a sham; what they actually support is keeping cruelty legal.
My understanding of their reasons for opposing all cruelty being made illegal is that such a law would not criminalise people who were not being cruel.
There is a principle here – there should not be a right to be cruel. There is also an opportunity because elements of the Countryside Alliance and other organisations supporting country sports would support such a change in the law.
LACS should stop opposing the banning of all cruelty and start supporting it. I want to live in a country where it is illegal to be cruel to wildlife.