AS A vegetarian I feel I have to reply to R A Neon Reynolds' letter ('A certain type of visitor') in last week's Times.
Like everyone else I'm deeply distressed to witness the empty fields, pyres, rotting carcases and marksmen. Perhaps as a vegetarian even more so than a meat-eater; it was because of my love of animals that I chose to give up meat nearly 30 years ago, as it seemed to me hypocritical to boast a love of animals on the one hand and condone, or collude with, the suffering involved in rearing, transporting and killing them to service our greed on the other. (I say 'greed' rather than 'need' as myself and my daughter, a lifelong vegetarian who is now 22, are proof that meat is not necessary to health).
I too love seeing animals in fields. I'm only too well aware of the sad fact, also, that fewer animals of course means lost livelihood for many farmers. But I don't believe that animals are here for us to exploit for our pleasure — whether that is for meat or aesthetics.
If the result of this crisis is that we all take a long hard look at what we consume, what alternatives there may be, and how we can address issues to do with sustainability and humanitarian approaches to animal care, then I for one will be happy to see more fields of grain and vegetable, fewer food animals, and maybe more areas of natural regeneration, habitat and woodland.
Incidentally, I know more people who ride horses for simple pleasure than I do people who ride to hounds, so I'm not too concerned that a future hunting ban would suddenly mean decimation of the horse population.
Roselle Angwin
Bere Alston
Yelverton