LET'S get it right please, Mr Morlock (Letters, March 21), if you are going to quote the Burns Report. It did not conclude that hunting was as humane as other methods. Chap.6, para 6.49: ' . . . we are satisfied, nevertheless that this experience (sic hunting with dogs) seriously compromises the welfare of the fox'.

Also, para 6.52: ' . . . we are satisfied that the activity of digging out and shooting a fox involves a serious compromise of its welfare . . . ' In para 6.59 it states: 'None of the legal methods is without difficulty from the animal welfare perspective.'

No doubt this is what Mr Morlock relies upon for his conclusions, which he wrongly attributes to the report itself. Para 6.60 actually concludes: 'Our tentative conclusion is that lamping using rifles . . . (provisos) . . . has fewer adverse welfare implications than hunting including digging out.'

The facts are that it costs £930/fox and £2,300/deer, when dog hunting. Ch.4, sect.27 puts hunting below pub and church-going in importance to rural activities.

The Burns Committee stated that it was not qualified to comment on whether an appeal would succeed under Article 1 Protocol 1 (property rights) or Article 8 (respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Edward Fitzgerald QC put forward arguments to the committee on behalf of the Countryside Alliance,which were more than adequately countered by The Deadline 2000 submission by David Pannick QC, Richard Drabble QC and Rabinder Singh, who concluded that a ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs would be compatible with the Convention.

The Burns Report recognised a serious animal welfare issue for the fox, although the scientific evidence was stronger for the deer with regard to the chase aspect. Hunting can take the alternative of drag-hunting, as in Germany, so there should be no great changes involved.

G P Falvey

10 Lopes Road

Dousland

WE are writing to point out an anomaly regarding the use of the Dartmoor National Park. At the entrance to the moor there are notices concerning dogs on leads due to lambing and nesting birds. This we understand and comply with.

The Park authority have been spoken to and inform us that while they have a responsibility for the livestock and wildlife on the park the farmer owns the land and invites the hunt onto it. Do the farmers own the open moor or do they merely have grazing rights, is the moor a National Park or is it privately owned?

Why, we ask, are dog owners required to keep their dogs on leads, when the hunt is allowed free access to the moor with some 30 dogs running free and many horses? Should the dogs get a scent then they will follow together with the riders irrespective of lambing ewes or nesting birds.

How is this less damaging than people exercising their dogs and why is there one law for the hunt and another for the public?

We await a reply with interest.

Peter and Carol Barnes

8 Barkers Way

North Tawton