I READ with interest the reply to my letter regarding hunting from A Ogilvy (Letters, October 5).

If the writer had taken the trouble to read my letter carefully, he would have noted that far from being "obsessed" (and by implication very biased) in favour of the miners' strike, I condemned illegal activities perpetrated by militants since they were breaking the law.

It is perfectly correct to state that, at present, huntsmen and women have not broken the law. I never said they had. However, statements emanating from certain individuals stress that they will carry on hunting after such a law comes into force.

Nor do I recall mentioning my political allegiance (unless I am mistaken Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe is in favour of a hunting ban, so no one should jump to conclusions).

Nor did I state that foxes should not be controlled.

Even so I intend to stand by my so-called 'absurd' arguments. It is perfectly possible that an alternative government would overturn a hunting ban. If they do so, those who oppose hunting, such as myself, should abide by its decision, as should A Ogilvy if the ban becomes law.

Or are some animals really "more equal than others"?

Mr C Corbett,

Bull Lane,

Lawrence Street,

York.

Updated: 10:55 Monday, October 11, 2004