LABOUR Group leader Chris Williamson's letter (Derby Telegraph, April 28) is remarkable for what he omits, rather than what he says.

As one of four former executive directors of the League Against Cruel Sports (an organisation of which Mr Williamson is a committee member) who have changed their minds on banning hunting with dogs, I feel it is important to give a fuller picture to this debate.

It is claimed 100,000 animals have not been chased by packs of hounds since the Hunting Act was introduced – but now these animals are being shot or snared instead, with the very real likelihood of increased wounding. But we do not see that, so presumably this is fine in Mr Williamson's politically correct world.

The drafting of the Hunting Act was so bad it required the High Court to clarify exactly what "hunting with dogs" is. If the law is sound and clear, why has the league had to drop all the pending prosecutions it had intended to take following this judgment? Why is it now the case that some other former league members in a breakaway group say the Act is flawed and needs amendment?

Hunting is back on the political agenda simply because it is bad law. It does not improve animal welfare as it claims.

Given the enormous amount of effort, 700 hours of Parliamentary time and the £30m it took to get this law on to the statute book, it is remarkable that neither the Government nor the anti hunting groups have bothered to commission any research into the subsequent welfare effects on wildlife.

In a man-managed countryside, wild mammals will be controlled whether we like it or not. It is therefore the method that is disputed. Using packs of hounds is similar to the manner in which wolves hunt, that is by using scent to select their quarry.

The process is natural for both dog and quarry and there is scientific evidence to back up this view. The other major animal welfare advantage is that there is no wounding. No other control method can make such claims – a point simply ignored by Mr Williamson.

I would suggest that it is time for a reassessment of the use of dogs in wildlife management. It is for the reasons mentioned above and others that the hunting ban should be ended, not because the Conservative Party is "bedazzled by the hunters".

James Barrington,

Consultant to the Middle Way Group

and Countryside Alliance.