IT is an indication of the paucity of argument in favour of the Hunting Act that its supporters cling to even the most meagre and doubtful details as justification for this flawed law.

This is the case with David Petersen's letter attempting to refute my — and many others' — criticisms of this legislation (Carmarthen Journal, March 16).

Apart from pointing out that I had mistakenly referred to the Boxing Day hunt meet, rather than the New Year's Day meet (as if that makes any difference), his letter does not even attempt to address the points I made with regard to animal welfare.

As one of four former executive directors of the League Against Cruel Sports who now say that a ban is wrong, I am in no doubt that wild mammal welfare has deteriorated.

If, as he says, he has reported incidents of hunts being in breach of the Hunting Act to the police, where are the subsequent prosecutions? It is well known that the 'anti' interpretation of the law differs significantly from that of the courts. Of the 150 successful prosecutions taken under the Hunting Act, only five relate to organised hunts. Further, the vast majority could have been taken under previously existing legislation, though anti-hunting literature would have you think differently.

Finally, Mr Petersen refers to my salary. However, this so-called "well paid consultant" does not receive even half the salary paid to the outgoing chief executive of the League Against Cruel Sports. Quite what the Hunting Act and the numerous claims of breaches reported to the police have cost the taxpayers of Carmarthenshire is anyone's guess. When one considers that it cost £30 million to place the flawed Hunting Act on the statute book, it would seem that money, rather than reality, is what counts.

James Barrington

London