SIR - Jon Burgess, who appears to oppose any effort to protect animals from cruelty, is incorrect when he states that Worcester City Council does not control land where snares might be set ("City's snares policy is just a publicity stunt", WN, December 4th).

The amount of land in question may not be huge, but it's important that animals are protected from suffering upon it and the council's decision was a wise and humane one.

He is wrong that it is Green Party policy to abolish angling, because that is not the case, although personally I would very much like to see it unlawful to stick hooks through the mouths of feeling creatures.

To its credit, the party would abolish shooting for so-called "sport" and I'm wondering if the contribution to conservation that Mr Burgess attributes to the shooting community includes the killing of birds of prey by gamekeepers!

A decent society should be able to prevent water pollution and conserve the environment without animals having to suffer into the bargain.

Contrary to what Jon Burgess claims, the Green Party's policies on food production would actually lead to cheaper (and healthier) food because the amount of land currently needed to produce crops to feed factory-farmed animals would be much more efficiently employed in growing food direct for human consumption.

Peter Talbot