From Mrs Joan Haggard
Sir: Janet George's article "Hunting is good news for hares" (Another View, 28 February) is one of the most chillingly insensitive accounts of any bloodsport I have ever read. She explains the rules and moves of the Waterloo Cup as if describing a contest between a group of equally willing participants.
The only time she mentions suffering is to say that if the hare gets caught there are four "dispatchers" at vantage points to ensure there is no suffering. What degree of suffering constitutes "none"?
Anyway, one might point out that the whole event depends on the hare experiencing enough terror to make it try to escape a violent death. Does not that, in itself, qualify as suffering?