I suspect Edward Sanderson (Oxford Mail, June 30) is indulging in a little bit of hypocrisy when he talks about liberty for living creatures.

What he means is liberty for fluffy bunnies or pretty little foxes, although liberty for one is mutually exclusive to liberty for the other.

Mr Sanderson misses out the millions of living creatures that he destroys every day or that are destroyed on his behalf.

I don't know what size he considers a creature to be living, but surely we start with amoebae?

Billions of single cell creatures are killed daily in this country just to produce the tap water Mr Sanderson drinks, but that's all right.

Likewise, unless he lives in utter squalour, he kills bacteria, viruses, insects, bed bugs and billions of other small creatures to live his life - his own antibodies are ferocious killing machines.

If he buys fruit and veg, it is washed and treated to kill off the caterpillars and insect eggs that infest it.

To produce industrial scale crops, wildlife habitat is destroyed in this and all other countries, or does Mr Sanderson think no harm falls to animals if their habitat is destroyed to produce wheat or oilseed rape?

Is he OK with foxes choosing to tear animals limb from limb or birds feeding live caterpillars to their young etc?

What about those victims? What of their rights as living creatures?

Killing one fox can save hundreds of short-tailed voles. Killing one owl can save hundreds of field mice.

Unnecessary cruelty can be condemned, but to extend the rights we now have as humans to animals is risible.

PAUL WESSON Brome Way Carterton