Strange high-profile association with mass deer cull

I was a little surprised to note that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had put its name to the joint letter from WWF Scotland, the Ramblers’ Association Scotland and the RSPB (7 April), which criticised the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association protest at the Glenfeshie Estate deer cull.

Given the RSPB’s previous record of hiding in the background while others take the brunt of public protest, as is happening with Scottish Natural Heritage in the ongoing Uist hedgehog fiasco, why does it have such a high profile association with a mass cull in this instance?

The role of the Ramblers Association in all of this verges on the Kafkaesque. The earlier accusation by the president of the Ramblers Association in Scotland, Cameron McNeish of the SGA being a "rural rent-a-mob" (your report, 5 April) , is nothing short of sweet irony, while his demand for legislation to enforce cull numbers would only exacerbate existing tensions.

Although schemes such as hill telephones are well publicised and are used by re-sponsible hillwalkers, those of a more militant bent take some sort of perverse delight in disrupting a day’s stalking just to make some futile point about resisting "controlled access".

Hill tracks which would aid the stalker are but a red flag to the rambler, no matter how low impact they are.

For those who are attempting to get on with the stalking season to prevent the intervention of the Deer Commission for Scotland, then the paradoxical protests of the ramblers must be particularly galling.

Finally, it is a weird kind of world where the RSPB, among others, with its de-fence of the increasing use of mass culls, is beginning to make its favourite stereotype of the "kill ’em all" Victorian gamekeeper look like a paragon of animal loving humanity.

WILLIAM ER BROWN

Marykirk, Laurencekirk

Kincardineshire

In reply to the letter from the RSPB, the Ramblers and WWF saying "no-one would wish to kill more than 500 deer in a few days", the solution is simple: put a deer fence round the so-called "outstandingly im-portant native pinewood" of Glenfeshie and spare the deer.

The most extraordinary as-pect of these on-going battles between left-wing pressure groups and the real working people of the Scottish countryside is how - in this typical example - three English-registered charities, who are not answerable to any Scottish watchdog and whose members mainly live outside Scotland, nevertheless are able to throw their weight around in another country that is supposed to have control over its own land management.

What is the Scottish Parliament doing to protect the interests of the people who live and work in the Scottish countryside from this all-too-familiar imperialist arrogance?

KIRSTY MACLEOD

Letterfinlay, Spean Bridge

Inverness-shire