WITH reference to your article, “Please leave traps alone” (Gazette & Herald, April 1).

While not condoning damage to anyone’s property, I view the police wildlife officers comments in defence of so-called “legal” traps with a mixture of curiosity and scepticism when consideration is given and taken into account as to who or what these traps will ultimately benefit in the ecologically-blinkered world of the game shooting industry.

Let us face it, these traps are set to catch certain species selected by the “shooters” as being “unacceptable” in order to sustain artificially high (and unacceptable) levels of game birds for their friends and clients to shoot by the tens of thousands (for fun). Some of which are then sold and consumed, but the majority dumped and buried in pits to rot away. (There has been recent negative publicity in the media on this issue).

Are we really saying that on the altar of privilege, via the obtuse mindset of the trigger-happy that these “legal” traps (or any kind of trap) is acceptable in any serious consideration of wildlife conservation?

The police wildlife crime officer stipulated that the traps are legal “as long as certain criteria are met”, eg. they are checked once a day and that only birds or other animals not on the “pest” species list are released unharmed.

With this in mind, and considering Yorkshire’s (and Ryedale’s) record on wildlife persecution (by gamekeepers and their associates) including protected species such as birds of prey etc, does anyone really believe that the owners and operators of these medieval contraptions will positively discriminate when it comes to protecting his lordship’s financial interests or his game?

H Griffiths, Pickering