Sir, Poole (Animal Welfare 1992, 1: 203-220) appears to argue that the welfare of mammals is in some way more important than that of non-mammalian species eg birds, on the grounds that mammals are unique in possessing ‘psychological needs’. We are concerned that an adoption of Poole's basic argument may lead to a ‘two-tier’ approach to the study of vertebrate welfare, where mammals are seen as possessing certain needs that birds do not. We believe any such argument to be flawed and that bird species should be considered no less important when regarding issues of welfare.

Sir, Might I comment on Alison Ames’ review of Ormrod's Captive Polar Bear Report (Animal Welfare 1993, 2: 290292).

Sir, I am the Wildlife Liaison Officer for the Hertfordshire Constabulary and the present Chairman of the Herts and Middlesex Badger Group.

Sir, I am pleased that my Wildcare Handbook received a review in Animal Welfare 1992, 1: 301-302. Wildlife care is now being accepted as a discipline all over the world and I am sorry that Ian Robinson of the RSPCA seems to have missed the whole purpose of the book, that of giving help and treatment to wild birds and other animals that for many years appear to have escaped much needed professional assistance.

Professor Peter Slater's recent review of the late John S Kennedy's The New Anthropomorphism (Animal Welfare 1993, 2: 187-188) only weakly conveys the nature of Professor Kennedy's strong and sometimes one-sided message concerning the presumed ills of anthropomorphism. Nonetheless, Slater presents a challenge that is more important than his review of Kennedy's book. While Slater is right in believing that Kennedy's ideas will be irritating to some, it should be noted that Kennedy's book will offend not only those who are fans of the careful use of anthropomorphic descriptions and explanations, but also will irritate those who want to see the issues discussed in a more fair, well-argued manner. See also M Ridley's review of this book, Nature 1992, 359: 280. In my view, readers of Animal Welfare should be exposed to some direct quotations from The New Anthropomorphism so that they can make up their own minds concerning some of Kennedy's claims.

Sir, I am responding to Clifford Warwick's comments on my review of Ormrod's Captive Polar Bear Report. It is hard to accept that Ormrod's report, which seems largely negative in its conclusions, can be described as ‘well intentioned’. He made no suggestions for changes or improvements to the welfare of polar bears at present in zoos. It is easy to condemn zoos for keeping these animals, some of which have been inherited by current management, but it does nothing to improve their lives. I certainly agree with Ormrod that captive polar bears present a problem, but we differ in our solutions.

Sir, The workings of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Reports and comments, Animal Welfare 1993, 2: 90-92) rightly drew attention to the difficulty of using the Home Office Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. Such concerns are not new and are shared by protagonists on both sides of the present debate over the use of animal experimentation in the UK. Indeed, commenting on the 1991 publication, Hart has argued that: ‘Doctors wanting to defend Britain's 3.2 million scientific procedures on living animals will want to know much more about what they are defending than this book tells them.’ (British Medical Journal 303: 670).