Hugh Peralta argues (‘Common property’, April 2) that birds are co-owned by every human being and, therefore, “the bird killer is not legally entitled, for his own private pleasures or gain, to destroy another person’s enjoyment...”.

Fish are no different and, as a fisherman, apart from being a hunter or a “bird killer”, as he prefers to call me, would he be so kind as to apply his argument to fish? Are we entitled to deprive others of their enjoyment of watching fish by fishing for them?

I am sure he is aware of European directives transposed into local legislation that permit fishing and shooting for certain species for the entitlement of people that have a different way of enjoyment other than just watching them. These directives ensure sustainability and strictly controlled activities that maintain a balance between the birds and fish one can take and those others enjoy watching.

I know him as an avid meat eater and, yet, he seems to ignore the fact that many would rather see all animal unharmed. Does his argument stop when animals are someone’s private property there to be butchered to whet his appetite and satisfy his pleasures? He mentions “the benefit of keeping a balance”, yet, his sense of balance seems to stop whenever a shotgun is not involved.

As he rightly said, the concept of hunting has evolved. When one sees pictures of hunters posing with big game or people with their catch of fish or game, nowadays one can rest assured that the activity leading to such pleasures is well regulated and controlled.

Perhaps the sense of balance he refers needs to be addressed by no other than himself.