I READ with interest the letter from Jake Mitchell (Citizen, November 9) regarding animal rights campaigners. His views are grossly misleading and over simplified.

I am an animal rights campaigner but quite how Mr Mitchell concludes that I am a thug and one of the nastiest people in our society' is a mystery to me.

I believe it is wrong to cause unnecessary harm and suffering to any sentient animal, human or otherwise, and Mr Mitchell is correct that, following this to its logical conclusion does mean that one must do without animal products such as meat and eggs.

This is not nonsense. On the contrary, I have been doing this for many years, and enjoy good health and quality of life.

He is, however, wrong to suggest that if were not for animal experimentation we would have to do without life saving medicines. More and more doctors and scientists are expressing doubts as to the efficacy of the animal model, and that carrying out medical research on other species is in fact a scientific fallacy.

And to state that campaigns such as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and Save the Newchurch Guinea pigs are the nastiest campaigns of terror and intimidation in our history is pathetic and offensive. How does he equate criminal damage to property (which is largely what we are talking about here) with actual terrorist campaigns?

The real campaigns of terror are those such as the London bombings of this year and the IRA bombings of the past campaigns that kill and injure people. No animal rights action has ever claimed a human life.

It is also important to note that four animal rights campaigners have lost their lives as a direct result of the violence meted out by people involved in industries that abuse animals.

Animal rights campaigning is about striving for a better world for all species, where no-one is incarcerated, abused or killed for the pleasure of others. If that makes me nasty, then so be it. Steer clear of me Dr Joanne Moodie, Lancaster.