Dogs and hunting (1)
Danica Rosso's justification of hunting out of concern for the "hunting" dogs (February 29) is of course ridiculous. Dogs exposed to hunting do not become "enamoured" with this "hobby". That belief is just a simple case of anthropomorphism. It is true...
Danica Rosso's justification of hunting out of concern for the "hunting" dogs (February 29) is of course ridiculous. Dogs exposed to hunting do not become "enamoured" with this "hobby". That belief is just a simple case of anthropomorphism.
It is true that some dogs might have retained a hunting instinct, even though domestication and human feeding makes this doubtful. It must be noted, however, that "hunting" dogs do not hunt birds (to do this they would need either guns or wings). "Hunting" dogs simply fetch birds which the human hunter kills. The object they fetch could easily be a rubber ball.
Regarding the claim that come spring, "hunting" dogs display an unequivocal longing to be out in the country and "do what they do best: hunt", is a very simplistic way of seeing things.
Since dogs are capable of cognitive association, they associate the "hunting season" with the fact that during this season they will generally spend much more time in the countryside with their "owner". Since dogs' unfortunate status today is that of being human property, they depend on their "owner" for even simple (but necessary) enjoyments such as an outing to the countryside, which is still possible without hunting.
The claim that "hunting" dogs long to "do what they do best: hunt", is also clearly false. Since "hunting" dogs do not hunt at all, then hunting cannot be "what they do best".
So, to answer Ms Rosso's questions, it is not cruel to deprive dogs of hunting, for the simple reason that "hunting" dogs do not actually hunt. Also, those, like me, who oppose hunting for animal rights reasons do not do so just out of "love" for non-human animals. We oppose hunting as a matter of justice.
In essence, this means that no sentient individual should be exploited or killed just for someone else's pleasure, be that someone human or non-human.
The question is not: "Should we choose the dog over the bird or the bird over the dog?", but: "Should we sacrifice the greater interest of a bird (life itself) for the significantly lesser interest of a dog in fetching dead birds, especially when this can be replaced with an equally satisfying (for the dog, not the human hunter) practice of fetching inanimate objects?"
People who truly care about all animals, and not just birds or dogs, will know the answer to my question.