Monday, 24th March 2008
Hunting dogs and their rights
Kenneth Cassar of Animal Rights (March 11) writes that all hunting dogs do is fetch dead birds. He might have made animal rights his crusade but he seems to be ignorant about anything else related to animals. People with even the slightest knowledge about dogs refer to such dogs as retrievers since their breeding throughout the years as an aid to the hunter has perfected their sense of finding dead game and retrieving it. These dogs cannot be considered as hunting dogs even though they play a very crucial role in the hunting world.
Clearly he has no idea that hunting dogs exist. These dogs include setters, pointers, spaniels, hounds and terriers. These purposely-bred dogs are trained to hunt, follow, chase, trail, track and retrieve birds or ground game. These dogs do not need, as his warped suggestion states, "wings or guns to hunt" game-birds or ground game. They use their noses, their brains, their hunting instincts, and the training expounded on them with patience and love by people like young Danica Rosso (February 29). Before taking her to task, and making a fool of himself in the process, the least he could have done is check his facts.
The way this AR activist puts forward his misinformed views in this newspaper is disturbing. His absurd "explanation" about hunting dogs is typical. To top up the nonsense, he writes that "dogs' unfortunate status today is that of being human property" implying thereby that dogs should have complete freedom and, in their capacity of 'non-human persons", be allowed to roam around freely unattended by their "owners"! Does he realise the unacceptable chaos this would create or the cruelty it would cause? Perhaps he would care to share with readers his master plan, if he has one, as to how he intends to change the present status of dogs as pets and treasured "human property".
Mr Cassar concludes with his usual AR ideology "that no sentient individual should be exploited or killed just for someone else's pleasure, be that someone human or non-human." According to Mr Cassar, hunters may not shoot birds for the table, nor should dogs and cats eat meat and fish. Besides, if scientists were to prove that all plants are also "sentient", and in some cases they have done so already, then goodbye to vegetarianism! Perhaps we could then eat one another, with AR permission of course!
Clearly Mr Cassar, the animal rights guru who professes to be a human animal, does not own a hunting dog since his peculiar beliefs would probably only allow him to cohabit with one. Ms Rosso like all other level-minded dog lovers happens to enjoy the purpose for which her dog was bred and would rather leave her dog decide as to whether it has a right to hunt or, as Mr Cassar suggests, "fetch rubber balls".
RSS
Comments
Something which cannot be understood very clearly by those people who are against the hunting practises is that, our hunting dogs 'kelb tal-kacca', have their skills to hunt even from when they are few months old. This means that, even if the dog is not trained to hunt, his own skills are to fetch and hunt birds...with this, you may ask: so why do hunters train their dogs?
The reply would correctly be, that the dogs will be more efficient; not go too far from the hunter; get use to his owner's whistle/call; and other things in relation with his owner.
On the other hand, something regarding the rights - who has the right to do what....as I already stated, the 'hunting dogs' satisfaction is when they fetch the birds and finally catch them and bring them to their owner. This is in their instinct. And when you said, why the birds does not have the right as the hunting dogs, you are mentioning a vast range of birds. So, what will you say if I ask: Why the sparrow does not have the same rights as the harrier? Aren't both birds? But one catches the other because it's their nature....
On the same way, why those cats which are found lying in the streets, have less rights than the dogs? Because it is in the dog's nature, to catch the cat...in Maltese we also say 'Qishom kelb u qattus' when there are two always try to run/fight/catch each other. In the same manner happens with the 'Hunting Dog', the type of dog which, instinctively, his own vision is mainly to hunt birds.
trying to justify hunting because of your dogs supposed love to hunt - sad and childish
First of all, thank you for showing that my claim that dogs cannot hunt on their own is not a "warped suggestion" after all.
However, I find it very strange that you actually believe that dogs have rights while apparently birds do not.
Like I said in my letter which prompted all this debate, 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?"
If you understand the concept of a right, and are not saying that the dog has "rights" in an antropomorphic way, then how can you say that a dog has rights while a bird does not?
And if rights are means of protecting interests (which they are), isn't life itself a more significant interest than just enjoyment of a practice?
And if dogs have rights despite not being human, how can you justify the claim that birds (also non-human animals) do not have rights?
Rights are not a matter of personal taste - either one has rights or one does not. The person who claims that some non-human animals have rights (something that you give the impression we agree on regarding dogs), should consistently hold that being human is not a pre-requisite for having rights. This puts dogs and birds on an equal footing.
Therefore, like interests should be treated alike. However, more fundamental interests (like life itself) should be given more weight to lesser interests (such as pleasure).
Perhaps you should either re-consider your claim that dogs have a "right" to hunt, or else consider that the simple fact that a dog has rights means that a bird does too. And since the bird's right to life is more fundamental, it trumps the dog's "right" to hunt.
That said, since dogs are conditioned through training to assist hunters, they, like human children, cannot be held as morally culpable. But I'm sure you would agree that adult hunters are moral persons who should be accountable for their actions.
Careful about the "bagging" thing, though. I assume it would still be illegal. But you should check that out with your lawyers. I'm sure you don't expect an AR activist to check that out for you.
No, I think your not reasonable at all... everyone who has the time to practise his/her hobby, in the end, is to have fun and satisfaction.... in this case, the hunting dogs' satisfaction is reached when they not just 'hunt' on their own, but they catch the bird with their own mouth and bring it to his owner....and how can they make it, if the birds fly away and not shot by hunters?
To give you a better practisable picture, a man who likes fishing, do not make the line in the sea with nothing (worms/bread/prawns) imbedded on the hook...and instead throwing the worms somewhere else in the sea....aren't they satisfied enough to see the fish beneath them? of course not....
And in the same manner happens to hunting dogs....those are the proper 'hunting dogs' rights'!!! to find the bird and catch it finally....
Incidentally, seeing that the hunters care so much for their dogs that they are concerned about the dogs' "right to hunt", I have the perfect solution:
Come this spring, hunters should take their dogs to hunt, but they should leave their guns at home. This way, their dogs would "hunt" to their heart's content, the EU will be happy (the EU wants a ban to apply to humans, not dogs), the police will not arrest anyone just for taking their dog out in the countryside, and nobody will complain.
Am I not reasonable?
All birds can finally fly freely without being blasted down,
Non-hunters accompanied by their kids can belatedly enjoy the countryside, peacefully and appreciate the birds.
Dogs can enjoy and exercise themselves – fetching some stick/ball etc. and sniff around.
‘Hunters’ can also enjoy their ‘hobby’ being close to nature, and if they are still adamant to shoot…they are free to use a Canon (or any other camera brand for that matter)
For those who inexplicably thirst for blood…well they have ten shots..one for each of their toes!
Maybe I’m a modern intolerant do-gooder, cause I’m definitely more concerned about a faithful dog, than about a bloodthirsty egoistic human…
2. Animal Rights is not about setting all dogs free. It is about breeding, selling and buying no more dogs as if they were human property.
3. Even in the unlikely event that scientists "prove" that plants are miraculously sentient (lacking a brain and nervous system), the simple fact that "meat" animals eat plants makes a vegan or vegetarian kill far less plants and/or animals.
4. Simply arbitrarily assigning a purpose to anyone (like breeding dogs for hunting) does not make a practice right.