Kenneth Cassar, Marsascala.
'Hunting' dogs and their rights
Ray Zammit (March 24) assumes I am ignorant about anything related to animals. I admit I am no expert on all things related to non-human animals but, to my credit, I am more than willing to learn, which is why I spend much of my free time reading on diverse but related topics such as animal rights, evolutionary biology, philosophy, etc, apart from learning through direct observation.
In this vein, I would be grateful if Mr Zammit explains to me how "hunting" dogs can possibly hunt high-flying birds without the aid of wings or guns, instead of simply saying that I am making a fool of myself.
Regarding his assumption that I implied dogs should all be set free, I would like to put Mr Zammit's mind at rest that the animal rights view is that we should stop breeding, selling or buying any more dogs, while we should continue taking care of the ones already in existence and not to set all dogs free where they cannot cope on their own.
If Mr Zammit is interested in learning more about animal rights and its implications, he is welcome to visit www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com, where he will find a list of books. Reading might help him to either change his views or else make informed criticism.
Regarding what would happen if scientists were to "prove" that plants are also sentient (a term which is commonly used both in science and philosophy - hence no need to put it in quotes), even in the unlikely event that scientists were to "prove" that living things that have neither a brain nor a nervous system are miraculously sentient (therefore having an awareness of self to some degree), this would pose no dilemma to vegetarians and vegans because, to eat meat, one would still have to breed non-human animals and feed them on plants. Veganism would still kill fewer plants and/or animals.
Finally, while I humbly thank him for the compliment, I would like to assure Mr Zammit that there is no such thing as an animal rights guru. I am simply as a person who, for completely altruistic reasons, shares with others what I learn through reading and experience, including the scientific knowledge that humans are an animal species and that simply assigning a purpose to someone (be it dogs or humans) does not make that practice necessarily right. One should remember that the "purpose" of human slaves prior to abolition was to serve whites. Still, we all know that human slavery is wrong.
If Mr Zammit (or anyone else) would like any clarification on what I wrote, or would like to ask any questions, he is welcome to contact me through my blog.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
11 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alfred E. Zammit
Apr 1st 2008, 13:15
Kenneth Cassar, please join some decent animal welfare organization but spare us your obsession with so-called animal rights. Instead of dismissing my valid arguments as “childish” or “lies”, please explain what the consequences would be if one were to insist, as you do, that dogs should not be owned. Who would pay for their care? Who would feed them? Who would control them when they form packs roaming in the streets or the countryside? Which vet would be prepared to treat them without getting paid? You believe in stray population control. Do you know that you are contradicting yourself? The word ‘control’ means domination, and goodbye to their ‘right’ to be free. Get real, will you. It makes sense to talk about people’s responsibility for the welfare of animals. But there is no such thing as animal rights. It makes sense to talk about people’s duty towards their pets. But there is no such thing as pets having a right to do as they please.
As to birds, they have no rights either. It’s the hunters who have rights over, and responsibilities for, both dogs and birds. If they abuse of these rights and responsibilities they should be penalized. This is why there are laws on animal welfare (not rights) and bird protection.
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 1st 2008, 07:46
By the way, Mr Zammit, Ms Zarb Darmanin was commenting on the 2nd, not the 3rd paragraph.
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 1st 2008, 06:56
No, Alfred E. Zammit. That's not what I mean. Lying might produce claps and cheers from naive hunters, but since my aim is not to win a petty fight but to defend animals' rights, I'm not bothered with childish remarks.
I'll only say one thing: For their offspring's interest, I believe in stray population control by means that do not involve killing (except where any animal is suffering from an incurable disease or injury).
Alfred E. Zammit
Mar 31st 2008, 21:59
Ms Zarb Darmanin, what Kenneth Cassar means is that dogs would have no owners, interbreed to their hearts’ content, feed themselves on who knows what, roam free in the streets or in the countryside, dispose of their own faeces, and so on. Vets would become redundant since dogs would have no owners who would be prepared to pay for their treatment. K. Cassar then has the cheek to say that it’s Mr Francica’s comment that is prejudiced nonsense. A. Zammit, no relation to me, compares hunting with chopping down trees. Not the right comparison, since he would presumably cut down dead trees, whereas hunters shoot live birds, and for legal hunting must obtain a state licence.
Kenneth Cassar
Mar 31st 2008, 17:22
Sylvana Zarb Darmanin wrote: "However, I doubt whether, when one bears in mind his confrontation with hunters, any one of the latter would enjoy having him in his company!"
The feeling is mutual, Ms Zarb Darmanin.
To Mr Kevin Francica: Peta are not my counterparts. They are a "welfarist" organisation that murders healthy animals.
Regarding doing Peta's job by making dogs extinct, the answer is no, since my proposal does not involve the killing of a single animal. What I propose is that we should stop breeding animals for our convenience and use. I do not propose going about in the streets picking up dogs and killing them. So Mr Francica's comment is just prejudiced nonsense. He would have fared better were he to ask me to explain, instead of making hasty uninformed conclusion.
A Zammit
Mar 31st 2008, 16:59
I personal view this issue here from a historic perspective. What did such dogs use to do before hunters came along (hunters who absolutely needed to hunt or suffer some sort of starvation at the time). Probably the dogs (assuming they were not wolves at the time) hunted whatever they found lying low. Be it other animals or even birds and I guess it was acceptable, since this might be in their nature and as a means of filling their stomach.
The contention I have here with the likes of Ms. Zarb Darmanin and others who are using this issue to justify hunting, is that dogs can hunt without their owners blasting birds from the sky. Take your dogs to the country side, like I do mine, and let it hunt if that makes you feel that you are doing good for it. Do not resort to shooting birds. Birds, one can argue are not the property of anyone, or the property of all of us if we use the argument of the stronger species. Therefore, if birds are the property of all, what reason do the hunters have to savage my property. Its like me going around with a chainsaw and cutting trees out (which are for everyone to enjoy and thus everyone's property). Don't laugh at this but I can get many excuses why I would want to cut trees. For the wood to put in the fireplace, because I have that hobby and who are you to not let me practice that hobby. Silly isn't it...same thing for hunting. Hunting is becoming more and more socially unacceptable in our society. I do not expect hunters to increase in numbers, but to decrease by time for various reasons, amongst which, less of country side, less time to practice this so called hobby, pressure from society and many more reasons. What will happen once hunting is out ? Maybe hunters could speculate what will happen to the "hunting dogs". Will they suffer ? Should then the government encourage hunting to lessen the suffering of the dogs ? Maybe provide tax rebates and a gieh ir-repubblika medal ?
kevin francica
Mar 31st 2008, 16:00
Mr. Kenneth Cassar's counterparets in the US, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) killed 2981 cats and dogs in their care in 2006. I wonder wether he has come across this during his reading.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/index.cfm
Mr Cassar states that "we should stop breeding, selling or buying any more dogs, while we should continue taking care of the ones already in existence and not to set all dogs free where they cannot cope on their own." if we were to take this advice, dogs would become extinct. Would this be Animal Rights way of doing PETA's job ?
Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
Mar 31st 2008, 14:17
Mr. Cassar simply confirms, in his 2nd paragraph, what Dr. Zammit said . He simply does not make an iota of sense when writing about these dogs. Indeed, he tries to be funny!!
I urge Mr. Cassar to find time to observe a hunting dog on its fieldwork. However, I doubt whether, when one bears in mind his confrontation with hunters, any one of the latter would enjoy having him in his company!
Finally, I again urge Mr. Cassar not to be so patronising with regard to a truly law-abiding and well-informed hunter like Dr. Ray Zammit.;
Dion Borg
Mar 31st 2008, 13:21
So Mr. Formosa,
Guess all 'hunters' can turn in their guns now - they can stroll in the countryside with binoculars, and the dogs run around and chasing the odd 'game' bird.
Prosit, we've come a long way indeed!
Anthony Formosa
Mar 31st 2008, 12:31
Mr Zammit is quite right to call ignorant, game birds are often found on the ground, and dogs besides their instincts they are also trained to chase away such birds. Well Mr Cassar I guess he's right, stop making fool out of yourself.
G. Caruana
Mar 31st 2008, 11:36
Well stated Mr. Cassar. People like Mr. Zammit would have us beleive that hunting dogs used to fly to catch birds before they were so introduced by human hunters. It goes to show that some hunters (or their sympathisers) are willing to invent any kind of silly story to justify their merciless slaughter of birds.