I refer to Fabian Borg's letter of March 27. I will immediately concede that a dummy is no exact replica of a live bird, just as a vegan burger is no exact replica of a "beef" burger. However, someone who follows an ethic of respect for the rights of all sentient animals would choose a dummy for one's dog as much as he or she would choose a vegan burger for lunch.

What I particularly find extremely strange is when someone claims that dogs have rights (for instance, to hunt) while claiming that birds do not.

Suddenly, hunters are bandying about the word "rights" in an attempt to rally sympathy for their dogs, when their real not-so-hidden agenda is that of pursuing their own interest, which is the satisfaction they get from killing birds. Until recently, they would have sought to ridicule anyone who suggested that non-human animals have rights. Maybe we have influenced them to become "sentimentalists", "extremists", and "fundamentalists".

However, if they really understood the concept of a right, and are not saying that the dog has "rights" in an anthropomorphic way, then how can they say that a dog has rights while a bird does not?

Since rights are means of protecting interests, isn't life itself a more significant interest than just the enjoyment of a practice?

And if dogs have rights despite not being human, how can one 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 (for instance dogs) necessarily believes that being human is not a prerequisite 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).

Hunters are thus left with two choices, if they are to be at least seen as consistent, and thus be taken seriously. They should either reconsider their 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 to assist hunters, they, like human children, cannot be held as morally culpable. However, adult hunters are moral persons who should be accountable for their actions. This is what makes all the difference.

Hunting dogs are no dummies, but neither are we.