Hunters, dogs, birds and rights

Kenneth Cassar of Animal Rights Malta (April 1), while conceding that a dummy is no exact replica of a live bird, proceeds to get lost once more over his own argument, not mine, about the "rights" of dogs.

Anyone looking for the "rights" of dogs will discover they have none. If they had, they would have not only responsibilities, but also the means of protecting their interests. Mr Cassar himself unwittingly confirms this by stating that "rights are means of protecting interests". Since dogs do not have the means to protect their own interests, people have to assume responsibility for their protection and welfare. It is, therefore, a question of animal welfare, and definitely not of non-existent animal "rights".

And so we go back to where this correspondence all started: Danica Rosso's letter. Assuming she is a law-abiding licence holder, it is the lady who has a right and a responsibility to hunt with her dogs. The ultimate satisfaction for her and her dogs is to engage in a real hunt, not half of one, or just as unsatisfactory, a dummy "hunt". At this point let me say I have no time to waste on an explanation, particularly for someone who expects dogs to have "wings to hunt high-flying birds".

Since Mr Cassar puts "dogs and birds on an equal footing", it follows that birds have no rights either. Therefore his argument that a bird's right "trumps" a dog's right to hunt is null and void.