Life-saving dog

Alex Ellul's comment that before WW2 hunters refrained from shooting in Spring to allow " a larger netting in Autumn " is a total and complete fabrication and his intention is solely to mislead. In those days even British Military officers stationed here would go hunting in April/May for Turtle Doves alongside their Maltese counterparts.

Fabian Borg said: "On the other hand it is only humans who take care of their handicapped offspring" This is basically untrue. There have been several evidenced reports of non-human animals taking care of handicapped non-humans. Read some literature on zoology.
Fabian Borg said: "As you may know any handicapped animals or mentally retarded animals born in the wild are never to be seen..." Again, though not too common, it is false to claim that they are never to be seen. "...which show that animals are not capable to be responsable and defend their handicapped offspring/relatives and these are either abandoned or fall as prey almost immediately".
Actually this does not "prove" that they are not responsible. It only shows that in the wild, most animals are not physically capable of defending the disabled from stronger predators. "This further proves the lack of responsability in animals. Responsability is a human thing".
While this is debatable, it is all besides the point. I have already shown that being responsible is not necessary for having rights, otherwise this would disqualify several humans from having rights. Regarding comparing humans to "animals", which, to anyone who does not believe in a flat earth or in a sun that revolves around the earth, is like saying that I'm comparing an animal (human) to an animal (non-human), I am only comparing like with like. Humans have eyes - dogs have eyes. Some humans have responsibilities - some non-humans have responsibilities. All humans have rights - all non-humans have rights.

And yet, human infants and the severely mentally disabled have NO responsibilities but still HAVE RIGHTS. It's futile for you to try to avoid this, dear Fabian Borg.
If it took responsibilities for one to have rights, you would deny rights to human infants and the severely mentally disabled. But of course, instead of conceding this point, you are making a fool of yourself by giving the impression that you don't understand the implications of your claim that rights hinge on responsibilities. Do yourself a favour and read some philosophy.

To Mr. Fabian Borg: You have chosen to answer me on only a minor part of my comment: That in the old days, hunters refrained from hunting in Spring for a very valid reason, namely birds nest and reproduce during Spring. You failed to answer me on where are the indigenous birds of prey that I used to see and hear in the old days when I was a child running barefoot in the local fieds..
You see, I m not young myself. By the way, why am I managing to see large birds hovering in the sky during these days? Because you hunters have, for the first time in my life refrained from indiscrimanate killing of birds because you are afraid of a negative (positive?) ruling from the Euro court. that's why. I hope it will be that way for ever then i will be able to shoot birds with my camera. I ask one question: who owns the birds in the sky? Answer: Nobody.

By the way, Mr. Alex Ellul, can you guide me to those old living Maltese hunters who claimed to spare hunting turtle doves and quail in spring before WW2. I would be delighted to spend a couple of hours talking to them as I do with other fellow hunters and trappers. I am very sure that you are in the wrong and just need to confirm in person.
As you may presume I come from a family of hunters and this has been running for 5 generations and my late Grand Father used to amuse us with his hunting stories and 75% of them occurred in Spring and this was surely before WW2.

Well Mr. Farrugia,
If you put it that way I suggest you visit a local bank and indulge in a loan and buy a couple of fields in the middle of what you call a war zone. Extreme thinking gives rise to extreme actions. My view in all this is that one must sit and negotiate terms and stick to them.
If you want a Total ban I may want a Total war zone as you call it. No side will ever give in so i did my part. The question is : Will you do yours ??

Also Kenneth, it is you that is comparing Human offspring and other Humans to Animals. It is animal nature to feed and take care of all offspring and humans are part of it. On the other hand it is only humans who take care of their handicapped offspring and the mentally retarded humans since you had the interest of mentioning them.
As you may know any handicapped animals or mentally retarded animals born in the wild are never to be seen which show that animals are not capable to be responsable and defend their handicapped offspring/relatives and these are either abandoned or fall as prey almost immediately. This further proves the lack of responsability in animals. Responsability is a human thing.

May I ask Mr Fabian Borg the reason why dogs (or other non-human animals) do not have rights?

Please note that the claim that "they have no responsibilities" or that they "cannot defend their interests" are not valid reasons, since, like I explained, this would discount human infants and the severely mentally disabled from having rights.

Is Mr Fabian Borg's reason for denying rights to non-humans simply "because I say so"?

Mr Fabian Borg misunderstood me.
What I meant was that he should give up trying to convert hunters into something that they cannot ever be.
Hence, the one solution is to enact laws to outlaw hunting, so that hunters will not deprive the rest of humanity of the nature that God has given us. Hunters would not be in a position, therefore, to kill birds simply in order to have them stuffed and put on display in garages, stores or living-rooms.
In this manner, hunters would not be in a position to cause further pollution through throwing lead into the soil.
Hunters would not be in a position to declare OUR countryside a warzone and prohbit law-abiding citizens from taking walks in OUR countryside.
In this manner, birds would be able to nest, and live as they wish to, in their own natural manner.
That, Mr Borg, is what I meant!

Mr. Willcocks' letter proves how much we humans need animals.... and birds. I believe that this correspondence was instigated by a pro-hunting lobbyist writing recently in the TOM trying to convince us lesser mortals that 'hunting' dogs need hunting. I think that the hunters have reached the nadir of their arguments, if ever they had any valid ones. May I ask some questions: Where are the indigenous birds of prey? The peregrine (Maltese) falcon, the owl, and many others? Today we can only see the common sparrow and the rats invading our fields in such a way that now farmers have to introduce compressed air bangers to shoo-off the sparrows from the fruit trees and no solution for the rats that would otherwise be under natural control by the night owl.

One more comment: In the past, before WW2, many Maltese hunters refrained from hunting in Spring time due to the fact that the Spring South-North migration was followed by nesting, reproduction and therefore a larger netting during the Autumn North-South migration. How's that for a real hunting spirit?

Franco Farrugia is completely right. The best we can do is follow laws, respect eachother and co exist in peace. Dog breeders and owners may love and respect their pets for whatever reason, be it company, responsability, amusement, pride, security, hunting and so on. In the end we all love our dogs and treat them as family. This does not give dogs rights and dogs do not necessarily want rights. They want affection, a good excersize and healthy food and no responsable pet owner will neglect those.

Very funny, Mr Deguara. But to answer your question, the dog would have been prosecuted only if a 5 year old child would be prosecuted for a similar "offense".

Victor Deguara,

Are you playing the fool?

Mr Willcock is lucky to have a dog that shows the greatest affection for its master. But he should not confuse that with "responsibility". The dog sensed that something was dreadfully wrong with her beloved master, and did what it could to bring things back to normal i.e. to see its master breathing normally. His choking sounds alerted it to the fact that things were not as they should be with him.
But this as nothing to do with your argument with Kenneth Cassar. A dog has no rights nor responsibilities.
The dog could not be penalized if it had done nothing and Mr Willcock had choked to death. But if Mr. Willcock's nurse (if he had one) had known of his condition and had neglected her duties and let him choke to death, that would have been a matter involving responsibility for which the nurse would have been accountable. In the case of dogs, this would be absurd.
This does not mean dogs should be treated badly. No way! What you are saying all along is, that whereas dogs have no rights or responsibilities, their masters do. They have a right to keep dogs and a responsibility to treat them well.

Mr Willcock must realise that he is preaching to those who cannot ever be converted.

To Mr Willcock: If your dog did not do what it did, could it be prosecuted for nor fulfilling its responsibilities or neglecting them thus allowing you to......?