I am sick and tired of listening to the ramblings of people like Kenneth Cassar (April 7) about the rights of animals or the "non-humans" as he likes to put it. How can he, or anyone else declare that a hunting dog doesn't have the right to hunt.

Only by looking at a hunting dog one immediately realises that the dog's anatomy is made perfectly for hunting. In fact, usually, all hunting dogs have keen eyesight, sharp sense of smell and hearing, a perfectly adapted body to run, crawl, swim or whatever the particular game the hunt requires, and are perfectly camouflaged to blend in with the surroundings.

How anyone can look at a dog like that and not understand that that dog's function in life is to hunt, baffles me. One might as well point at a Cheetah and declare that it shouldn't be hunting!

Now at this point I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not in favour of hunting and am not trying to condone hunting in any way, but the fact is that hunting has been going on since the first animals appeared on this planet and certain dogs are made specifically for hunting. I personally do not think it would be fair for a human (or non-animal) like Mr Cassar to deny the right of a dog to hunt. The stark truth is that people who share Mr Cassar's opinion, believe that animals should not be owned by humans at all. This extremist manner of looking at animal welfare doesn't help animals at all because it is so far-fetched from reality that it will never help to educate people about the true needs of animals.

Since the beginning of time man and animals have co-habited with each other and the truth is that most of the time both man and animal have benefited from this deal, where humans could see to the safety and well-being of the animal whereas the animal could carry, hunt for or protect the human beings that own them. Why else would a horse have the perfect body for a rider to sit comfortably on him if its purpose was not to carry humans? Why is a camel capable of walking for hours and hours in the desert without drinking, and yet is also capable of carrying a person on his back? Why is a dog so inclined to develop a strong relationship with his owner if dog and man haven't been made to live together. Let's go one step further and imagine how uncivilised and how primitive man would still be nowadays if he didn't have the horse to help him travel from one place to the other, if he didn't have the dog to help protect his livestock, if he didn't have the cat to help control rodent infestation on his ships during long voyages in the days before cars, planes and motor-powered ships were invented?

When trying to understand matters of nature one must look closely at nature and the answers are there to be seen.

It is also true that nowadays thanks to our modern world, the role of the animal is not so important for our survival as it was in the past, but the relationship between man and animal still exists and in most cases this relationship benefits both parties. Of course each owner is morally and legally responsible for the proper upkeep of his/her particular pet or working animal and as such, should be punished by law and not allowed to keep animals if he/she ill-treats the animal/pet.

The point that humans should not own animals is so far-fetched and incorrect that it scares me that people representing animal welfare groups can come up with such theories. I am sincerely afraid that animal welfare groups with such extremist views can cause more harm than good on this island where some owners could do much better in making sure the animals in their care are kept in the best mental and physical shape possible.