Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG

Killing for pleasure and convenience

A .J. (Tony) Ellul from Canada writes a letter in today’s The Sunday Times entitled “Hunting is no ‘pastime’”, in which he argues that since hunting is no longer necessary for sustenance or clothing, it is nothing but a harmful practice, and no ‘pastime’, and gives his reasons for declaring it so.

However, Mr Ellul makes the all too common mistake of declaring hunting unnecessary (so far so good), but saying that this is so simply because one can buy “meat” and other “animal products” from shops without having to hunt to obtain them. He also seems to contradict himself by first declaring that hunting is wrong because unnecessary, and then declaring that if hunters must hunt, they should do so legally. But more about that in a moment.

What Mr Ellul seems to ignore is the fact that all “animal products” are in themselves unnecessary, and that the false belief that such products (such as “meat” and “leather”) are necessary seems to point to a totally opposite conclusion from the one reached by the correspondent. Such a false belief would actually suggest that people should hunt instead of buying their “animal products” from shops.

Mr Ellul writes: “At the dawn of civilisation, our ancestors found it necessary to hunt in order to protect themselves from predatory animals and to provide food and clothing for themselves and their families. In time, humans became more civilised and learned to farm and to domesticate and raise animals for their needs.

Today most of us do not need to hunt for our food. Humans have come a long way in farming and animal husbandry (sic) methods where most of us need look no further than our refrigerators or freezers, or our grocery and butcher stores, for our next meal”.

It is clear that Mr Ellul is correct in saying that hunting most probably was a necessity to our ancestors, both as a means of defence from predators, and as a means of sustenance and clothing. However, Mr Ellul makes the wrong assumption that, while today most of us do not need to hunt for food, we still need to eat “meat” and other “animal products”, and so we should buy these products from shops instead of killing the non-human animals ourselves.

This assumption is mistaken for two reasons. First of all, we do not need to kill any animals for clothing and food. Humans can live a perfectly healthy life on a vegan diet, and similarly, the skin of non-human animals is not necessary to clothe humans, particularly when there are sufficient clothing options available that are not made of dead animal skins. Secondly, his claim rests on the false assumption that there is such a thing as “humane slaughter” of animals for food or clothing. In terms of suffering for the animals concerned, most probably a “clean” shot from a hunter causes less suffering than a life in a modern “farm” and the actual execution of the non-human animals to obtain their skin and flesh or other “products”. Humane slaughter is a myth.

Of course, this is not to say that people should go out hunting instead of buying their “animal products” from the shops. Since “animal products” are not necessary for our survival, humans should of course reject the use of such products, which always involve some degree of suffering, and always involve the unnecessary taking of innocent life. This, apart from the fact that all animals (and I obviously include humans in animals) are irreplaceable individuals whose life matters to them individually.

There is no such thing as a generic “human” or a generic “cow”. Each human and each cow is an individual whose life may fare better or worse, and the taking of life necessarily involves preclusion of any further experience. To deny any animal the chance of experiential life, unless in exceptional cases like self-defence, involves treating that individual as simply a means to one’s end - an object or thing. All living beings who have an experiential welfare (to whatever degree) are not objects or things. They are individuals who deserve respectful treatment as autonomous individuals. To treat non-humans as things just because they lack some characteristic which we arbitrarily decide should hinge on whether such individuals have a right to life, would preclude many humans from having the same right. To claim that only humans have such a right because they are humans simply begs the question: Why do humans have rights? To deny the right to life and liberty to non-humans is speciesist.

Mr Ellul goes on to say that “Some people in parts of the ‘uncivilised’ world still rely on hunting for their food. Yet even these ‘unsophisticated’ and ‘uncivilised’ people do not hunt inedible animals such as raptor birds, and they certainly do not hunt for the purpose of acquiring trophies to boost their egos”.

This much, of course, I will concede. Hunting in Malta is only practiced as a “pastime” or “hobby”, or perhaps, as our correspondent says, to “boost (the hunters’) egos”. However, even if hunting in Malta were to be practiced for food, hunting would still be wrong for the simple reason that “meat” and other “animal products” are not necessary for our survival.

Everyone who consumes “animal products” does so for pleasure or convenience, which differs little to the reason why hunters in Malta hunt. Pleasure is pleasure, and if it is justified to deny sentient beings their lives just for the pleasure of the taste of their flesh, it would be equally justifiable to deny similar beings their lives just for the pleasure and “thrill” of a kill. Of course, since both the consumption of “animal products” and hunting are unnecessary for our survival, they are both unjustified killing, which to a non-speciesist would mean murder. In this respect, it could be claimed, for the reasons explained above vis-a-vis the suffering caused by hunting compared to the greater suffering in modern “animal farms”, that our own society is actually less civilised than the people in the “uncivilised world”.

Mr Ellul goes on to say that “It appears that only the Maltese ‘hunters’ still indulge in their barbaric pastime of shooting anything that moves or flies. In pursuing their ‘pastime’, these ‘hunters’ exhibit egoistic tendencies that are typical of immature people who care only about themselves and who have no regard for others, least of all the creatures that share this planet with us”.

People who do not care only about themselves and who have regard for others, including “all the creatures that share this planet with us”, would not unnecessarily kill any such “creatures” just for pleasure or convenience. Of course, Mr Ellul is correct in claiming that “shooting anything that moves or flies” exhibits “egoistic tendencies”. However, one should perhaps look deeper into one’s own actions and think about whether it is also “egoistic tendencies” that make one kill, or have killed on one’s behalf, other sentient non-human animals, whose flesh or skin we can easily do without. The killing of non-human animals doesn’t cease to be “egoistic” or unjust simply because it serves the satisfaction of my pleasures and not those of someone else.

Mr Ellul then says: “They go so far as to make dire threats and to indulge in savage vandalism, even vandalising our national treasures and burning down precious trees, to get their way. If they must hunt, let them do it within the law, hunting only in season, and taking only prescribed limits of fowl and animals that are fit for human consumption. Do these ‘hunters’ realise that we humans are the stewards of creation?”

Again, this is where Mr Ellul is very wrong. Hunting, for the reasons explained above, is equally wrong when done legally, in season, with limitations or for human consumption as it is wrong when done illegally, out of season, without limits or not for human consumption. To the murdered individual, the reasons or circumstances under which he or she is murdered make no difference whatsoever. And no, we are not the “stewards of creation”. In fact, in all probability, “creation” would do much better without us, considering we are the most polluting and most violent species on the planet.

Mr Ellul concludes his letter by saying: “Do they realise that all humans have a responsibility to care for our environment, if not for our sake, then for the sake of those who will come after us? Do they realise that the lead pellets that come out of their guns fall to the earth and into the water where they poison both earth and water as well as any creature that ingests the lead pellets?

Hunters’ self-proclaimed ‘pastime’ poses a danger to themselves, to the rest of the nation (especially when they illegally discharge firearms close to people’s homes), and to future generations - our children and grandchildren and their children”.

Of course, Mr Ellul is right to conclude so. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that hunting is wrong primarily because it is harmful to its own direct victims. All the rest are harmful consequences that stem out of this rights-violating act of taking sentient life for no other reason than pleasure or convenience. Hunting would still be wrong if it did not entail such harmful consequences. Hunting is primarily wrong because it violates the hunting victims’ right to life and liberty. Therefore, all hunting, like other speciesist practices such as the completely unnecessary consumption or use of “animal products”, is wrong and unjust. Until we reject all speciesist and unnecessary exploitation of all animals, we cannot honestly say that we have morally progressed. In fact, in relation to neanderthals, who most probably consumed non-human animals out of necessity, we have actually regressed.

Brussels shoots down hunters’ proposal - Crucial decision on spring hunting on Wednesday

Ivan Camilleri reports in today’s The Sunday Times:

“The EU executive has rejected Maltese hunters’ latest proposal and made it clear that there is no valid reason for spring hunting to continue, a spokesman for the European Commission told The Sunday Times.

Sources yesterday said that the Commission will on Wednesday meet to discuss whether Malta should be referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the issue.

‘We have been warning Malta since its accession to the EU and the time has come to take drastic action. We expect that in less than a year the ECJ will be in a position to give a ruling. The court might also consider imposing interim measures until a final ruling is made’, the sources said.

Malta is the only EU country which still permits spring hunting and the Commission has warned on a number of occasions that it will take the issue to court if the Government continues to allow the practice to take place.

The hunters’ federation is arguing that the spring season should open by virtue of an exemption - known as a derogation - permitted under the EU’s Birds Directive. However, the spokesman said this does not apply as hunters in Malta can already practise their hobby during the autumn season.

In a final gamble to ’save’ Malta’s spring hunting season, the FKNK last week said that in collaboration with European hunting organisation FACE, it had drawn up a position document ‘in order to allow the Maltese authorities to grant a derogation for hunting only quail and turtledove during part of the pre-nuptial migration, in small numbers and under strictly supervised conditions, by taking into account the particular bio-geographical and socio-cultural situation of Malta’.

However, the Commission reiterated on Friday that this is not possible and spring hunting in Malta has to stop once and for all.

‘Spring hunting - that is hunting of migratory birds on their return to their rearing grounds - is prohibited under Article 7 of the Birds Directive. A derogation from that general prohibition is provided for under Article 9, which states that a fundamental condition that must be met before a derogation can be permitted is the requirement that no other satisfactory solution is available’, the spokesman explained.

The latest issue raised by the federation has already been addressed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in an almost identical case to Malta’s, he added.

The ECJ has looked at this matter and concluded that another satisfactory solution is available where it is possible to hunt at another time of year - during autumn - even if a smaller numbers of birds are available then (Case C-344/03 - Commission vs Finland).

‘Following this approach by the court, where a derogation concerns ’small numbers… under strictly supervised conditions’ another satisfactory solution exists’.

The Government has always maintained it is ready to defend its position before the ECJ, while also declaring that it will respect the court’s decision. The Government has not yet decided whether to open the next spring hunting season in March.

Environment Minister George Pullicino last week said that he will wait for the opinion of the Ornis Committee before taking a final decision. Sources yesterday told The Sunday Times that the Government will not be making any move until it knows the outcome of the Commission’s decision on Wednesday”.

There you have it. The EU commission has once again made it clear that “spring hunting in Malta has to stop once and for all”. Daniel Xriha, Mark A. Sammut, Lino Farrugia, Aldo E. Azzopardi, Mark Mifsud Bonnici and all the other hunter whiners please take note.

Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.