Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG

Ray Zammit, in defensive-mode, writes a letter in today’s The Times, in reply to my own where I explained that dogs who accompany hunters in Malta do not hunt, but simply fetch, and that this makes the suggestion by Danica Rosso that abolishing hunting is cruel to dogs, absurd.

Mr Zammit writes:

“Kenneth Cassar of Animal Rights (March 11) writes that all hunting dogs do is fetch dead birds. He might have made animal rights his crusade but he seems to be ignorant about anything else related to animals. People with even the slightest knowledge about dogs refer to such dogs as retrievers since their breeding throughout the years as an aid to the hunter has perfected their sense of finding dead game and retrieving it. These dogs cannot be considered as hunting dogs even though they play a very crucial role in the hunting world. Clearly he has no idea that hunting dogs exist. These dogs include setters, pointers, spaniels, hounds and terriers. These purposely-bred dogs are trained to hunt, follow, chase, trail, track and retrieve birds or ground game (sic). These dogs do not need, as his warped suggestion states, “wings or guns to hunt” game-birds or ground game. They use their noses, their brains, their hunting instincts, and the training expounded on them with patience and love by people like young Danica Rosso (February 29). Before taking her to task, and making a fool of himself in the process, the least he could have done is check his facts”.

Mr Zammit assumes that I am ignorant about anything related to animals. I admit that I am no expert on all things related to non-human animals, but to my credit, I am more than willing to learn, which is why I spend much of my free time reading on diverse but related topics such as animal rights, evolutionary biology, philosophy, etc, apart from learning through direct observation. In this vein, I would be very grateful if Mr Zammit would explain to me how “hunting” dogs can possibly hunt high-flying birds without the aid of wings or guns.

Call it a “warped suggestion” as he may, the onus is on him to explain how dogs (on their own) can possibly hunt birds. Common sense shows that they are not physically endowed to hunt flying animals. I would therefore be very grateful if Mr Zammit, instead of simply saying that I am making a fool of myself, kindly explains how dogs in Malta hunt. In the absence of such an explanation, rational people like myself will be entitled to hold the belief that all that dogs do is fetch. It is certainly true that “purposely-bred dogs” are “trained to hunt, follow, chase, trail, track and retrieve” birds such as pheasants or “ground game”, but it would perhaps be worth reminding Mr Zammit that here we are discussing the hunting of turtle-doves and common quails. Dogs certainly cannot hunt turtle-doves. They can only fetch their dead bodies. As for common quails, if Maltese hunting dogs hunt them, the hunters might as well leave their guns at home. And while he’s busy trying to explain how a dog can possibly “hunt” a high-flying bird, he might even consider addressing my question of March 11, which he conveniently ignored, where I wrote: “The question is not: ‘Should we choose the dog over the bird or the bird over the dog?’, but: ‘Should we sacrifice the greater interest of a bird (life itself) for the significantly lesser interest of a dog in fetching dead birds, especially when this can be replaced with an equally satisfying (for the dog, not the human hunter) practice of fetching inanimate objects?’”.

Mr Zammit goes on to say:

“The way this AR activist puts forward his misinformed views in this newspaper (The Times) is disturbing. His absurd ‘explanation’ about hunting dogs is typical. To top up the nonsense, he writes that ‘dogs’ unfortunate status today is that of being human property’ implying thereby that dogs should have complete freedom and, in their capacity of ‘non-human persons’, be allowed to roam around freely unattended by their ‘owners’! Does he realise the unacceptable chaos this would create or the cruelty it would cause? Perhaps he would care to share with readers his master plan, if he has one, as to how he intends to change the present status of dogs as pets and treasured ‘human property’”.

Regarding dogs being human property, and his assumption that I implied that dogs should all be set free, I would like to rest Mr Zammit’s mind that that is far from what I meant. The animal rights view is that we should stop breeding, selling or buying any more dogs, while we should continue taking care of the ones already in existence

If Mr Zammit is interested in learning more about the reasons behind this conclusion (which cannot be fully explained in a short letter in a newspaper), he is more than welcome to visit my blog, where he will find a list of books he may buy to learn more about animal rights in general, and this issue in particular. Reading might help him to either change his views, or else enable him to make informed criticism.

Mr Zammit then goes on to write that:

“Mr Cassar concludes with his usual AR ideology ‘that no sentient individual should be exploited or killed just for someone else’s pleasure, be that someone human or non-human’. According to Mr Cassar, hunters may not shoot birds for the table, nor should dogs and cats eat meat and fish. Besides, if scientists were to prove that all plants are also ’sentient’, and in some cases they have done so already, then goodbye to vegetarianism! Perhaps we could then eat one another, with AR permission of course!”.

Mr Zammit sure got right the fact that respect for animals’ rights entails that we should not exploit any animal for pleasure or convenience, and this means that hunters should not murder birds for any reason. Of course, contrary to what Mr Zammit suggests, this does not mean that animals who are obligate carnivores (they have no choice) should not eat meat. However, humans and many other animals are not obligate carnivores. This means that humans who kill non-human animals for food do it just for pleasure and convenience. That’s what makes it wrong.

Regarding Mr Zammit’s question regarding what would happen if scientists were to prove that plants are also sentient (a term which is commonly used both in science and philosophy – hence no need to put it in quotes), my reply is simple. Even in the unlikely event that scientists were to “prove” that living things that have neither a brain nor a nervous system are miraculously sentient (therefore having an awareness of self to some degree), this would pose no huge dilemma to vegetarians and vegans, since to eat meat, one would still have to breed non-human animals and feed them on plants (Mr Zammit should perhaps ask himself what cows, pigs etc, whom we bring into existence, eat). Veganism would still kill less plants and/or animals.

Mr Zammit concludes his letter by writing:

“Clearly Mr Cassar, the animal rights guru who professes to be a human animal, does not own a hunting dog since his peculiar beliefs would probably only allow him to cohabit with one. Ms Rosso like all other level-minded dog lovers happens to enjoy the purpose for which her dog was bred and would rather leave her dog decide as to whether it has a right to hunt or, as Mr Cassar suggests, ‘fetch rubber balls’”.

While I humbly thank Mr Zammit for the compliment, I would like to assure him that there is no such thing as an animal rights guru. I am simply as a person who, for completely altruistic reasons, chooses to share with others what I learn through reading and experience, including the fact that basic science teaches us that humans are an animal species, and that simply assigning a purpose to someone (be it the purpose of hunting to dogs, or the purpose of slavery to humans bred for servitude) does not make that practice right.

If Mr Zammit (or anyone else) would like any clarification on what I wrote, or would like to ask any questions, he is welcome to contact me through my blog. I will be happy to explain and inform. I would also be grateful in being corrected where I am mistaken. Being open to learning is one of the virtues I find extremely valuable. Hence, I eagerly await Mr Zammit’s explanation regarding how dogs can possibly hunt high-flying birds. I might learn something from a hunter, after all.

Finally, regarding “leav(ing the) dog decide as to whether it (sic) has a right to hunt or, as (I) suggest, ‘fetch rubber balls’”, there actually is a very practical solution to this, which leaves the dog about whom Mr Zammit claims to be “concerned” in complete freedom. Since Mr Zammit insists that dogs are capable of hunting high-flying birds, apparently without human intervention, the solution is simply to take the dog out in the fields without any guns, and let the dog hunt to his heart’s content. I’m confident that the dog will in no time look for the ball. Besides, Mr Zammit, who cares so much about his “hunting” dog’s need to hunt, will be pleased to learn that the EU regulation against spring hunting applies only to humans, and not to dogs. So he may still be able to take his dog to “hunt” in spring. All that he will be required to do is to leave his gun at home.

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