Does abolishing hunting mean cruelty to "hunting" dogs?

Danica Rosso, stating from the outset that she comes from a family of hunters, writes a letter in today's The Times, which she entitles "Spare a thought for hunting dogs".

Ms Rosso writes:

"I come from a family of hunters; my father is a hunter, my uncles are hunters and my grandfather was a hunter. Although I am not a hunter myself, I have on a few occasions accompanied my relatives on their hunting excursions and have come to appreciate what this hobby means to them and what a big part of their lives it plays. I would not like to go into the matter of the EU or the government's unfulfilled promise regarding spring hunting, but I would like to voice one of my concerns.

Nobody has yet spared a thought for hunting dogs. Dogs who have been exposed to hunting become enamoured with this hobby; this love is locally known as 'in-namra'. At the beginning of spring, hunting dogs display an unequivocal longing behaviour - a longing to be out in the country and do what they do best: hunt. Indeed Malta has its own breed of hunting dogs, 'il-kelb tal-kaċċa'.

Now I ask, is it not cruel to deprive these dogs of their true love and of their natural instinct?

Are BirdLife and all those opposing spring hunting animal lovers or are they only bird lovers?"

Ms Rosso's excuse or justification for allowing hunting out of concern for the "hunting" dogs is of course ridiculous.

Dogs who have been exposed to hunting do not become enamoured with this "hobby". That belief is just a simple case of anthropomorphism (giving human qualities to things or animals that do not have those qualities).

It is true that some dogs might have retained a hunting instinct, even though domestication of dogs and the consequent feeding of dogs by humans puts this generally in doubt, and has meant that most dogs are now seen to show no interest in hunting at all, provided that they are well fed. One, after all, rarely sees dogs chasing pidgeons in our public gardens, for instance (unless, of course, they are hungry strays).

It must also be noted that "hunting" dogs who accompany hunters in Malta do not hunt the birds themselves (that would be a preposterous suggestion which would require that dogs be capable of flying). This would be easy to test - one would simply need to go "hunting" with one's dogs without any guns or other weapons, and see for oneself whether the dog hunts or not. "Hunting" dogs simply fetch fallen (shot) birds whom the human hunter kills. A dog wouldn't care if the collected "object" was a bird or, for instance, a rubber ball.

As for Ms Rosso's claim that at the beginning of spring, "hunting" dogs display an unequivocal longing behaviour - a longing to be out in the country and "do what they do best: hunt", this is a very simplistic way of seeing things.

Since dogs are capable of cognitive association, they are capable of associating the "hunting season" with the fact that during this season they will generally spend much more time in the countryside with their "owner".

The "unequivocal longing behaviour", that Ms Rosso mentions, is a "longing to be out in the country", but that's as far as the longing goes. Since dogs' unfortunate status today is that of being human property, they depend on their "owner" for even simple (but necessary) enjoyments such as an outing to the countryside. Of course, an outing to the countryside is still possible irrespective of whether hunting is practiced or not. It all depends on the hunter "owner", and whether he/she would treat the dog as a companion or just as a hunting tool.

It also bears stressing again that "hunting" dogs who accompany hunters in Malta, do not hunt. They simply fetch dead birds whom the human hunters kill. Therefore, Ms Rosso's claim that "hunting" dogs long to "do what they do best: hunt", is clearly false. If "hunting" dogs do not hunt at all, then hunting cannot be "what they do best", since they actually do not even do it at all.

So, to answer Ms Rosso's questions:

"(I)s it not cruel to deprive these dogs of their true love and of their natural instinct?"

No, because first of all, hunting is not their "true love". An outing to the countryside and playing games with their "owner" is. Secondly, "hunting" dogs accompanying hunters do not hunt anyway. They only fetch dead or dying birds. The collection of dead birds can always be substituted by the collection of balls, frisbees, and other toys.

"Are BirdLife and all those opposing spring hunting animal lovers or are they only bird lovers?"

I won't speak for BirdLife, but those, like me, who oppose hunting for animal rights reasons do not do so just out of "love" for non-human animals. We oppose hunting as a matter of justice. In essence, this means that no sentient individual should be exploited or killed just for someone else's pleasure, be that someone human or non-human.

The question is not: "should we choose the dog over the bird or the bird over the dog?". The question is: "should we sacrifice the greater interest of a bird (life itself, the denial of which precludes further enjoyment of all other interests) for the significantly lesser interest of a dog in fetching dead birds, especially when this practice can be replaced with an equally satisfying (for the dog, not the human hunter) practice of fetching inanimate objects? And even if fetching rubber balls was not as satisfying for the dog as fetching dead birds, should we permit the ultimate harm to birds (killing them) just to satisfy the significantly lesser interest of a dog's pleasure in fetching things, be they animate or inanimate?

People who truly care about all animals will know the answer to my questions. The rest will go on seeking ways to justify the unjustifiable, even using "concern" for the dogs they claim to respect, in a feeble attempt to justify the killing of other animals whom they clearly do not respect, and kill or find no problem with killing.