Hunting dogs are no dummies, but neither are we

Fabian Borg of the Federation for Hunters, Trappers and "Conservationists" is the next to write to The Times in reply to my letter of March 11, where I made it clear enough that:

"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'".

But apparently, both Ray Zammit and now Fabian Borg, missed that point entirely. Below, I am reproducing Fabian Borg's reply in full. But since Mr Borg's letter misses the point entirely, and deals only on "hunting" dogs' overall experience of hunting, some of this blog's readers would be excused if they skip Mr Borg's letter completely (the content of which is morally irrelevant even if mostly true) and proceed to my reply which won't be too long, since the entire "justification" for hunting out of "concern for the hunting dogs" could easily be refuted in a few sentences.

Mr Borg, in his letter "Hunting dogs are no dummies", writes:

"Hunting dogs do what they do best: Hunt. In view of the letters by Kenneth Cassar and Joe Aquilina (March 11) one needs to stress the facts that prove the above statement.

Comparing dummies to game birds is just another gimmick which can blind those people who are not familiar with the subject. I believe that Mr Cassar especially, given his knowledge of animals, should know better. For example, he should know about the particular scent released by a migrating game bird, which is not even comparable to that of a bird raised in captivity, let alone to a dummy.

When saying that dogs hunt, it means they participate in full before, during and after the taking of the bird. Flushing dogs, such as Pointers are used to hunt quail and not just to fetch the dead bird. Quail is very hard to flush, especially in spring, because of the dense grass and high wheat stems, not to mention wasteland in which the quail blends in perfectly to an invisible level. Attempting to hunt quail without a well-trained dog is a non-starter, indicating the origin of the old Maltese proverb that "għas-summien kelb ta' mitt lira u senter ta' sold" (in the case of quail, [what you need] is a Lm100 dog and a one penny shotgun).

During quail hunting, the dog plays the most important role and, believe me, they would know what is happening and they feel satisfaction and pride after the job. The fetching part during quail hunting is the easy part as the bird would have lost its cover and the drop zone would be already identified.

On the other hand, turtle doves are very wary and dogs must remain almost motionless while the occasional dove is approaching.

This while keeping an eye on the whereabouts of the drop zone in order to obtain a quick fetch and earliest return to the hiding place.

A well-trained and experienced dog on many occasions is another pair of eyes for the hunter as a quick look at the sky by the dog would surely signify an approaching bird that might still be unnoticed by the hunter.

I trust that the little information shared above may enlighten readers that a dummy is just a dummy in whatever way you use it".

I will immediately concede that a dummy is no exact replica of a live bird, just as a vegan burger is no exact replica of a "beef" burger. However, someone who follows an ethic of respect for the rights of all sentient animals, would choose a dummy for one's dog as much as he or she would choose a vegan burger for lunch.

What I particularly find extremely strange is when someone would claim that dogs have rights (for instance, to hunt) while claiming that birds do not.

Suddenly, hunters are bandying about the word "rights" in an attempt to rally sympathy for their dogs, when their real not-so-hidden agenda is that of pursuing their own interest, which is the satisfaction they get from killing birds. Until recently, they would have sought to ridicule anyone who suggested that non-human animals have rights. I'm sure that, for instance, Ray Orland, who commented in The Times that "those are the proper 'hunting dogs' rights'!!! to find the bird and catch it finally...", would have a very interesting conversation with Daniel Xriha, who, on March 5 wrote: "Where did these 'rights' suddenly originate from? Do these 'rights' really exist? It is only human beings that have rights, and these rights go hand in hand with obligations".

And what should one make of Mark Mifsud Bonnici's comment that "Kenneth Cassar should know gun dogs have a right to hunt. The problem is he doesn't admit that they do...So my advice is, keep silent until you learn the facts before you comment as you can only make a fool of yourself by being ignorant", when, as recently as July 15, 2007 he wrote that "It is quite obvious that people defending animal rights...would resort to any means to strengthen their cause...the truth is definitely not within their vocabulary".

So do animals have "rights" (to hunt) now that it suits hunters? And would this make Mark Mifsud Bonnici someone who would resort to any means to strengthen their cause, the truth definitely not being within his vocabulary? Or should he perhaps keep silent until he learns the facts before he comments, so that he doesn't make a fool of himself by being ignorant?

Who knows? Maybe I have managed to influence some hunters in becoming "sentimentalists", "extremists", and "fundamentalists". Next thing you know, they'll tell us they are going vegan.

However, if they really understood the concept of a right, and are not saying that the dog has "rights" in an anthropomorphic way, then how can they say that a dog has rights while a bird does not?

Since rights are means of protecting interests, isn't life itself a more significant interest than just the enjoyment of a practice?

And if dogs have rights despite not being human, how can one justify the claim that birds (also non-human animals) do not have rights? Perhaps, Mark Mifsud Bonnici from the "St Hubertus" hunters, who wrote that Mr Borg's letter "might serve to explain what dogs do and feel whilst they hunt and people will learn from (his) writings", would like to explain what birds feel while they are being shot.

Rights are not a matter of personal taste - either one has rights or one does not.

The person who claims that some non-human animals have rights (for instance, dogs) necessarily believes that being human is not a pre-requisite for having rights. This puts dogs and birds on an equal footing. Therefore, like interests should be treated alike. However, more fundamental interests (like life itself) should be given more weight to lesser interests (such as pleasure).

Hunters are thus left with two choices, if they are to be at least seen as consistent, and thus be taken seriously. They should either re-consider their claim that dogs have a "right" to hunt, or else consider that the simple fact that a dog has rights means that a bird does too. And since the bird's right to life is more fundamental, it trumps the dog's "right" to hunt.

That said, since dogs are conditioned to assist hunters, they, like human children, cannot be held as morally culpable. However, adult hunters are moral persons who should be accountable for their actions. This is what makes all the difference.

Hunting dogs are no dummies, but neither are we.