Hunting, like all animal abuse, simply should not be

Mark Mifsud Bonnici, secretary of the "St Hubertus" hunters, writes a letter in today's The Sunday Times (entitled "Hunting as it should be") in which he both seeks to defend the practice of legal hunting by correctly claiming that the meat bought from supermarkets is also the product of killed animals, and also to condemn illegal hunting, for, in his own words: "The few irresponsible hunters must be reined in, if for no other reason, not to be used by unscrupulous anti-hunters to tarnish Malta's international reputation".

I will of course not waste much space arguing that it is our democratic freedom of the press that allows anyone to report on any illegality - illegal hunting being no exception - and that there is nothing to be scrupulous about when reporting on facts.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici writes:

"In the past, hunting was the prime source of food for mankind, and all men were hunters. Development has brought about a change in this instinctive practice. City dwellers who obtain their food from supermarkets have lost their primeval instinct and unknowingly ignore the fact that all meat is not born in plastic bags, but reared, fattened and slaughtered in abattoirs.

These people, far removed from the unpleasant realities of life and conditioned by the fictional trappings of modernity, are usually the first to condemn hunting as a barbaric, obsolete practice.

Hunting has now evolved into a regulated form of relaxation and recreation enjoyed by many people worldwide. It also provides the hunter with a source of healthy food. In fact the benefits of eating game (sic) are steadily being promoted as part of a healthy diet".

Mr Mifsud Bonnici then veers his letter in the direction alluded to above, which, for reasons I will explain shortly, does not necessitate reproduction on this blog.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici echoes my thoughts in the first paragraph, although I draw a totally different conclusion.

I have personally always maintained that perhaps subsistence hunting (hunting for food) might actually be less cruel than buying meat from supermarkets, the meat usually coming from animals who are confined in small unnatural spaces for their whole lives before actually being killed. In fact, on January 27, I wrote: "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".

That said, considering that veganism is an option, this does not exonerate hunting. One should not accept an unnecessary "lesser evil" just because opting for the "greater evil" would be worse.

As I wrote on January 27, "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...we do not need to kill any animals for clothing and food (anymore). 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".

It must also be pointed out, that hunters in Malta are not subsistence hunters, and all of them buy meat from supermarkets.

As for the rest of the letter, I will spare you my own commentary, since it does not concern abolitionist animal rights activists (please note that neither BirdLife nor Proact are animal rights (AR) organizations - animal rights organizations oppose all kinds of animal killing, including that the product of which ends up in what Mr Mifsud Bonnici correctly describes as ending up in plastic bags in supermarkets).

It is also worth mentioning at this point that not only has there never been an animal rights activist in the Ornis Committee criticized by Mr Mifsud Bonnici in his letter (the committee was set up to study and give recommendations to the government on hunting regulations), but there actually can never be one, for the simple reason that an animal rights activist would by definition stick to his uncompromising conviction that no animal should be unnecessarily killed, be the animal a member of a numerous species, protected species, or otherwise.

It is perhaps also worth stressing that an animal rights activist would not bother with numbers (fabricated or true), since to animal rights activists, every animal matters.

That said, animal rights activists, being members of a democracy, concede that democracies function through majority rule. This essentially means that education is the only key to a gradual elimination of all animal abuse, while legislation is the means by which the regulations against abuse recognized to be such by the non-AR majority are to be enforced.

AR activists are also intelligent enough to recognize that now that we have become members of the EU through a majority vote, we have willingly handed over some of our "sovereignty" to the EU. This, in effect, means that Malta must abide to EU regulations, for better or for worse. The spring hunting issue is no exception.

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.

Hunters' vote...it really didn't matter

Carmel Farrugia, in today's The Times, writes that "To some biased people the recent general election 'proved' that hunters and trappers are 'a spent force' and the hunters' and trappers'vote 'totally insignificant and ineffective'".

I'm not sure whether Mr Farrugia would consider me as one of the "biased people". But then again, who can be more biased about hunting than hunters themselves? All I can say is that although I truly believe that hunters and trappers are a spent force (actually they were never a force to begin with), and that the hunters' and trappers' vote in the last general elections was totally insignificant and ineffective, I certainly do not mean to say that their votes might not have swayed the election result one way or another. Of course they did, in exactly the same way that every other voter's vote did.

What I actually mean, which is what I wrote on February 6 (before the general elections) is that no matter how hunters vote, and no matter which party is elected to government, this would not change the fact that the decision on whether to abolish spring hunting or not rests entirely in the hands of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). So in this sense, it is very true to say that on this issue (spring hunting), hunters and trappers are truly a spent force and that, as I said on February 6, their votes do not matter, just as my vote did not matter too.

Mr Farrugia then says that "It is incredibly naive to think that the votes of hunters and trappers and their families amounting to well over 30,000 do not make a difference in Maltese elections which can be won or lost by a few hundred votes. In the last election the hunters and trappers were at liberty to vote as they wished and one cannot say what they did".

I have to agree with Mr Farrugia here, but again, I must point out that though it is true that no one can tell how the majority of the hunters voted, one can still say with certainty that no matter how they voted, this will not change the fact that the final say on spring hunting is in the hands of the ECJ. This also comes clearly from Mr Farrugia's next statement, where he writes that:

"The positions of the Nationalist Party and of the Malta Labour Party were practically identical on the spring hunting issue, both declaring they would abide by the decision of the European Court of Justice and that both parties if elected to government were prepared to defend spring hunting at the ECJ".

Again, nothing new.

Mr Farrugia then goes on to say that "If one thing can be stated objectively, this is that this election has proved nothing conclusively about the hunters' and trappers' vote. The only party with a clear-cut anti-hunting policy failed, yet again, to obtain even one parliamentary seat. This alone should by now hopefully send a clear message to the leaders of both major political parties, who were so scared of losing the so-called environmentalists' votes. If ever such votes had any true value for the self-proclaimed environmentalists, then Alternativa Demokratika should have had a voice in Parliament for 18 years".

Perhaps here it will suffice for me to repeat what I wrote on February 6:

"And yet, Lino (Carmelo) Farrugia (the hunter federation's secretary) got only 3,119 votes in June 2004's MEP elections. And thankfully, no matter which party is elected to government, the final say on spring hunting now rests on the European court. Gone are the days when the hunters' federation holds a government to ransom to obtain whatever it wants, regardless of the will of the majority of the Maltese population that is opposed to spring hunting (at the time of writing, The Times' poll stands at 90.5% opposed to spring hunting)".

So if, as Mr Farrugia suggests, "If ever such votes had any true value for the self-proclaimed environmentalists, then Alternativa Demokratika (AD) should have had a voice in Parliament for 18 years", what would one make of the fact that when the hunter federation's secretary contested an election, most of the hunters themselves did not vote for him? Of course, Mr Farrugia would perhaps contend that most voters do not vote on single issues, but this cuts both ways. Just as AD were not elected due to several factors too complicated to go into here, and not due to their stand on hunting, Lino Farrugia similarly did not get elected not due to his obvious support for hunting, but for other reasons only hunters themselves would know.

Mr Farrugia then writes: "More importantly on this particular occasion the hunting federation (FKNK) did not think it appropriate to direct its members to vote for a particular party. The government just elected, now more sensitive to the wishes of an electorate of which hunters and trappers form a decisive chunk, will be more cautious on all matters, hunting included. It cannot afford to ignore the message behind an election result giving it just a wafer-thin majority. One lesson the new government has hopefully learnt is not to give too much importance to the bleating of people known for their extreme anti-hunting sentiments".

Perhaps someone should remind Mr Farrugia that Malta is now a member of the European Union (EU). This effectively means that we must abide by EU regulations. Has it not occurred to Mr Farrugia that the only reason why both the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party, who usually disagree on all things except an increase in the salary of their representatives in parliament, miraculously agreed on abiding by the ECJ's decision on the spring hunting issue? Has it not occurred to Mr Farrugia that the only reason why these two eternal enemies agreed on this issue is because they both recognize that the final decision is not theirs to take, but the ECJ's?

Contrary to what Mr Farrugia says, one lesson the new government has hopefully learnt is not to give too much importance to the bleating of people known for their extreme pro-hunting sentiments, when neither the pro-hunting, nor the anti-hunting advocates have any say in the matter. And this is what people like me have been saying for years. It is only a matter of time until we are proven right. I cannot stress this fact too much: hunters may take revenge on any party by voting for another party, but this won't change the fact that both the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party have absolutely no power to decide on the spring hunting issue.

Mr Farrugia concludes his letter by saying: "Hunters and trappers are the true environmentalists, the first managers of our natural habitat, and the best contributors towards what is known, to use a buzzword misunderstood by many, as biodiversity. I firmly believe that the EU Commission's mission statement to 'halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010' will not happen in Malta if the hunting/trapping seasons are not opened, especially the traditional socio-cultural season of spring".

I guess I'll have to take the above as a joke, and leave it at that. But let me conclude this commentary by making a totally unbiased statement in the hope that hunters will finally see this whole issue in perspective. Let's say the 90% or more who according to the last The Times poll have shown that they oppose spring hunting are somehow convinced that hunters are "true environmentalists", that they are the "best contributors towards biodiversity", and that to "halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010" Malta must retain the "socio-cultural" spring hunting season. Let us suppose that 100% of the Maltese population miraculously get to support spring hunting. This too will not change a thing. This issue, to stress the point once again, rests on the final decision to be taken by the European Court of Justice. Get it?

"Hunting" dogs, animal rights and breeding property

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.

Hunting, speciesism and language use

Language reflects the beliefs, opinions and ethics of the language users. To give an example, in the age of black slavery, racists commonly referred to black people as "brutes". This simple historical fact indicates two things about the people using the term: they believed that black people are "sub-human", and that non-human animals are necessarily and naturally inferior to humans in all respects.

Referring to black people as "brutes" reflected both racism and speciesism. Since non-human animals were (and to a large extent still are) considered to be "lesser beings" and therefore considered as human property "by right", the labelling of black people as "brutes" was consciously or unconsciously used to "justify" the treatment and use of black people the same way as "brutes" (non-human animals) are. This meant that, if people were convinced that black people are "brutes", to treat them as other than "brutes" would be illogical. Of course, the (il)logic hinges on the wrong assumption that "brutes" are lesser beings as much as the equally wrong assumption that black people are "sub-human".

Thankfully, institutional human slavery has been abolished, along with the immoral and unscientific belief that black people are "sub-human". Language reflects the beliefs, ethics and opinions of the language user, which is why most people today would find calling black people "brutes" offensive. To press the point further, the only reason why people get offended when called "brutes" or "animals", is because of the speciesist belief that non-human animals are necessarily inferior to humans in all respects, as well as the unscientific belief that we "are not animals". In actual fact, we are all animals. Calling me an animal is as (non-) offensive as calling me a man, but again, it is all about language reflecting culture, belief and ethics.

What led me to write the above is a letter from hunting apologist David Borg Cardona in today's The Times, in which he writes:

"There seems to be some confusion among readers over the word 'hunting'. In the UK the word has come to be used in the narrow sense as denoting the pursuit of the fox with horses and hounds. The hunting of deer goes under the name of 'stalking'.

The hunting of wild ducks, geese and waders is referred to as 'wildfowling' and the hunting of game-birds (sic) such as pheasants is generally described as 'game-shooting'.

Someone who shoots clay-pigeons is also a shooter. It is the custom now in England to refer to people engaged in game-shooting (sic), stalking and wildfowling (sic) as 'guns' or 'shots'. For example, one finds 'he's an excellent shot!' and 'he's a safe gun'".

One would be inclined to say "so what?" regarding all the above, except that perhaps it is opportune to point out the inherent speciesism (culture and ethics reflect language use) in calling any birds "game birds", by wrongly assuming two things: that killing birds is somehow a "game", and that the purpose of such birds is for them to be "game", and therefore to be shot.

Like thinking of black persons as "brutes" "justifies" their treatment "as brutes" (that is, if one sees non-human animals as inferior to humans in any and all respects), similarly, thinking of some birds as "game birds" "justifies" treating them as if they were "game birds" and nothing but "game birds". Calling them "game birds" sanitizes the act of murdering them. Culture and beliefs, once again, reflect the language use, and language use in its turn sanitizes the injustice of killing them for fun.

Mr Borg Cardona goes on to say that "The actual act of 'shooting' a bird takes up only an infinitesimal fraction of the hunter's time and does not reflect the full complete nature of 'hunting'. The main 'hunting' activity takes various forms, like the physical active pursuit of the quarry (sic) (stalking), the patient wait in a hide or butt for quarry (sic) to show up (wildfowling), the waiting at a peg for quarry (sic) to be flushed out of woods by beaters (driven) and the flushing of game-birds (sic) by one or more hunters walking with one or more dogs (walked-up)".

Again, culture and belief reflect language use. Describing any bird as "quarry", "game" etc, reflects inherent and possibly unconscious speciesism. Calling birds "quarry" or "game" assigns an arbitrary purpose to the said birds, which in turn helps "justify" their "proper" use as quarry or game. Of course, no effort is made by the speciesist to justify treating birds as quarry or game. The speciesist prejudice is so ingrained that most times it is a subconscious prejudice that is held as if it were unquestionable and undeniable fact.

Mr Borg Cardona concludes his letter by writing: "To avoid confusion when writing in the English papers about Maltese 'hunting', perhaps it would be best to use the word 'hunting' as the generic term for all field shooting and bird-trapping.

The word 'game-shooting' (sic) should be used to refer to the shooting of game-birds (sic) as quails and the word 'trapping' to refer to all bird-trapping activities.

The illegal shooting of protected birds cannot be described by any of the above-mentioned terms and those acting illegally can never be described as 'hunters'.

They are a disgrace to the genuine hunters and a blemish on our cherished sport".

Once again, a case of culture and belief reflecting language use. Mr Borg Cardona says that "game-shooting" should be used to refer to shooting "game-birds", since he assumes that quails' purpose in life (a purpose he arbitrarily assigns to them) is to be shot as "game". We challenge that prejudiced assumption, and therefore refer to the shooting of any bird as "hunting", or more appropriately, premeditated murder.

As for Mr Borg Cardona's claim that those shooting birds illegally "can never by described as hunters", my immediate reply is: why not? I will only concede that those who hunt illegally are illegal hunters, but they are hunters nonetheless - they hunt (illegally). Of course, something being legal does not necessarily imply that its moral. One should remember that human slavery was entirely legal before it was recognized as immoral and subsequently abolished.

As for calling hunting a "sport", this would only be true if one equally regards gladiatorial fights in ancient Rome as a "sport".

I was under the impression that one of the fundamentals of genuine sport is that it is practiced freely, and that no one is forced to participate. Calling hunting a "sport" would only make sense if birds were willing participants in the activity the aim of which is to kill them. But then, perhaps my conclusion stems from the fact that my ethics are reflected in my language use, just as Mr Borg Cardona's own "ethics" are reflected in his own language use. One thing is certain: sanitizing hunting by the use of "harmless" terms won't change the fact that in practice, hunting is nothing more than the unnecessary killing of sentient animals for self-gratification and the pleasure gained from taking innocent life.

The final ridiculous pro-hunting argument shot down

Today's The Times publishes two replies to Danica Rosso's absurd pro-hunting letter of February 29, one from Joe Aquilina-St John, and another (an abridged verson of my blog post of February 29) from myself.

Mr Aquilina-St John writes:

"It seems that the hunting fraternity has run out of hare-brained (sic) excuses as to why it should continue with its killing and trapping sprees.

First it was 'tradition' and 'hobby'; then 'broken promises' followed by their being able to 'hunt in the UK'. As all these have been shot down - just like any protected birds that fly over Malta - they are now trying to pull at the heart-strings by claiming that if spring hunting is abolished, then the 'poor hunting dogs' will suffer!

It is true that their dogs have been bred to 'fetch' fallen birds, but to say they will fret and become restless if they are not allowed to participate in spring hunting is taking matters to a ridiculous level. Do these dogs fret and become restless in the many months between the spring and autumn hunting season? Or do the hunters put them on tranquillisers for this 'resting' period?

The hunters could always take them to the countryside and throw 'dummy' birds or sticks for them to fetch, and thus keep them active and in good condition.

And before the 'UK hunting' brigade starts comparing Maltese hunting dogs to those in the UK, these are two completely different breeds: the UK fox hunters were concerned about their dogs because they do not have just one, but a whole pack which 'belongs' to the hunt, and so could not find enough homes for them. In Malta, the majority of hunters have only one dog - at the most two (and some none!) - so they are kept at home, or in some unfortunate cases, locked in a garage.

Next excuse will surely be that if the guns are not fired in spring, they will seize up! If only!"

Meanwhile, my letter as published in The Times goes as follows:

"Danica Rosso's justification of hunting out of concern for the 'hunting' dogs (February 29) is of course ridiculous. Dogs exposed to hunting do not become 'enamoured' with this 'hobby'. That belief is just a simple case of anthropomorphism.

It is true that some dogs might have retained a hunting instinct, even though domestication and human feeding makes this doubtful. It must be noted, however, that 'hunting' dogs do not hunt birds (to do this they would need either guns or wings). 'Hunting' dogs simply fetch birds which the human hunter kills. The object they fetch could easily be a rubber ball.

Regarding the claim that come spring, 'hunting' dogs display an unequivocal longing to be out in the country and 'do what they do best: hunt', is a very simplistic way of seeing things.

Since dogs are capable of cognitive association, they associate the 'hunting season' with the fact that during this season they will generally spend much more time in the countryside with their 'owner'. 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, which is still possible without hunting.

The claim that 'hunting' dogs long to 'do what they do best: hunt', is also clearly false. Since 'hunting' dogs do not hunt at all, then hunting cannot be 'what they do best'.

So, to answer Ms Rosso's questions, it is not cruel to deprive dogs of hunting, for the simple reason that 'hunting' dogs do not actually hunt. Also, 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?', 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?'

People who truly care about all animals, and not just birds or dogs, will know the answer to my question".

Considering that all pro-hunting "arguments" have been "shot down", hunters are left with only one "justification" for their practice: They find gratification and enjoyment out of the practice of killing birds.

On facts and an out of tune hunting orchestra

Facts not fiction

Mario Zarb writes a letter in today's The Times which he entitles "Facts not fiction". In his letter, Mr Zarb writes:

"In his article, Tolga Temuge, BirdLife Malta's executive director, leaves out facts (The Times, March 3). How can he explain the interpretation of the final negotiating document dated September 2002 given by the then Prime Minister and now President of the Republic Eddie Fenech Adami, that spring hunting for turtle dove and quail would remain after Malta joins the EU? How does he explain the interpretation given by Simon Busuttil, then head of MIC and now MEP, that spring hunting for turtle dove and quail would remain?

These are the facts written in our history, not his fictitious interpretations!"

Sometimes it sure feels like talking to a brick wall, but I'll say it once again anyway. The interpretation of the then Prime Minister (and now President of Malta) and that of Simon Busuttil counts as much as the interpretation of anyone whose opinion is just an opinion, and whose interpretation does not matter at all. Now that we are members of the European Union, all that matters (if it has to come to this at all - I have yet to see a document from the EU guaranteeing spring hunting) is the interpretation of the European Court of Justice. What is so hard to understand about this simple common-sense fact?

The fact to be written in our history is that both Eddie Fenech Adami and Simon Busuttil deceived the hunters, and that all those who voted yes for EU membership ensured that spring hunting would be abolished.

These are the facts to be written in our history, dear Mr Zarb, and not your fictitious interpretations!

An out of tune hunting orchestra

Meanwhile, Daniel Xriha once again writes another puerile letter in The Times, in support of hunting. This time, apart from the letter being childish and self-defeating, it completely lacks originality.

In his letter entitled "Hunting tunes", Mr Xriha, among other nonsense, repeats Aldo E. Azzopardi's already defeated argument invoking Picasso, writing:

"Once during an exhibition of his works, Picasso was addressed by a woman puzzled about one of his artworks. He replied: 'Your question indicates to me, madam, you understand nothing about art, in which case I should be wasting my time giving you an explanation, because you still will not understand'. Perhaps we should leave it at that".

Perhaps we should not leave it at that. Perhaps I should repeat what I said on February 2, since apparently, Mr Xriha wasn't paying attention.

Regarding Mr Azzopardi and Mr Xriha's Picasso anecdote, I think it applies particularly to them and their incomprehension of the immorality of unnecessarily causing sentient birds to suffer or die. So, to paraphrase Picasso, if Mr Azzopardi and Mr Xriha understood anything about morality and the ethic of non-violence, they would not even question the immorality of hunting, but seeing that they have no idea, should I spend a year explaining it to them, they still would not understand.

In any case, one does not necessarily have to know exactly what goes on in the mind of a serial killer (in this case, of birds) to know that unnecessary killing is wrong.

A serial killer could spend hours extolling the pleasures he/she derives from the chase and the kill, and explaining in detail each step from the contemplation of the kill to the actual killing. A serial killer who would tell the presiding Judge "if you understood anything about what goes on in the mind of a serial killer, you would not convict me" would probably be sent to a mental institution instead of a prison cell.

When dealing with sentient beings and not things, practices that may harm others, unlike playing chess or scrabble, are matters of moral concern. In morality, claiming expertise in performing immoral acts is no excuse for doing so. Moral people need not be experts in the pleasures of immoral acts in order to condemn them.

Mr Xriha goes on to say that "Mr (Tony) Zahra thinks that the birds 'have also got rights, including the right to live without being shot at and/or trapped'.

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".

Well, not to waste time arguing with people who have no idea of moral philosophy, I will only reply by saying that the rights of birds originate from the same source as the rights of humans. In short, they arise from the recognition that all sentient beings have interests, including the interest in continued existence, and the recognition that it is immoral to deny any sentient being the pursuance of those interests unless the pursuance of those interests is harmful to the more fundamental interests of others.

Mr Xriha should perhaps also realize that by claiming that rights necessarily go hand in hand with obligations, he is threading on very dangerous grounds. This kind of reasoning would deny rights to human babies and severely mentally disabled humans, who also do not have any obligations. The last refuge of Mr Xriha's speciesism would be that humans matter more, but this would beg the question: why do humans matter more? This question cannot be answered in any way that would not exclude some (or many) of the most vulnerable humans from having rights.

Mr Xriha concludes his letter addressed to Mr Zahra, by saying: "Now he seems to have joined the 'Spring Hunting Orchestra' under the baton of an unknown foreign conductor supported by an unknown fiddler from Bermuda who is trying hard to change the EU's tune. Truly pathetic!".

Actually what I find pathetic is some hunters' ongoing xenophobic comments, though perhaps this is understandable. After all, both speciesism and xenophobia stem from prejudice and disregard for the rights of "out-groups".

Game over, Mr Xriha. Pathetic whining won't change the fact that as EU members, it is only a matter of perhaps a few months until spring hunting is abolished. Get over it.