Controlling bird hunting and trapping is not about ANIMAL RIGHTS, for heaven’s sake. It’s an environmental issue.
I cannot believe that this absurd government has classified hunting and trapping as an animal rights issue and delegated it to the parliamentary secretary for (among other things) animal rights.
It’s an environmental issue, pure and simple. The destruction of birds is worrisome not because they have a right not to be shot or trapped but because the decimation of bird species is negative in environmental terms.
If this were about bird rights and cruelty to birds, then we would have no chicken farms and we wouldn’t be eating any roast chicken or grilled chicken breast either.
The Malta Independent reports:
Hunters have to keep to last year’s bag limits in this year’s spring hunting season since the necessary studies to revise have not yet been completed, the government announced this evening.
In a statement, government announced that the Parliamentary Secretariat for Animal Rights had taken note of – and approved – the Ornis Committee’s recommendations on a spring hunting season.
As a result, this year’s spring hunting season will open on 10 April and close on 30 April: last year’s season had opened two days later.
But the national bag limit of 11,000 turtledoves and 5,000 quail – which was widely criticised by hunters’ federation FKNK last year – remains unchanged. Ahead of the general election, the federation had said that according to its own calculation a quota of 125,000 quails and 79,000 turtledoves was more appropriate.
Hunting times have also remained unchanged in the absence of the necessary studies.
The FKNK and the Labour Party had reached an agreement on the last week of the election, and as a result, two other complaints made by the FKNK last year – that hunters had to pay for a €50 special licence over and above their hunting licence, and that they had to wear a special armband while out hunting – have been addressed. Hunters will have to do neither this time round.
30 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2013-03-25/news/bag-limits-unchanged-for-next-springs-hunting-season-1256390658/
That’s a problem I have with the concept of ‘animal rights’ in general: they may help simplify our duties towards animals in everyday language, but as a principle such ‘rights’ simply do not exist. I’m oversymplifying here, but ‘rights’ are a consequence of human dignity, which animals do not have. Therefore, animals cannot have ‘rights’.
However, because of the duties arising from our ‘rights’, we have a specific responsibility towards nature and animals.
Therefore, I guess in government terms thay should indeed fall under the same instiution of governance.
“I’m oversymplifying here, but ‘rights’ are a consequence of human dignity, which animals do not have”.
Your theory falls because it relies on a subjective (and therefore false) premise.
False? I think not. Human dignity is inherent to humanity, and to be really expressed required rights. Are you saying animals have human dignity? Doesn’t the word ‘human dignity’ explain enough on its own? Are you equal to fox that attacked a baby in its home some time ago because it can’t control its instincts?
Well, guess what: rights theorists disagree with you, as did the framers of the UDHR of 1948. And I’d like to know where you studied human rights and international law. Must be a different universe to mine.
You’re free not to agree with me, but don’t debase the merits of my argument based on your skewed perception of my subjectivity and whatever falsehood you’d like it to have.
Dear Calculator:
1. True, human dignity is by definition exclusive to humanity. This is like saying that male dignity is exclusive to men. However, you are confusing things when you say that “(for dignity) to be really expressed require(s) rights”. To be dignified implies that one has the quality of being worthy of respect. So in actual fact, it is the other way round. It is dignity that is dependent on the RESPECT of inherent rights. Rights either exist or they don’t. It is respect for the rights that is dependent on the respect of the dignity of persons. God forbid that our inherent rights were dependent on whether others respect them.
2. I am certainly not saying that animals have human dignity. What I am saying is that your premise that rights hinge on HUMAN dignity is completely arbitrary. It is little if any less arbitrary than saying that rights hinge on male dignity (or white, or whatever). No, ‘human dignity’, far from explaining enough on its own, begs the question: why should being human determine whether one has inherent rights? You have never addressed that question. The question of whether I am equal to a fox is as irrelevant as the question of whether I am equal to a severely mentally disabled human. We say all humans are equal, but that does not mean that we should treat all humans equally. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. I have an equal right to life as an illiterate person, but he does not have an equal right to an office job.
3. When you say that rights theorists disagree with me, you only show that you are not up to date with the philosophical works on animal rights. You are entitled to disagree with all the voluminous work on the topic, but you cannot dismiss them out of hand. The claim that all rights theorists disagree with me is clearly false.
4. That the “Universal” Declaration of Human Rights excludes non-human animals says nothing about whether animals have or do not have rights. It only says that the people who drafted the declaration do not believe in animal rights.
5. You ask me where I studied human rights and international law. What has this got to do with anything I wrote? You seem to fail to make the distinction between moral and legal rights. Black people always had rights, even when the law treated them as slaves.
6. I didn’t merely debase the merits of your argument. I dismissed them out of hand because they are based on a false premise. What you are effectively saying is that only humans matter because they are humans. Circular and partial. You need to freshen up your philosophy.
Calculator, by the way, I am not lecturing on animal rights. I am only correcting your gross misconceptions.
My original post only remarked on the silliness of the title “Parliamentary Secretary for Animal Rights”. That was until you started lecturing – commencing with a false premise – about how animals do not have rights because the have no HUMAN dignity. Excuse me while I snigger at the silliness of this “argument”.
I give up. I don’t see humanity as the only thing that matters, but I do see it as having an intrinsic value not found in other species. You can get it from God if you’re religious or from some idea of the capacity of humanity to transcend its instincts and biology if you’re not. And just because you don’t seem to find the same value in humanity doesn’t make it false. I subscribe to the universalist view that rights are inherent irrespective of the respect shown to them.
I asked about human rights and international law studies because they do include both legal and natural/moral rights. I have studies them, and the issue of animal rights did pop up. And guess what? Yes they deserve respect, as much as we need to respect all of nature, but that’s it. They don’t have ‘rights’ because the term is linked to the human condition. It’s not silly misconceptions, just logic.
And just because some theorists are trying to label whatever responsibilities to animals we have as ‘rights’ doesn’t make them right. In my view it just means that they don’t understand that ‘rights’ are linked to humanity by virtue of its intrinsic value. So yes, I dismiss their theories.
It’s rather ironic you don’t, seeing as such a principle of the value of humanity and the consequent rights are the cornerstone of liberal thought, Mr. ‘Liberal’. I suggest you change your username to fit in with your views.
If you want to reduce your rights to just one type that is accorded to every species, irrespective of any repesctive dignity or worth, go ahead. Cheapen yourself all you want.
At least we can agree that the ‘Parliamentary Secretary on Animal Rights’ is a silly post and ineffective against the hunting lobby.
“I give up. I don’t see humanity as the only thing that matters, but I do see it as having an intrinsic value not found in other species”.
That much is as obvious as it is irrelevant to the question of just treatment. Unless by intrinsic value you mean a “soul” to which I would reply by asking for proof of both the existence of souls and proof of its absence in non-human animals. I would then ask what relevance having a soul has to right treatment.
“You can get it from God if you’re religious or from some idea of the capacity of humanity to transcend its instincts and biology if you’re not”.
You will find some unfortunate humans who also act exclusively on instinct. I would not strip them of moral rights. So you’re once again left with the partial and subjective claim that to have rights one has to be human.
“And just because you don’t seem to find the same value in humanity doesn’t make it false”.
I suppose you mean that all humans share an equal intrinsic value. They don’t, and I would take offence at being told I have the same intrinsic value as Hitler or Stalin.
“I subscribe to the universalist view that rights are inherent irrespective of the respect shown to them”.
Then we are in agreement here.
“I asked about human rights and international law studies because they do include both legal and natural/moral rights. I have studies them, and the issue of animal rights did pop up”.
Of course it didn’t. That’s for two reasons: International law does not recognise non-human animals as rights-bearers, and the lecturers/authors do not recognise animal rights themselves. I would suggest you look further than that. There are plenty of academic works on animal rights. I have several in my library.
“And guess what? Yes they deserve respect, as much as we need to respect all of nature, but that’s it”.
Hence lies the confusion. A tree does not deserve respect, and only psycho-hippies believe they do. We only “protect” trees out of respect for other humans (and perhaps other animals). With animals it is different. If animals deserve respect (and they do), then it follows that they have a right to that respect. Of course, what kind of respect they are entitled to necessitates a book-length study. There are several of these, if anyone cares to look.
“They don’t have ‘rights’ because the term is linked to the human condition”.
Again, partial and arbitrary. You need to defend that claim with proper arguments.
“It’s not silly misconceptions, just logic”.
I’m waiting for you to explain the logic.
“And just because some theorists are trying to label whatever responsibilities to animals we have as ‘rights’ doesn’t make them right”.
You will also find philosophers who unlike me, dismiss inherent rights in humans, and only use the label “rights” for convenience (for instance most Utilitarians). Of course, as you say, just mentioning that some people believe in something doesn’t make them right. This applies equally to you and me.
“In my view it just means that they don’t understand that ‘rights’ are linked to humanity by virtue of its intrinsic value”.
Arbitrary, partial and without any shred of justification.
“So yes, I dismiss their theories”.
I’m convinced you have never even read a summary of the theories, let alone a whole book. I call that prejudice.
“It’s rather ironic you don’t, seeing as such a principle of the value of humanity and the consequent rights are the cornerstone of liberal thought, Mr. ‘Liberal’”.
I do value humanity and their rights, so what exactly are you on about? I simply extend some rights (the applicable ones) to non-human animals. Is this so hard to understand?
“I suggest you change your username to fit in with your views”.
It does, so I’ll keep it, thank you.
“If you want to reduce your rights to just one type that is accorded to every species, irrespective of any repesctive dignity or worth, go ahead. Cheapen yourself all you want.”
I never even suggested any such silly thing.
“At least we can agree that the ‘Parliamentary Secretary on Animal Rights’ is a silly post and ineffective against the hunting lobby”.
Of course. It is also offensive to people who believe in animal rights. But since I have a healthy sense of humour, I respond to offence with ridicule. And ridiculous they really are.
Correction: Calcularor wrote:
“I asked about human rights and international law studies because they do include both legal and natural/moral rights. I have studies them, and the issue of animal rights did pop up”.
I misunderstood the last sentence and took it as “did not pop up”.
Well, essentially my reply still stands. If the issue, as Calculator described it, “popped up”, then it didn’t get the depth required for one to be properly informed. This, of course, is understandable given that the studies were on human rights, and not animal rights.
It should be animal welfare; only radical activists speak of rights.
The term “radical” is subjective (Jesus, for instance, was radical, but nowadays Christians are mainstream), but I agree that a secretariat that is not composed of vegetarians and vegans cannot speak of animal rights.
Exactly. Humanity must seek animal welfare because it has a responsibility to do so, expressing said humanity, not because animals themselves have rights.
Labour are radicals of the chavvy kind, so I guess the term makes sense for them.
And Liberal, even vegans cannot speak of animal rights. Studies suggest that plants actually do have some sense of their surroundings, so if they’re ok with eating vegetables because they think don’t have feeling like animals do, they’re ultimately quite hypocritical. Every living being has some sort of consciousness, so the ultimate conclusion of vegetarians’ logic is that we should starve then because everything is sacred. So get down from that high horse please and stop lecturing us about animal rights and radicalism.
Calculator,
Labour are not radicals at all, and if you honestly think they believe in animal rights, then they fooled you just as much as they hope to fool genuine animal rights activists with their silly title
Regarding your mention of the studies on plants, the example is just silly. Plants’ response to stimuli is only chemical. Plants have no brain and central nervous system. If you cannot distinguish between a plant and a dog, then I’m really wasting my time.
You make the ridiculous claim that every living being (including plants) has some sort of consciousness. I really think you should look up the definition of consciousness and how it works. Let me help you: No brain = no consciousness. But don’t take my word for it. Read the literature. I would recommend Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker.
I have no issues with legal ‘hunting’.
But who is going to prosecute those who blast away at anything that flies?
Who will enforce laws protecting certain species?
Animal rights sounds apt, as the only right they have is to be shot.
What I would like to know is how the Federation for Hunting and Conservation Malta ~ FKNK (a.k.a. the trigger happy Neanderthal mob who shoot at anything that flies in the name of conservation) are going to be monitored? And I hope we are spared any jokes about self policing.
And if the national bag has not been altered, why the two extra days? Or has their level of marksmanship decreased?
The special licence fee and the arm band were there to provide some measure of control on the hunters, by limiting the number of hunters and facilitating monitoring of their activities.
By dispensing with these two requirements, Joseph Muscat has effectively given hunters carte blanche to shoot and kill any bird that comes within shotgun range.
This decision on the part of the PL in government is a further step towards the return of the illegalities and abuse that characterised successive Labour Party governments.
A Parliamentary Secretary for Animal Rights giving quotas on how many animals may be killed? Ridiculous. Either animals have rights or they don’t.
Next we’ll have a Parliamentary Secretary for Human Rights issuing quotas on how many humans may be killed.
“Sustainable killing” is anathema to rights issues.
I would write to the Parliamentary Secretary to explain how ridiculous his title actually is, and how he will be the laughing stock of fellow Europeans entrusted with Environmental policies, but then again I would deprive myself of the laughs I have every time I hear the title on the news.
Yeah they gave them two extra days to strut around in khakis brandishing their shotguns. For that they sent the country 25 years backwards.
But that’s ok, so long as the hunters are happy.
Can somebody shoot me now?
Please stand still while I take aim
For a change, I agree completely with your point of view which makes a clear distinction between animal rights and environmental conservation.
There’s not much hope that the general public will ever have a say in the matter but, for what it’s worth, we should try to organise a referendum to abolish spring hunting.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-referendum-to-abolish-spring-hunting-in-Malta/461285473945335
And I hope that the PN finally takes a firm stand on the matter. Hunters’ votes are not only unsavoury but meaningless at this point. The party should stop trying to win them over and concentrate instead on building its environmental credibility.
Oh how exquisite these hunter-haters’.
We do not hate hunters. We hate hunting.
This is unless, of course, this government is treating the hunters as animals.
On my part, I believe hunters are full human beings with their full human rights.
I never heard of a ‘right to kill’ as being to attributed to humans
If birds had rights they would also have obligations.
Babies don’t have obligations. Do they have rights?
Babies are human beings and morality is only assigned to humans; namely issues regarding right and wrong actions. It is the parents/guardians that have an obligation to protect vulnerable children until they become adults.
You could have made your question more complex by asking me about the rights of embryos frozen or otherwise and you would have taken me out of depth?
“Babies are human beings”
True, but they don’t have any obligations. Therefore the claim that to have rights one must have obligations is clearly false unless one is prepared to strip rights from persons who cannot have obligations.
“and morality is only assigned to humans; namely issues regarding right and wrong actions”.
That is an unsupported arbitrary claim. Moral rights is not only about right action we are bound to perform, but also about right action individuals are entitled to receive. Return to my babies example and you will understand.
“It is the parents/guardians that have an obligation to protect vulnerable children until they become adults”.
Partially true. While it is guardians who have the responsibility to protect the vulnerable, it is everyone’s obligation to treat them justly.
“You could have made your question more complex by asking me about the rights of embryos frozen or otherwise and you would have taken me out of depth?”
I can’t see the relevance.
I hope that the Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS) does its annual Maltese countryside tour recording and reporting illegalities this year.
I predict that there will be a huge spike in illegal hunting as well as bullying, threatening of CABS members and anyone else who dares question the hunters’ authority, ‘għax issa l-gvern tagħna’.
It’s going to be Malta tagħna lkoll at its very best.
I hope the press keeps an eye on the situation.