On the planned bird-murder park, and "St Hubertus" bird-murderers' declared interest in the project

Mark Mifsud Bonnici, secretary of St Hubertus Hunters (or are they "Shooters"?), a colleague of Alfred E. Zammit (who somehow got it into his mind that BirdLife Malta's Tolga Temuge has a "secret weapon"), writes in today's The Times on the issue of hunting in the proposed new "nature park".

Mr Mifsud Bonnici writes: "Having read the report Stanley Zammit To Head National Park Board (May 18), we are pleased to note that 'Dr Gonzi appealed to the board to involve every stakeholder, from the farmer to the public, because it was 'everyone's project'. This particular park is being considered as 'everyone's', including the hunters".

So far so good. The National Park should indeed be everyone's, and even hunters should be allowed - provided, of course, that they are allowed in without their guns. If the National Park is indeed to be everyone's, this should mean that no area should be restricted or reserved to anyone. Can someone imagine a sane government allowing the public to walk about hunters shooting birds? Would a sane government consider this safe? This apart from the fact that killing of birds should never be allowed in a "national park" (actually the murder of birds should not be allowed anywhere - but let's keep on topic). If, on the other hand, an area is reserved to hunters, then this would not be everyone's park, since only part of the park would be accessible to everyone. Should we perhaps exclude hunters from using the rest of the park, even if they are not equipped with their murder weapons, just for fairness' sake? I don't think so. A national park should be a national park, where everyone has access to all areas, but where no hunting is allowed.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici goes on to say that "Hunters participate hands-on and achieve far more results than desk-bound NGOs, since members of hunting organisations spend more time in the countryside than all other NGO members put together".

Of course they do. Hunters participate hands-on in their quest for murdering birds, who are also part of nature. Hunters thus achieve far more results than "desk-bound" NGOs in destroying nature, since "desk-bound NGOs" do not destroy nature. That hunters "spend more time in the countryside than all other NGO members put together" is besides the point. Car-thiefs spend more time in other people's cars than most people. Should we perhaps provide them with garages where they could take their stolen cars? Similarly, should we provide hunters with more reserved places where they could take their stolen (birds are not their property) birds? That someone spends lots of time in a particular place does not necessarily justify what one does in that place. Hunting is always wrong, and to allow hunting in a "nature park" is more wrong since apart from the fact that hunting kills birds, hunting in a "nature park" would also put the public in danger, a situation which could only be avoided if the government excludes the public from some areas that they have every right to be in. Like I already said above, hunters should be allowed in the proposed nature park, provided that they are not equipped with their murder weapons.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici says that "The real law-abiding hunters are the monitors of the countryside who do their best to preserve what is left. Their participation is paramount if good results are to be achieved".

Preserve what? The birds they kill? We don't need hunters to monitor the countryside. We would rather enjoy the countryside unmonitored but populated with birds. If any monitoring is required, this is to prevent vandalism and the shooting of birds, which sometimes, as was proven recently in court, is done by the same persons.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici continues his letter by saying: "In an interview in MaltaToday (May 20), Vince Attard, the President of Nature Trust - the organisation entrusted with the project - stated that some controlled hunting is to be allowed on this site, adding that he will be discussing this with the hunters' associations. Since Nature Trust does not agree with hunting, this statement obviously was not made out of choice. The fact is that ix-Xaghra l-Hamra is a Natura 2000 site. The European Commission's Sustainable Hunting Initiative agreement states that 'Natura 2000 designation is not incompatible with hunting'. The agreement also acknowledges that 'properly managed hunting inside Natura 2000 sites can continue to take place'. Therefore, in compliance with the EU's Sustainable Hunting Initiative agreement, hunters may not be excluded from the new national park or any other Natura 2000 site for that matter".

This is all irrelevant. If it is to be a "national park", no one should be excluded. And to permit hunting is to exclude non-hunters from the areas designated to hunters. What is discussed between Nature Trust's president and hunters is not binding on anyone. It is the duty of the government not to exclude anyone from any part of the proposed national park. Hunters may obviously be allowed to use the park, but again, provided they are not equipped with their murder weapons.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici concludes his letter by saying: "This project could be a first for government to involve the hunters' organisations in projects of conservation as stakeholders. Here is a chance to prove that under proper management the environmentalist and the hunter can work together and share what nature has to offer. As a responsible hunting organisation, we declare our interest in taking part in this new project".

It would really be a first if the government involves people who kill nature as participants in a project to conserve nature. Here is indeed a chance for the government to show its environmental credentials, by not permitting hunting in a national park.

And how does Mr Mifsud Bonnici propose that the environmentalist and the hunter work together and "share what nature has to offer"? Will he suggest, perhaps, that half of the birds killed by hunters be given to the environmentalists, so that everyone shares equally "what nature has to offer"? No thanks, Mr Mifsud Bonnici. We, as decent moral human beings who do not find pleasure in unnecessarily taking (and wasting) life, would rather enjoy nature alive than as murdered bird carcasses.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici declares his association of bird killers' interest in taking part in this new project. Well, Animal Rights Malta declares its total opposition to the project if it includes the murder of birds. We will never be accomplices to murder.

On the proposed bird murder park that could well become a war-zone

Government warned over hunting at Xaghra l-Hamra

As reported in Malta Today, last week's declaration by Nature Trust president Vince Attard that hunting cannot be completely ruled out from the new nature park at Xaghra l-Hamra, has caused a stir in the environmental movement. Friends of the Earth and the Ramblers' Association expressed themselves against hunting in the new park, a position we totally endorse, while BirdLife favours discussions with stakeholders with the aim of declaring the park a bird sanctuary.

According to Malta Today, the harshest words against hunting in the nature park came from one of the founding fathers of the Maltese green movement - physicist and university professor Edward Mallia. In a hard-hitting letter published in Malta Today (reproduced below), Prof Edward Mallia derides the whole idea of talking to hunters' associations to designate areas for "controlled hunting" in the new park as suggested by the Nature Trust president.

Mallia blasts the idea of negotiations with the hunters' federation (FKNK) "on how to prevent ramblers, women, children, horses and birds from getting in the way of lead shot". He also accused Din l-Art Helwa and Nature Trust of "conniving with government" by going along with a press conference about the "plans for the North West" while other NGOs were left in the dark.

Lino Bugeja, the president of the Ramblers' Association is firmly opposed to hunting in the new park. "People taking their children to walk in the nature park should put their mind at rest and should not be encumbered with fear of hunters shooting birds in the area". The same sentiment is shared by the Friends of the Earth’s Martin Galea De Giovanni: "For us its either a park or a hunting zone. We are not aware of any other nature park in the world which allows hunting".

But, Malta Today reports, the Gaia Foundation, which manages the nearby Ghajn Tuffieha site, insists that it is too early at this stage to pronounce itself on this issue. "Like Nature Trust, we are in principle against hunting but we should first discuss the management plan for the new park before addressing this issue", Rudolph Ragonesi said.

Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar refrained from taking a stand on the issue, insisting that the primary issue of the moment is Spring hunting. "FAA feels that the issue of hunting should not be limited to Xaghra l-Hamra but should be seen in the context of the whole of the Maltese island especially with regards to Spring hunting which should be stopped once and for all", Astrid Vella said.

BirdLife’s aim is that of declaring the proposed nature park a bird sanctuary. "However at this stage we have to sit with all stakeholders to assess the importance of this area for birds migration and its value as a recreational area", said BirdLife Malta's Tolga Temuge. Tolga Temuge reiterated BirdLife's stand that since hunting is allowed on 80 per cent of Malta’s natural environment, Malta needs more areas where hunting is not allowed.

Of course, Animal Rights Malta's position on the issue is that it would be insane to allow hunting in a "nature park". This is not an issue of "striking a balance". If the government intends to allow hunting in the new "nature park", then the whole plan for a nature park should be scrapped, even if it means that the government won't have the propaganda tool it so desperately needs. A nature park should be a place where nature is respected and enjoyed, and not just another place where birds are murdered. Call us extremists as much as you like, but we will be opposing any plans for a nature park if the plans include any area designated for murdering birds.

The Hunting of the National Park

Professor Edward Mallia, in today's Malta Today, writes:

"The James Debono interview of the president of Nature Trust (NT) had some interesting aspects, particularly those touching upon the sudden conversion of Xaghra il-Hamra (XLH) from golf course to core of a national park. The national park proposal had been supported by a group of NGOs in two meetings with Minister George Pullicino in 2005, when the golf vocation of XLH was first discovered. Subsequent developments- basically a division between those interested in picking up crumbs from the government table and those not-were not made clear in the interview. What did emerge with great clarity was that only two NGOs had any inkling of the impending U-turn; that they chose to keep it to themselves and to connive with government by going along with the Press Conference about the 'plans for the NW'. No objection was raised to the Prime Minister separating once more the "serious" sheep from the "non-serious" goats - the former to be welcomed on the podium, the latter to be seen, preferably clapping, but not heard.

From what the NT president said, this was part of a 'non-extremist' approach to environmental matters, so that one could 'sit and discuss' and presumably display negotiating powers while gazing into one of those 'permanent pools' re-discovered by that expensive EIA.

But look from a slightly different angle. Here was the government in a right fix, under severe internal pressure to drop the golf course idea as a vote loser, and also desperately needing cover for the debacle. A canny negotiator would have extracted some real concessions. The first obvious one: the establishment of a transparent procedure for dealing with these situations, which in this case would have led to the inclusion in any discussions of other NGOs in the original 2005 group.

The post-factum invitation to join in the work simply encourages government to continue to divide and rule NGOs.

An item that did not form part of the spoken or printed 'good news' - hunting and trapping areas in the national park - was swallowed whole by the 'serious' NGOs, apparently fortified by hope of negotiations with the 'non-extremist' FKNK on how to prevent ramblers, women, children, horses and birds from getting in the way of lead shot.

The goal is of course a glorious one - to emphasise yet again the uniqueness of this republic in having a national park in which one is allowed to hunt, trap and clear out any 'vegetation' obstructing firing lines. For to add insult to injury, these areas, at the western end of the Mizieb ridge, have been public land for well nigh on 500 years, even if Labour and Nationalist governments have allowed FKNK squatters to lord it over them in the hunting seasons.

The 'serious' NGOs did get another reward for their 'seriousness': a look at the XLH EIA which, in producing a wealth of information, was declared to be well worth the Lm100,000 spent on it. The taxpayer will have no chance to confirm this. According to the MTA, the authority responsible for commissioning it, the EIA has not actually been completed (another cost overrun?); so it will never be given to MEPA and will never become a public document. Of course MEPA does not need it, having the Prime Minister’s word that the Prime Minister’s dream golf course site has changed its spots. Does anyone know who signed the Aarhus convention for this republic? Perhaps it was Hamlet the prince of Denmark, who committed suicide soon after".

That obsession with secret weapons

In today's The Times, one will find printed an abridged version of the short reply to hunter and apparently detective story enthusiast Alfred E. Zammit, who somehow has got it into his head that BirdLife Malta's Tolga Temuge has some "secret weapon" which, I assume Mr Zammit believes, Mr Temuge will one day use on hunters. When that happens, pigs will fly. But anyway, here's my letter to The Times:

"It looks likely that Alfred E. Zammit will never stop amusing us. His letter of May 25 is a case in point.

Mr Zammit should note that though Greenpeace is confrontational, it is still non-violent. Therefore, if one says that one's tack will be changed to one similar to Greenpeace's more confrontational methods, it is blatantly obvious that while the new tactics would be more confrontational, they would still remain non-violent.

Mr Zammit's claim that when non-violent bodies change tack, it could mean that they might possibly turn to violence, is just his wishful thinking. It's like saying that when non-violent football players change tack, it could mean that they might possibly turn to violence. Of course, there is always that remote possibility. I will at least concede Mr Zammit that.

I'm sure that many hunters would relish the opportunity of BirdLife Malta turning to violence, but this will remain wishful thinking. We'll leave that to the violent fringe in the hunting community.

I only wonder what Mr Zammit is wishing to gain from trying to instil the suspicion that BirdLife Malta 'might' resort to violence. Does he seriously think that non-hunters will take his word for it, and believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that BirdLife Malta will resort to violence? Again, I am sure that Birdlife Malta has more honourable people to imitate, rather than the violent fringe in the hunting community.

Mr Zammit goes on to say: 'The truth is that Mr Temuge is perceived as an aggressive person by the FKNK. He is also perceived as possessing some 'secret weapon'.

Oh my God! Mr Temuge is perceived as an aggressive person by the FKNK? He is also perceived as possessing some secret weapon? Does Mr Zammit think he is doing the FKNK any favour by saying these things? If this is really the case, does Mr Zammit believe that the FKNK will be taken seriously if they are seen to be so paranoid and deluded?

One thing is certain. Mr Zammit will never fail to amuse the readers of The Times and of www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com".

A more detailed reply may be found in the entry: "On Simon Busuttil's defence of spring hunting, and more amusement from Alfred E. Zammit".

Perhaps Mr Zammit is watching too many detective movies. But, just in case I am mistaken (and Mr Zammit correct), in view of the proposal to permit hunting in the planned "nature park", the government would be well advised to think twice. With Mr Tolga Temuge preparing himself for armed conflict, the planned "nature park" at Xaghra l-Hamra could well become a war-zone.

On political antics and the slaughter of the innocents

Political antics

Victor Scerri criticizes Alternattiva Demokratika (the Green Party) in today's The Times, where he says: "The activity of politics stems from policy. Having a policy should be the backbone of all political movements irrespective of size of following. Having the chairman of the Maltese Greens declare that the government has 'punished all hunters indiscriminately' (A Political Barishnikov, May 18) when just a few days ago they were against having a spring hunting season in the first place, smacks of a silly attitude of opposition for opposition's sake".

Some comments are in order here. First of all, I perfectly agree with Mr Scerri's statement that "having a policy should be the backbone of all political movements". It is for this reason that the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party seem to have no backbone in respect of their ever-fluctuating non-policy on spring hunting. Alternattiva Demokratika is the only political party in Malta that has a consistent and clear policy on spring hunting, a policy which has been maintained unequivocally for several years. Alternattiva has always been consistent and unequivocal in its opposition to spring hunting. The Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party, in the meantime, seem to have no clear policy on spring hunting. By Mr Scerri's own standards, the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party have no backbone.

Secondly, it must also be pointed out that Dr Harry Vassallo's claim that the government has punished all hunters indiscriminately (by stopping the spring hunting season 10 days early) should be taken in its correct context. Alternattiva Demokratika has been consistently saying for several years (even before the EU referendum) that spring hunting should be abolished. The Nationalist government obviously does not agree, since it has consistently allowed spring hunting for several years, in total defiance of EU regulations. Spring hunting should not be abolished because some hunters (be they few or many) shoot at "protected species". Spring hunting should be abolished because it is wrong, and because it breaches EU regulations. Spring hunting should not be temporarily suspended as a punishment to hunters. It should be permanently abolished because it is wrong, and now that we are members of the EU, it is also illegal.

As Alternattiva Demokratika's media release of May 26 makes clear, AD insists that spring hunting should be abolished irrespective of whether hunters comply with Maltese law or not. Now that we are members of the EU, the Birds Directive supersedes Maltese legislation on hunting. Such a clear and uncompromising stand (by AD) cannot be seen from the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party, who are quite willing to swing both ways if they see this as a possibility of gaining some votes (even at the expense of murdered birds).

Mr Scerri goes on to say that "In the meantime, Harry Vassallo, in the same article, conveniently omitted all mention of the government's decision regarding the nature park.

One wonders what makes certain politicians tick, whether it is the issues themselves or the persons behind them. Is it the song that counts, or just the singer?".

Perhaps it is opportune to mention that, as reported in Malta Today on the 20th May, there is a high probability that hunting will be permitted in the new "nature park". Therefore, using Mr Scerri's words again, one wonders what makes certain politicians tick, whether it is the issues themselves or the persons behind them. Is it the song that counts, or just the singer? Well, I can only speculate that "Hunters in a nature park" would make a lousy song, irrespective of whether the singer is called Lawrence or Alfred!

Slaughter of the innocents

Alexander Cortis also writes in today's The Times, saying:

"Last February, while on a bus, I overheard a loud conversation between two hunters. One of them was extolling the virtues of his new rifle, which he had already used. He said to his companion, in translation: 'When I shot it, it turned into smoke!' They both chuckled knowingly, nodding their heads.

Regrettably, this seems to be the hunters' general mentality. It is the fun; the joy; the satisfaction of killing; the lack of conscience that they are truncating an innocent life, not out of need but for so-called sport! Regrettably too this is the attitude the government is trying to accommodate, while, at the same time, trying to impose acceptance of it on the vast majority of people who are adamantly against hunting. It is also regrettable that the government have placed themselves between a rock and a hard place and seem ready to defy the EU and go to the European Court with very poor defence. Can we really believe that they think they can win, or is theirs a wily ruse, risking taxpayers' money, just for the sake of appeasing the hunters for their few thousand votes? If they lose their case in Europe, they can then turn round to the hunters and say to them 'Look, we tried. We did our best for you.'

But who foots the bill?

It is regrettable too that the MLP has kept total silence on this issue. Where are they? Where do they stand? What do they think? Silence gives consent. They too worry more about their votes!

Regrettably, where are the Church authorities? What is their opinion; their belief? Do they think it is right to destroy a beautiful part of God's creation? How can they accept this slaughter of the innocents without condemnation, or do they too, through their deep silence, give their consent?

The only party that has emerged with credit and honour from this very sad business is the Green Party. They have made clear where they stand from the very beginning. Similarly they have made clear where they stand, without fear or favour, on many other important issues, amongst which a most fundamental one - that all political parties be funded through State funds, so as not to incur any obligations towards any individuals, companies or associations! Not because they stand to gain most, as cynics might say, but because this is general Green Party policy world-wide, designed to safeguard against incurring debts to vested interest.

I would suggest that those of you fortunate enough to have an AD candidate standing in their district and who are disillusioned by the two main parties, or are thinking of not voting in the next election to, instead, cast your vote in AD's favour, so as to create a three-party Parliament in Malta, thus shattering the power of virtual dictatorship that exists at present.

With a pro-environmental party holding the balance we could expect to enjoy less pollution, less environmental degradation, and not least, more consensus politics into the bargain. Of course, such a situation is the politicians' nightmare scenario as they would become more accountable through a wider representation of the electorate. The less power given to politicians, the more power to the people".

Precisely.

More on the slaughter of the innocents

Edward Camilleri also writes in The Times on the same topic, saying:

"I appeal to both major political parties not to let the Hunters' Federation split them on an issue of such national importance. After all it is they who have to gain and no one else. Do not let this be a repeat of what happened in the 1990s.

Now that a very brave decision has been taken by the government to stop spring hunting, let's not look backwards and unravel what was achieved in the national interest and in the protection of various 'endangered species'. Let us learn from this spring hunting experience, which has reconfirmed how untrustworthy many hunters are. Talk to hunters and you will realise how many of them break the law and shoot at anything that flies. As an example, out of the three hunters that I spoke to, two admitted that several hunters around them had shot at the migrating flock of honey buzzards. So this is not a case of just one or two hunters breaking the law.

I appeal for politics to be kept out of this issue and a step further be taken by abolishing spring hunting altogether. Let's not be narrow minded enough not to see beyond the unsustainable 'pastime' of a few".

I feel I need to make just two comments here. First of all, the government has not stopped spring hunting. It has only closed the season 10 days early, and it is still unclear whether the government will permit spring hunting next year.

Secondly, spring hunting should be abolished irrespective of whether hunters murder "endangered species" or not. Politics should not be kept out of this issue. On the contrary, people who care about the unnecessary murder of innocent sentient birds should convert their sentiments into political action come election time. And the most effective way to do this is by using your vote wisely. As things stand, with both major political parties having no clear stand on the hunting issue, the only option is to vote AD.

Declare your positions on spring hunting! - AD

Alternattiva Demokratika - the Green Party (AD) has yesterday criticized Simon Busuttil's statement that spring hunting will re-open in 2008. Dr Harry Vassallo, Chairperson for AD said that "AD has been the only party with a consistent policy against spring hunting. Unlike PN and MLP we have never seen hunting as a flexible issue that can be toyed with during election time".

Dr Vassallo said that "while hunters and AD do not have the best of relations, we are proud to say that we have always been honest with them, both with regards to AD’s stand, and with regards to the future of spring hunting in Malta. We are and will remain opposed to hunting in spring but insist on hunters’ right to be properly informed about the future of hunting".

Ralph Cassar, spokesperson for the environment said that "both PN and MLP must stop playing electoral tricks on both hunters and the anti-hunting lobby. On one hand the PN tries to resonate with the anti-hunting lobby by halting spring hunting just 10 days before the actual closing date, and on the other we have people like Simon Busuttil who promises that this Government will open spring hunting in 2008". Cassar added that "the MLP must make its stand crystal clear on hunting. It is useless to speak vaguely on this matter. Both hunters and the anti-hunting lobby should know where they stand. At least the MLP should have the decency not to treat hunting issue as a vote grabbing exercise".

Referring to the Hunting Federation’s statement withdrawing its political neutrality Dr Vassallo said "the FKNK will have considerable difficulty choosing between the other political parties which have proved themselves unreliable to every stakeholder on this issue. Neither one of the other political parties can promise to defy the EU successfully except for a very short time. The law is clear and will be fully enforced sooner of later".

Dr Vassallo concluded that "hunters should stop trying to hold Malta hostage. Labour and PN should stop negotiating the ransom with the FKNK. In regards to spring hunting, the political class should isolate the hunters. In Europe there is, thankfully, no chance of spring hunting being permitted, irrespective of who is in parliament. With the Greens in Parliament the issue of spring hunting will be sealed, for ever".

Alternattiva Demokratika is also one of the 15 organisations that endorsed the declaration against spring hunting which was presented to members of parliament on Monday 21st May, 2007.

Pullicino plays mysterious, BirdLife Malta's report, and the "Foot-shooting season"

Environment Minister plays "mysterious"

Despite Dr Simon Busuttil's statement on live radio that the government will obviously be permitting spring hunting next year, Environment Minister George Pullicino chooses to play the mysterious type, in an obvious last ditch attempt to garner votes from both hunters and environmentalists.

Environment Minister George Pullicino yesterday told The Times that there is no guarantee that hunting will be sanctioned again next spring. When contacted by The Times, Mr Pullicino said the incidents of illegal hunting earlier this month, which forced the government to cut short the spring hunting season, had "weakened Malta's muscle in its arguments to retain spring hunting".

The government, he added, had made it clear that any discussion on hunting has to be linked to a plan of self-regulation by the hunters themselves. The Environment Minister was speaking a day after MEP Simon Busuttil said he had no doubt that the hunting season would reopen for another year.

Asked during a discussion programme on RTK radio whether he could give a guarantee about the contentious spring hunting issue, Dr Busuttil said: "I am not the Environment Minister and I don't form part of the government. But I was elected on the National Party's ballot with a clear promise to retain spring hunting. The government has kept its promise and opened the spring hunting season for five years in a row and I have no doubt that, for the sixth year in a row, the government will maintain that promise again".

In a surprise decision earlier this month, the government decided to abruptly pull the plug on spring hunting 10 days before it was meant to come to a close, prompted by the massacre of hundreds of "protected" birds.

The Times had quoted a European Commission spokesman saying that the Commission hopes spring hunting will no longer be permitted.

Despite the incessant protests by BirdLife Malta and other environmentalists and animal rights campaigners, Malta remains the only EU state that permits hunting in spring. The EU has threatened to challenge the government's persistence in the European Court.

Significant increase in illegal spring hunting

The government's decision to open the spring hunting season this year led to a significant increase in the number of "protected species" killed over Malta, a report released by BirdLife Malta has shown.

The opening of the spring hunting season has given hunters blanket permission to shoot at anything that moves, the report's author, André Raine, told a news conference yesterday.

The report, dealing with all incidents of illegal hunting and trapping reported to BirdLife between January 1 and May 21, is to be forwarded to the relevant authorities, including the European Commission.

Contrary to claims that stringent regulations, monitoring and hefty fines would control the activities of hunters, the report indicates that spring hunting in Malta resulted in the needless slaughter of "protected species".

The number of injured and dead birds received by BirdLife during 2007 significantly increased with the opening of the spring hunting season, with 88 per cent of the reports of illegally shot birds pouring in since the season opened on April 10.

The large proportion of "illegally-hunted species" were birds of prey, which made up 65 per cent of the shot birds, often "rare or declining species".

Compared to 2005, the number of injured or dead "protected species" with gunshot wounds physically brought to the BirdLife offices increased by 24 per cent, the report said. Additionally, birdwatchers reported a total of 181 illegal hunting and trapping cases from 58 localities until May 21. Numerous other reports received from the public were excluded if sufficient evidence was found lacking.

Dr Raine, BLM's conservation manager, said Malta has the dubious distinction of being the only Mediterranean country that does not have a single pair of breeding birds of prey.

The continued persecution of birds of prey means that even common breeding raptors in the Mediterranean, such as the common kestrel, do not have a chance to breed here even though conditions are more than suitable, Dr Raine said.

He insisted that both the number of reports of illegal hunting and the number of birds taken to the BirdLife offices will only represent a fraction of what is occurring in the countryside.

To be taken to the BirdLife office, the shot bird must first escape from the hunter, and then be found by a member of the public willing to recover it. Most hunters who kill "protected species" will make every effort to conceal or destroy the evidence, Dr Raine said. This explains why a rather low 31 birds were taken to the BLM office.

However, BLM director Tolga Temuge said that about 380 reports of illegal hunting were made during the spring season.

Reports about incidents of illegal hunting are sent on a regular basis and the study cites a case where BirdLife staff provided video footage of a hunter inside the Addolorata Cemetery to the police. The report says the difficulty in policing illegal hunting activities is compounded by the fact that a significant number of hunters are equipped with walkie-talkies or VHF radios, to alert other hunters about police presence.

BirdLife provided journalists with evidence showing that the birds they received were inspected by a veterinarian and then handed over to the police Administrative Law Enforcement or to Heritage Malta.

Towards the end of the news conference, Mr Temuge hit out at the hunters' federation for questioning the veracity of photos of dead birds released by BirdLife.

He gave proof that the three photos contested by the hunters were real photos of birds gunned down by hunters this year. In one case, a hunters' claim that a photo of a dead purple heron dated back to 1999 was nothing more than a matter of a wrong camera setting, he said. To verify the details, journalists were even provided with the contact details of the person who took the picture. Mr Temuge also said that another individual had taken a photo of the same dead bird from a different angle.

Foot-shooting season opens

Phil Humphries from the UK writes a letter to The Times saying:

"Just as the spring hunting season was coming to an end, another shooting season was just beginning.

Shooting oneself in the foot is a minority sport that appears to be gaining popularity in Malta and although the current season is still in its infancy we have already witnessed a number of potentially prize-winning efforts. The burned oil daubers, waste oil throwers and aerosol paint sprayers have each staked a claim; however, there are currently only two genuine contenders in the running for this year's team award.

First contender is the organised yet seemingly invisible gang of environmental rapists whose senseless destruction of 3,000 saplings not only served to deprive themselves and everyone else of the long-term beauty and benefit that trees provide, but which also succeeded in raising awareness of Malta's environmental issues and helped create an army of previously apathetic people whose time and money will now be used to defeat the vandals and their sick ambitions.

It is well known that cash relaxes criminal tongues and I call upon readers to join me in asking those concerned to offer a substantial amount of the recently donated public money as a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for this crime against Malta.

Doubtless, when the culprits are apprehended it will quickly be proven that they have no affiliations with the hunting fraternity whatsoever.

Nevertheless, if the FKNK were to start their own reward fund or publicly contribute to another, then this might serve to allay any unfounded suspicions that may linger.

The second contender in this year's foot-shooting contest is the FKNK's committee whose proposal to abandon its organisation's political neutrality justifies its true "contender" status.

Politicians must be falling over themselves to represent the hunters in the next election (and turkeys are looking forward to Christmas!)".

I would also nominate the president of St Hubertus Shooters, Mr Alfred E. Zammit, who apparently watches too many James Bond movies, for writing in a letter to The Times that "The truth is that Mr Temuge (of BirdLife Malta) is perceived as an aggressive person by the FKNK. He is also perceived as possessing some secret weapon". With friends (of the FKNK) like these, who needs enemies?

On Simon Busuttil's defence of spring hunting, and more amusement from Alfred E. Zammit

Simon Busuttil once again defends spring hunting

As reported in Maltastar.com, Nationalist MEP Simon Busuttil has declared on live radio that the Government will allow spring hunting next year.

Maltastar.com reports that "The euphoria of environmental organisations for the government’s decision to abruptly stop spring hunting was shattered by Simon Busuttil’s, PN member of European Parliament, statement when on radio he declared that government will be keeping its electoral promise and open the spring hunting season in 2008".

This will obviously not go without comment. First of all, there was no euphoria from environmental organisations on the abrupt stopping (only 10 days early) of this year's spring hunting season. This is evidenced by an anti-spring hunting coalition of 15 organisations' presentation of an anti-spring hunting declaration to parliament last Monday. The declaration's formulation and submission to members of parliament was precisely due to the uncertainty on whether the government will allow spring hunting next year.

During a radio programme on RTK, when asked by a Maltastar.com journalist whether the government will be giving a guarantee that spring hunting will open in 2008, Simon Busuttil said: "I am not the environment minister…But Government has kept its promise and opened the spring hunting season for five years in a row and I have no doubt that for the sixth year in a row, government will keep its promise again".

When pressed by the Maltastar journalist to state in unequivocal terms whether his statement means that next year government will open the spring hunting season, Simon Busuttil said "obviously".

Maltastar.com also states that "Environmentalists were quick to praise the government’s decision and EU spokespersons also conditionally applauded the halting of the hunting season. The Times had quoted a European Commission spokesperson saying that the Commission hopes spring hunting will no longer be allowed".

It must also be stressed that the environmentalists (and animal rights activists) "praise" was only for the decision to stop spring hunting immediately following the wholesale slaughter of several birds from "protected" species. These organisations, as last Monday's declaration clearly attests, were not so naive as to believe that this was the end of spring hunting in Malta, and it is for this reason that the declaration demands that the government clearly states once and for all whether it intends to permanently abolish spring hunting in Malta, in line with EU regulations.

It must also be noted that even the EU "praise" was limited to the government decision to prematurely end this year's spring hunting season. In fact, Maltastar.com itself reports that "In the same report, Euro MP Martin Libicki, chairman of the petitions committee and author of a report condemning spring hunting welcomed government’s decision but said: 'It remains, however, essential that the Maltese authorities follow through this decision with a clear commitment that there will be no more spring hunting next year, not the year after, nor ever'".

But Simon Busuttil has now categorically claimed on live radio that "he was elected on the PN's ballot with a clear promise to retain spring hunting". The issue was raised by a Maltastar.com journalist during RTK's radio show, anchored by journalist Fiorella Pace, Ewropa ta' Strasburg.

Paul Cachia news editor of Di-ve.com, Simon Cassar coordinator of PN's Maltarightnow.com and Kurt Farrugia editor of Maltastar.com were invited to grill Dr Busuttil on a number of EU related issues.

The Maltastar.com journalist also read to Simon Busuttil a number of propaganda literature issued by the government and the independent office held by Dr Busuttil himself, the Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC). The Nationalist Party had said that it managed to obtain an historic deal to keep spring hunting in Malta. This statement has already been rubbished by the Environment Commission Stavros Dimas in the European Parliament.

But Dr Busuttil said that the government has fulfilled its electoral pledge every year by opening the spring hunting season in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007.

He also said he supported government's stand to open the hunting season every year since being elected. At the same time Dr Busuttil agrees with the government's decision to abruptly close the hunting season in 2007 after what he claimed to be a massacre of "protected" birds by hunters.

It remains unclear whether the government will act according to Dr Busuttil's words and allow the murder of birds in spring in the coming years, or if the government will see some sense, and abide by EU rules in the interests of the birds themselves and the Maltese population. It also still remains unclear whether, as I suspect, the government will avoid the political voter backlash by calling a general election prior to next year's spring hunting season, and take advantage of the uncertainty on the spring hunting issue which is of the Nationalist government's own making.

It is to be hoped that all environmentalists and animal rights supporters will not be fooled by both major political parties in Malta (who both are in favour of spring hunting, despite their shameless play on words) and will support the only political party in Malta that is unequivocally opposed to spring hunting - Alternattiva Demokratika (the Green Party).

Listen to Dr Busuttil on RTK (in Maltese).

Alfred E. Zammit never fails to amuse us

In a letter in today's The Times, the indefatigable hunter Alfred E. Zammit writes:

"I am beginning to wonder whether George G. Debono of Sliema (No Secret Weapon, May 21) really believes in his own words: 'What counts is the truth'.

Dr Debono seems to be acting like a smokescreen for Tolga Temuge, the executive director of BirdLife Malta. I think the truth would be better served if the latter were to do the talking for himself".

At this point, it must already be noted that the truth remains the truth, no matter who speaks it.

Mr Zammit goes on to say that "Mr Temuge was reported in The Times to have said (February 22) that 'BirdLife is not as confrontational as Greenpeace and the tactics are different. But if the Birds Directive continues being threatened by a small number of politicians and bully hunters then we have no choice but to change tack'.

When non-violent bodies change tack, it could mean they might possibly turn to violence. Therefore, to prevent the words used by Mr Temuge from being misconstrued as suggesting that BirdLife Malta, now under foreign leadership, might resort to violence, I think that the society's executive director ought to make a public statement clarifying what these words actually mean".

First of all, though Greenpeace is confrontational, it is still non-violent. Therefore, for one to say that his tack will be changed to one similar to Greenpeace's more confrontational methods, it is blatantly obvious that while the new tactics would be more confrontational, they would still remain non-violent.

Mr Zammit's claim that when non-violent bodies change tack, it could mean that they might possibly turn to violence, is just his wishful thinking. It's like saying that when non-violent football players change tack, it could mean that they might possible turn to violence.

Of course, there is always that possibility, unlikely though it is. I will at least concede Mr Zammit that. I'm sure that many hunters will relish the opportunity of Birdlife Malta turning to violence, but this will remain wishful thinking. We'll leave that to the violent fringe in the hunting community.

Secondly, what is Mr Zammit wishing to gain from trying to instill the suspicion that Birdlife Malta "might" resort to violence? Does he seriously thing that non-hunters will take his word for it, and believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that Birdlife Malta will resort to violence? Again, I am sure that Birdlife Malta has more honourable people to imitate, rather than the violent fringe in the hunting community.

Mr Zammit goes on to say: "The truth is that Mr Temuge is perceived as an aggressive person by the FKNK. He is also perceived as possessing some 'secret weapon'".

Oh my God! Mr Temuge is perceived as an aggressive person by the FKNK? He is also perceived as possessing some secret weapon? Does Mr Zammit think he is doing the FKNK any favour by saying these things? If this is really the case, does Mr Zammit believe that the FKNK will be taken seriously if they are seen to be so paranoid and deluded?

Mr Zammit then says that "Mr Temuge has the opportunity to contradict what Lino Farrugia, the secretary general of the Hunting Federation (FKNK) said of him on two different public occasions.

Since he has chosen to stay silent so far, I contend that his attitude serves only to confirm this perception in the eyes of the hunting federation and its members".

Like I said in "On hunter self-regulation, pro-environment momentum, an obsession with secret weapons, and the MLP", "perhaps Mr Temuge did not feel aggrieved at all by an inconsequential claim from the hunters' federation. If we had to reply to all the nonsense from the hunters' federation, a whole book would not suffice. I presume that Mr Temuge did not feel aggrieved at all. He simply ignored the claim. Seeking redress or taking (legal) action for an inconsequential statement such as that of a 'secret weapon' is just a waste of time. The claim has not changed the public's perception of BirdLife Malta one iota. As for the reputation of the hunters...make your own conclusion, particularly in view of recent events".

Feeble attempt by the Hunters' Federation to "counter" the anti-spring hunting declaration

FKNK fails to understand the anti-spring hunting declaration

The Maltese Federation for Hunting (FKNK) yesterday sent a document to members of Parliament to "counter" the anti-hunting document presented to MPs by NGOs on Monday evening.

In the document, which was made available to the press yesterday evening, the FKNK said that it will not comment about the merits or otherwise of the NGOs’ document, which, it said, "is full of inaccuracies, lies and misconceptions in yet another attempt to destroy the Maltese and EU citizens’ legal right to practise their traditional socio-cultural passions of ‘huntable bird’ hunting and capturing" (read 'is full of accuracies and truths in yet another attempt to destroy the hunters' supposed right to murder and imprison birds').

That the Hunter's Federation claims that the declaration is full of inaccuracies, lies and misconceptions, is no surprise (though I would have appreciated it if the Federation would have pointed out what were the inaccuracies, lies and misconceptions. In the absence of an explanation, it would appear that it is the Hunters' Federation that is lying).

However, the Hunters' Federation said it would only comment on one sentence from the NGOs’ document which states that: "Although Article 9 of the EU Birds Directive permits the justification of spring hunting in member states under very specific circumstances, it has been repeatedly declared by the European Union that Malta cannot qualify for such an exemption".

The FKNK said it is a welcome relief for the federation to hear that now even anti-hunters have come round to accept what it has been stating ad nauseam, that is, that other EU member states do permit spring hunting by application of a derogation, and it is not true that it is only in Malta that spring hunting is permitted.

What the FKNK does not realise is that for lack of proper knowledge of the English language, or for not wanting to see facts as they are (or simply for convenience's sake), the Federation did not properly understand the anti-spring hunting declaration. It is simply untrue that other EU member states permit hunting by application of a derogation. Since no EU member state has been given a derogation, spring hunting is not permitted in any EU member state. It is one thing having the right to apply for a derogation. It's quite another being given one. So the FKNK's claim that Malta is not the only country where spring hunting is permitted by the EU is simply untrue. Not only does the EU not permit spring hunting in other member states, but the EU does not permit spring hunting in Malta.

The counter-declaration from the FKNK goes on to say that "the FKNK has always stated that as an EU member state, Malta has every right to apply a derogation to allow spring hunting under very specific conditions, even more so given the unique and particular conditions prevailing in the Maltese islands".
Of course, we find no fault in this. The EU gives any member state the right to apply for a derogation, but the EU has never given one.

The counter declaration goes on to say that "the FKNK is also aware that these conditions can be met, are well-documented and are supported with solid scientific data. The FKNK, therefore, can only attribute the Malta government failure to exercise its right as an EU member state, notwithstanding having guaranteed legitimate pretence to the contrary to the thousands of Maltese 'sportsmen', to lack of political will and an inferiority complex attitude".

Well, that these conditions (that would justify a derogation) can be met, is apparently only the opinion of the hunters themselves (what would one expect?), and of the politicians who are using hunters' credulity to get their votes. As for the failure of the government to exercise its "right" to take heed of a small minority of hunters, and not to take heed of 80% of the Maltese population that opposes spring hunting, I believe the right of the overall majority to decide that the government should not allow the murder of birds in spring trumps any supposed right of a minority of bird murderers. As for any scientific study, I won't go into the merits of the validity of a biased study. In any case, the murder of one bird is enough to justify a ban on hunting (and not just in spring). The Hunters' Federation should thank their lucky stars that we still live in a speciesist age, and that they will probably enjoy murdering birds in Autumn for several years to come.

The Hunter's Federation, in its "counter declaration" says that the anti-hunting declaration was presented by the usual "handful of individuals". Perhaps it should be pointed out that these handful of individuals are representatives of 15 organisations and 80% of the Maltese population who oppose spring hunting. Perhaps, the Hunters' Federation should note that despite the fact that we do not organize rowdy meetings, beat up journalists, and steal journalists' equipment, we still have a vote.

Fined after hunters' march incidents

A man was fined Lm300 when he admitted to forming part of a crowd that gathered to commit a crime during a hunters' and trappers' demonstration in Valletta two months ago.

Godfrey Camilleri, 27, of Rabat was one of several men charged in connection with the protest. He also pleaded guilty to failing to follow police orders during the demonstration in Republic Street on March 7.

Magistrate Edwina Grima noted that Mr Camilleri had fully cooperated with the police and had a clean criminal record.

Police Inspectors Pierre Micallef-Grimaud and Anthony Portelli prosecuted.

Presentation of anti-hunting declaration, and more letters on the hunting issue

Presentation of declaration to parliament

Several NGOs yesterday called on politicians to abolish spring hunting. Representatives from 15 organisations who gathered outside Parliament described the government's decision to open the season once again this year as highly irresponsible and undemocratic.

The NGOs presented a declaration to parliamentarians urging them to take a direct stand against spring hunting by declaring it illegal.

The organisations, which comprised Animal Rights Malta, Moviment Graffitti, Island Sanctuary, SPCA, Alternattiva Demokratika, Association for Abandoned Animals, Gaia Foundation, Ananda Marga, SOS Animals Malta, World Animal Conscience, Animal Rights Group, Break on Through, St Francis Foundation for Animals, Yelp for Help and Friends of the Earth, also declared they had no confidence in the Ornis Committee on grounds that it lacked autonomy and impartiality.

The hunting season was cut short this year after a massacre of protected birds on one particular day, but the government has made it clear it still intends to try and retain spring hunting and intents to challenge the European Commission in the European Court of Justice.

The EU forbids spring hunting in all its member states and Malta should duly conform to such regulations, the organisations said. The government holds no right to a special derogation regarding spring hunting.

While applauding the decision to terminate the season early, the NGOs objected to the fact that by allowing the season to open, the government had sustained its efforts to justify spring hunting.

Spring hunting was damaging to both the environment and the birds, they argued, more significantly because the birds are targeted just before their reproductive period.

The NGOs reminded parliamentarians that the majority of Maltese citizens are opposed to spring hunting and trapping.

A video of the presentation of the declaration to the Prime Minister, and the entire declaration text may be viewed here.

Hunting for a stand

In a letter in today's The Times, Alfred Falzon writes:

"It was bold of the five environmental groups to ask the Labour Party to take a clear stand over spring hunting (May 16).

These NGOs, who have had the guts to put this question to the enlightened Labour leadership, should nonetheless be aware that, as regards this highly controversial matter, the MLP has shown for the umpteenth time that it stands squarely by its ingrained conviction of 'running with the hare and hunting with the hound'. And to hell with outdated principles".

Like I commented in "On the PN and MLP being clones on the spring hunting issue, and a hunter's obsession with secret weapons", "On Labour's stand on hunting, and the proposed "Marine Adventure Park"" and "On spineless politicians supporting bird murder, and terrorist suspects questioned by police", I totally agree with Alfred Falzon.

Converting hunters

Meanwhile, Anna Galea also writes in today's The Times on the topic of hunting. In her letter, Ms Galea writes:

"The approach to resolving the hunting issue should be more positive and constructive on both sides. Enthusiastic hunters cannot reasonably be expected to stop practising their delizzju overnight. On the other hand, they cannot be allowed to continue as they are in a world that is becoming ever so conscious of preserving wildlife and nature.

May I therefore make two suggestions, which could perhaps be supplemented by further recommendations from others who are more knowledgeable in the subject:

1) It seems that one of the "thrills" hunters experience is being in the countryside in the early hours of the morning, "in waiting" for the birds. This energy should be channelled from one of shooting birds, to one of observing them. In this way, instead of there being fewer birds to shoot, more would be permitted to nest in our islands and hunters could instead experience the thrill of birdwatching - another more rewarding and constructive pastime. If the government, together with BirdLife and the hunters' association, worked hand in hand on this, I am sure experts and educators from the EU, or wherever, would readily give advice on how to go about it.

2) Those hunters who practise the sport because they are trigger happy could perhaps satisfy their ego in competitions which would be organised professionally in purposely built, high-standard establishments. Again, this could be coordinated by the government and members of the association. The prospect of potential winners being sent abroad to take part in shooting competitions should help and especially attract the younger generations.

Although the above would involve considerable investment in educating and setting up related establishments, I am sure that we have enough entrepreneurs to go about this in the right manner - and even if the cost has to be partly borne by the government, it should be beneficial to Malta in the long run".

Provided that in the competitions Ms Galea mentions, the targets are not birds, I find this proposal laudable. However, it should be acknowledged that some hunters would not easily give up their "hobby" unless compelled to do so by force, that is by making hunting illegal.

Pro-legal hunting Michael Falzon

Finally, my latest reply to hunter apologist Michael Falzon (see more at "Yet another letter from the pro-hunting fundamentalist") was published in today's The Times. In my letter, I write:

"Michael Falzon (May 9) claims that the replies by Mark Grima and myself to his 'short', 648-word letter confirm that we are fundamentalists. This claim cannot be further from the truth.

My contention about Mr Falzon's letter of April 11 (which I did not send to The Times) is that "cutting and pasting" does not make an article false, and that although one might disagree with a boycott of Malta, a boycott is perfectly legitimate because no one has any duty to visit Malta. I personally do not call for Malta boycotts, but I understand that people have the right to boycott anything. After all, for a boycott to work, it must be accepted as justified. If a growing number of foreigners opposed to spring hunting see a boycott of Malta justified, the onus is on the government to recognise the signs of the times.

It is not Mr Falzon's article of April 11 that makes him pro-hunting but the fact that he is only opposed to illegal hunting. This makes him anti-illegal hunting and pro-legal hunting. Legal hunting is still hunting. Elementary, Mr Falzon. This has nothing to do with being a fundamentalist, and everything to do with the correct use of the English language. If I am mistaken, and Mr Falzon is opposed to all hunting, I would appreciate a statement to this effect.

Mr Falzon says that I "do not even accept the possibility of anyone being against hunting in spring but not against hunting in autumn". I never said that. What I always say is that to be anti-hunting is to be against all hunting. He also calls me a fundamentalist because I 'persistently equalise human rights' with 'so called animal rights'. I do nothing of the sort. I only claim that sentient non-human animals have the right to life, and are not human property. They do not have rights to things which do not matter to them. But life and freedom from exploitation do matter to all animals.

This conclusion comes from several philosophical works (visit www.animalrightsmalta.com/books.html for a short list of some), books which I have read and probably Mr Falzon has never even heard of, let alone read.

Fundamentalism implies irrational beliefs not backed by evidence. I will let go of my convictions as soon as I am convinced of their falsity. Likewise, Mr Falzon could avoid the label of 'fundamentalist' by showing that he has ample knowledge of the topic. Simply saying that non-humans have no "so called animal rights" just because this belief is convenient, does not make it true.

In the absence of providing any rational and morally justified reasons for excluding non-humans from having rights, I take it as just a prejudiced fundamentalist belief. Mr Falzon would do well to start ordering some books on the topic if he wants to debate animal rights and be taken seriously.

As for rational arguments for acknowledging animal rights, one may find a reasonable introduction at www.animalrightsmalta.com".

On the PN and MLP being clones on the spring hunting issue, and a hunter's obsession with secret weapons

On spring hunting, the MLP and the PN are clones

In a meeting with hunters and trappers, Labour MEP Joseph Muscat once again has proved that with regards to the spring hunting issue and the political stance of both major political parties in Malta, there is no difference at all between the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party. Both insist on government doing its best to try to retain the spring hunting season in Malta. It is only Alternattiva Demokratika (the Green Party) which is unequivocal on the issue - Alternattiva Demokratica has consistently said on several occasions that spring hunting should be abolished.

"A Labour Party in government could not promise spring hunting 'just like that' because it would have to take into account the decision of the European Court of Justice and abide by it", MEP Joe Muscat told hunters and trappers yesterday. "If the case goes to the European Court, there is little any government can do. There is only one submission to be made, and that is at the beginning of the process. It is likely to have already been made by the government by the time Labour comes into power", Mr Muscat said, effectively letting the MLP off the hook and giving up responsibility on the issue of spring hunting.

As reported in today's The Times, his statement was not enough for the hunters who, like environmental NGOs last week, wanted to know what stand Labour would adopt in government and whether it would defend their cause. Of course, Mr Muscat's speech could well be interpreted as an avoidance of the issue, since he has not mentioned where the MLP stands on spring hunting. If the MLP's position is that the government should await the outcome of the EU's legal case against it, then, basically both the PN and the MLP are saying the same thing.

Mr Muscat said the Labour Party had many defects, but if it gave its word in writing, it would keep it. "When we are sure of what we have to say, we will speak, and only then, because we do not want to take anyone for a ride" he said, adding that it needed to know the European Court's legal case against Malta. In essence, this means that the MLP, like the PN, would insist on retaining the spring hunting season if the EU would allow it. The EU of course has made its position quite clear on this. In the words of Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, "Derogations are only given if the conditions providing for them are met. The main condition is that spring hunting becomes possible if no sufficient alternatives exist. Although the Maltese authorities invoke this as the reason for allowing spring hunting, we have found that there are sufficient alternatives in autumn and, so, we have not granted any derogation. This also means that Malta must come in line with EU rules and stop hunting in spring".

Mr Muscat said the European Court's case should be made available in black and white for everyone's benefit, and the government should also publish its position to make its arguments known. In essence, this means that Mr Muscat is prepared to waste public funds just so that the MLP will be seen as doing all it can to appease the hunters.

Mr Muscat stressed that "the government had not negotiated any derogation on spring hunting with the EU - and there were no two ways about that. It had taken the hunters for a ride. And no sector could be renegotiated; it was closed the minute Malta joined the EU. Moreover, it would be impossible to negotiate a derogation that did not exist".

Asked whether the situation regarding the derogation could be changed if the government changed, Mr Muscat said any government would have to accept the decision of the European Court and no one had ever challenged it. Once the government made its first and final submission to the European Court and lost the case, there would be no turning back, he said. Whether the MLP in power could apply a derogation after the court case depended on the European Commission's case and the arguments the government put forward.

Mr Muscat explained that hunting and trapping were regulated by the Birds Directive, and that article 9 allowed for the application of a derogation under three circumstances, but it did not mean the country would necessarily be granted it.

Mr Muscat also said that if hunters and environmentalists "pulled together", a solution would be found. This is, of course, nonsense, since one cannot both retain and not retain the spring hunting season. If Mr Muscat meant something different, he has failed to make what he meant clear. In this issue, there is only one solution - a total ban of spring hunting, which would be the only logical, moral and legal solution to be made.

Mr Muscat also commented that he firmly believed that the abrupt close of the spring hunting season 10 days before planned had nothing to do with the illegal killing of protected birds. It was a "premeditated, electoral move on the part of the government, who has realised it has lost the votes of the hunters, and is trying to 'trap' the votes of the environmentalists instead". But the simple thing that Mr Muscat does not realise is that "environmentalists" are not fools who are swayed by empty words and half-baked actions. Environmentalists and animal rights supporters will only trust a political party when that party will make it clear that it would completely abolish spring hunting, and not merely close it a few days early. Until now, the only party that has been unequivocally clear that it wants a total ban on spring hunting and trapping is Alternattiva Demokratika (the Green Party).

No secret weapon

George G. Debono writes a letter in today's The Times in reply to hunter Alfred Zammit regarding his obsession with secret weapons (see also "On hunter self-regulation, pro-environment momentum, an obsession with secret weapons, and the MLP"). Mr Debono writes:

"Many thanks to Alfred Zammit (Secret Weapon, May 17) for conceding that the words 'secret weapon' were quoted directly from a FKNK press release and that they were not used by Tolga Temuge.

The word 'aggression' was also used by the secretary general of the FKNK at a public meeting in Rabat and is, therefore, not attributable in this context to Mr Temuge; furthermore, to 'change tack' does not imply aggression or resorting to violence.

Finally, it is beside the point whether Mr Temuge or somebody else felt 'irked' by Mr Zammit's false statement in one of our leading national papers - and chose to correct it. What counts is the truth. The issue in dispute was whether or not Mr Zammit made a misleading public statement by attributing words to somebody who never said them".

Bird migration report challenges government claims

We are obviously against all hunting and trapping, since hunting involves the unnecessary murder of innocent and sentient birds, and trapping involves their imprisonment, and not because they are "common heritage". All birds are individuals and are the property of nobody (as opposed to being the property of all, as many environmentalists claim). However, a report from BirdLife Malta clears any doubt that spring hunting and trapping in particular are unsustainable even from an environmental point of view, and makes the government's insistence of retaining them illogical apart from illegal and immoral.

BirdLife report shows international impact of hunting and trapping in Malta

The report launched by BirdLife Malta reveals the impact that Maltese hunters and trappers are having on the conservation efforts in other European countries where hunting is not permissible in spring and trapping is outlawed throughout the year. Birds from a minimum of 35 countries have been killed in Malta by Maltese hunters.

The five most commonly recorded countries for birds killed in Malta are Finland, Sweden, Tunisia, Italy and Germany. The majority are birds who are currently protected, non-huntable species, with a significant proportion being given special conservation designations as Annex 1 species under the EU Birds Directive.

Trapping currently occurs in Malta at such a high level that only a handful of each of the common finch species regularly breed on the islands, despite breeding in abundance in other areas of the Mediterranean. 73.2% of all finch recoveries in Malta come from the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, and Croatia.

Half of the ring recoveries of Turtle Doves come from Italy and a further quarter come from the Czech Republic. The vast majority (94.4%) of ring recoveries of Common Quail originate from a single country only; Italy. The hunting of Common Quail in Malta will therefore be having an impact on the breeding populations of Italy in particular.

The data presented on Turtle Dove and Quail in the BirdLife Malta report also shows the government’s justification given to the European Union for breaching the Birds Directive is incorrect as these two species come from a small number of countries and not from the entirety of their breeding range as the government claims. This means that spring hunting and trapping will have serious impact on the populations of Turtle Dove and Quail in countries like Italy and Czech Republic. Both Turtle Dove and Common Quail are currently considered to be of an Unfavourable Conservation Status in Europe and therefore a derogation can not be applied for these species.

Dr. Andre Raine, Conservation Manager of BirdLife Malta said: "Any conservation rewards gained from hunting and trapping restrictions in other European countries are presently serving the interests of Maltese hunters and trappers. Maltese hunters get to shoot what their counterparts in Europe are obliged to protect during spring. Furthermore, illegal hunting in Malta has a direct impact on the conservation efforts of countries throughout Europe and Africa".

The BirdLife Malta report is based on ring recoveries that were used to analyse the international importance of Malta’s position along one of the main European-African bird migration routes. International ring recoveries came from 1,188 individuals, representing 120 species.

BirdLife called for the protection of migratory species through robust national legislation which implements the Birds Directive in its entirety. "The recent step taken by the government to end spring hunting earlier this year is a positive development. But this should be further supported by outlawing hunting and trapping in spring starting from next year onwards. Furthermore increased assistance for over-stretched law enforcement officers and the application of significant penalties (in court and not just on paper) for those who break the law are essential" concluded Dr. Raine.

The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese islands

Since 1965, licensed bird ringers have been carrying out scientific studies and bird monitoring work on the Maltese islands. Despite its significant importance as an island located on one of the main migratory flyways between Europe and Africa, Malta has developed a notorious reputation as one of the black spots in the Mediterranean due to uncontrolled hunting and trapping activities.

According to the Home Affairs Minister the latest figures for the number of registered hunters in Malta currently stands at 11,929 individuals and the number of registered trappers is 4,616 individuals. Maltese hunters and trappers are having a devastating impact on the conservation efforts in other European countries where hunting is not permissible in spring and trapping using clap nets is completely outlawed. Data on the impact of the hunting and trapping of protected species presented in the BirdLife Malta report explains some of the frustrations vented by European conservationists and hunters alike who are legally obliged to observe the Birds Directive in their own countries.

International ring recoveries came from 1,188 individuals, representing 120 species. Birds from a total of 48 countries, 36 in Europe and 12 in Africa, were found to pass over Malta during spring and autumn migration. To understand bird migration and the origin and destination of migrants, scientific bird ringing is a vitally important technique for ornithologists. Birds are caught at strategic points along their migration routes and are individually marked using numbered identification rings which are normally attached to their legs, before being released. This work has helped to understand Malta’s significance in the migratory routes of birds crossing over the Mediterranean. The data was gathered by licensed Maltese bird ringers carrying out their work under the Valletta Bird Ringing Scheme, which is also a member of EURING (European Union for Bird Ringing).

Ring recoveries from a total of 75 species, representing 35 countries, were found to have been killed in Malta. The majority of these ring recoveries came from birds that are currently protected, non-huntable species, with a significant proportion being given special conservation designations as Annex 1 species under the EU Birds Directive. Annex 1 species are those that are given extra legal protection due to their unfavourable conservation status in Europe.

Ring recoveries only represent the number of ringed birds found or reported to BirdLife Malta. In reality, ring recoveries from ringed birds shot or trapped in Malta will be dramatically under-represented. Hunters and trappers are very unlikely to report ringed birds (especially protected and illegal species) and will make every effort to conceal them. This is further accentuated by the fact that many areas (such as Delimara and Mizieb) are inaccessible to fieldworkers during the peak hunting seasons due to the inherent dangers involved. Many hunters are often very aggressive to field workers (both verbally and physically) and this, coupled with the health and safety issues of so many firearms being discharged in such concentrated areas, means that it is simply not safe for field workers to collect data. As these areas are hot spots for illegal hunting activities, these are the areas where it is very likely that many of the ring recoveries would be found.

Data on Turtle Dove and Quail showed that these species originate from a subset of key countries within Europe and not from the entire European population. This carries serious implications in terms of some of the justifications that the government has presented to the European Union for defying the Birds Directive for four consecutive years since Malta became a member. In their reports to the European Commission, the government persistently claims that birds from the entire European breeding population for both species pass over Malta, and that therefore the number of birds killed in the islands is insignificant on an international level. The data presented on Turtle Dove and Quail in the BirdLife Malta report demonstrates that this claim is false.

Countries affected by illegal hunting and trapping in Malta

From the analysis of ring recoveries it can be seen that birds from a minimum of 35 countries have been subsequently killed in Malta by Maltese hunters. Only a small proportion of these ring recoveries came from legally huntable species, with the vast majority being protected species.

The five most commonly recorded countries for birds killed in Malta are Finland, Sweden, Tunisia, Italy and Germany. Together, these five countries make up 54.5% of all recoveries. For Finland and Sweden in particular, a significant proportion of these recoveries come from birds of prey, comprising 55.5% and 33.3% of the total recoveries for these countries respectively.

The impact of hunting

The five most common species ringed overseas and killed in Malta are Osprey, Common Kestrel, Turtle Dove, Night Heron and Caspian Tern. Together, these make up 38.7% of all individual recoveries. Of these five species only the Turtle Dove can be legally hunted in Malta under current legislation.

Of the 75 species recorded as ringed overseas and killed in Malta, 15 (20.0%) species were raptors (birds of prey) and 25 (33.3%) were listed under Annex 1 of the Birds Directive.

The central Mediterranean flyway is particularly important for many raptors, with thousands making the crossing every year. This group of birds in particular are heavily persecuted in Malta, with large numbers being killed every year on migration. These raptors are often rare or declining species having small numbers of young that take several years to reach sexual maturity. Therefore, the impact of illegal hunting pressures on raptor populations can have serious repercussions on their conservation status.

The majority of ringed raptors and herons that have been shot over Malta are of juvenile birds and birds ringed in the nest. Ring recoveries of birds ringed as nestlings and killed in Malta include:

· Pallid Harrier (Globally Near Threatened, Endangered in Europe with a breeding population of 5-51pairs),
· Osprey (Unfavourable Conservation Status, Rare),
· Lesser Kestrel (Global Status Vulnerable),
· Saker Falcon (Globally Endangered, entire European population 360-540 pairs),
· Purple Heron (Unfavourable Conservation Status, Declining).

The impact of trapping

Analysis of aerial photographs from 2001 found a minimum of 5,317 trapping sites. The methods employed by trappers, who utilise large clap nets and live decoy birds, is a very successful method of trapping entire flocks of finches. This, coupled with the large number of registered trappers in Malta, means that very few migrants reaching Malta remain free long enough to move inland to where scientific bird ringing normally takes place.

Large flocks of migrants are almost entirely caught by trappers who position their trapping sites along the edges of cliffs where migrating finches first arrive. The fact that there are so few wild finches present in the interior of Malta shows the dramatic impacts that trapping has on populations of migrating finches.

As well as having a serious impact on locally breeding birds, trapping particularly targets the large flocks of migrating finches that pass through Malta during migration. Trapping currently occurs in Malta at such a high level that only a handful of each of the common finch species regularly breed on the islands, despite breeding in abundance in other areas of the Mediterranean. For comparative purposes, while Chaffinch, Serin, Goldfinch, Greenfinch and Linnet all have breeding populations of between 10,000 and 60,000 pairs (depending on the species) in Cyprus, the Maltese breeding populations are represented as between 1-5 pairs, and several of these species no longer breed regularly on the islands.

112 foreign-ringed finches from 19 countries were recorded from the BirdLife Malta database. The five most common countries recorded from ring recoveries are Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, and Croatia. Combined these make up 73.2% of all finch recoveries in Malta. The vast majority (86.6%) of these recoveries were from birds trapped by trappers and not released. Trapping will have a particularly concentrated effect on the populations of these countries in particular.

The trapping of finches in Malta is effectively causing the local extinction of the Maltese breeding populations and impacting on migrating finch flocks from a range of countries throughout their European breeding range.

Malta’s defiance of EU law

The hunting of birds in spring is not allowed under the EU Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC). Derogations from this can be applied only if certain conditions are fulfilled, including the absence of an alternative solution. To date, no Member State of the European Union has been able to justify a derogation on spring hunting.

The Maltese government, in 2007, opened its fourth spring hunting and trapping season (for Turtle Dove and Common Quail) since joining the European Union. Both Turtle Dove and Common Quail are currently considered to be of an Unfavourable Conservation Status in Europe due to significant declines throughout their breeding range.

Turtle Doves have been recovered from eight countries within the species’ breeding range. Half of the ring recoveries of Turtle Doves come from Italy and a further quarter come from the Czech Republic.

The vast majority (94.4%) of ring recoveries of Common Quail originate from a single country only; Italy. The only recovery of Common Quail outside Italy is of a single recovery from Hungary. The hunting of Common Quail in Malta will therefore be having an impact on the breeding populations of Italy in particular.

The results of this analysis are particularly important when considering the conclusions of the derogation report issued by Malta defending its intention to allow spring hunting (MRAE, 2005). In this report, Malta claims that birds from both species come from the entirety of their breeding ranges in an attempt to show that what happens in Malta is insignificant in terms of the European populations of these species. The data presented by BirdLife Malta shows that the government’s argument for defying European Union law will never hold ground.

The European Commission has started an infringement procedure against the Maltese government on this issue, with the issuing of a first written warning in July 2006. The procedure has moved on to the next level, with the issuing of a supplementary warning letter in March 2007. The next step will ultimately involve the taking of Malta to the European Court of Justice.
A call for action

As a member of the European Union, Malta has a legal obligation to follow the Birds Directive. One of the most important issues that the Birds Directive addresses is the migratory nature of many bird species and the fact that they pass through many different countries during their annual migrations. Protecting migratory species must be undertaken through robust national legislation which implements the Birds Directive in its entirety. This needs to be supported by increased assistance for over-stretched law enforcement officers and the application of significant penalties (in court and not just on paper) for those who break the law.

The BirdLife Malta report shows, unequivocally, the international importance of Malta on the European-African migratory flyway. Birds from breeding populations throughout Europe pass over Malta every year on their way to African wintering grounds. It follows that illegal hunting and trapping activities in Malta have a direct resonance on the conservation efforts of countries throughout Europe and Africa. Malta therefore has a responsibility to protect these species.

International Impact of Hunting and Trapping in Malta (pdf)

www.birdlifemalta.org

Half-baked measures do not make the PN a "green" party

A new "Green Party"?

Robert Arrigo, a Nationalist MP, writes in today's The Malta Independent on the recent "change of policies" of the Nationalist Government on environmental issues.

Mr Arrigo writes: "Some events that took place in the past 15 days sparked debate. The first was the indiscriminate killing of protected birds, which led to the decision taken by my colleague, Rural Affairs and Environment Minister George Pullicino, in consultation with the Prime Minister, to stop hunting immediately, a decision I endorse. I believe that the hunters were stretching their luck too far. They had their day and protested in Valletta, where the fine line of decency was surpassed when they chanted songs and slogans that do no benefit to anybody".

So far so good. However, Mr Arrigo goes on to say:

"It was probably a small number of hunters that committed the illegal act or acts (how does he know?), and the whole hunting community should look upon those and show their disagreement towards them. This is not an issue over which to point fingers at the government, as they cooked their own meal. Visiting homes, and you do meet hunters there too, one understands the passion that runs through their veins when the hunting season is on. Why not keep the passion going and behave within the rules, goes beyond any reason".

What really goes beyond any reason is the hunters' urge to kill, and politicians who conveniently approve of keeping the "passion" of killing sentient animals going as long as it is "legal murder". Also, it is pertinent to point out that this is an issue to point fingers at the government, but the pointing of fingers should be done by any decent citizen, and not hunters. One should point fingers at the government's insistence in retaining the illegal spring hunting season. Using Mr Arrigo's own words, to "behave within the rules" (EU rules) is to abolish spring hunting. And the government's insistence on not "behaving within the rules" is also "beyond any reason".

Mr Arrigo also goes on to say that "on the above (environmental) issues, this Nationalist government has surpassed both Labour and the Green Party. Factual action on environmental issues has been done. No promises, or so-called plans, or press conferences, nor futile motions, but concrete steps that have put the PN as the top party for environment, and that who really cares. The Green Party, which must find votes for survival at election time, is at its best when doing press conferences, as the printed media gives them an extra advantage over the represented parties (that's quite rich, coming from an MP of a party that is to be expected to be reported in all media, every time a minister visits anywhere - luckily we have not been regaled with a minister's inauguration of a public lavatory, yet). What validity this translates into, is however very questionable, as the PN has become the party of those greens who care".

Have I read correctly? The PN has surpassed Alternattiva Demokratika on green issues? The PN is the top party for the environment? The PN has become the party of those greens who care? Dear Mr Arrigo, half-baked measures do not make you an environmentalist. Nor do they make your party a green party. The PN will only be taken seriously by environmentalists and animal rights supporters when the PN will abolish spring hunting once and for all. Until then, the claim that the PN is the new green party is at best, wishful thinking, and at worst, simple deceit.

Here's a message to the Prime Minister and the Environment Minister: Abolish spring hunting (and all trapping) once and for all, in line with EU regulations, and only then will we start taking you seriously. A true green party is opposed to spring hunting (like Alternattiva Demokratika are). Ask any environmentalist, or perhaps the European Commission itself.

A message to the PN: Ban spring hunting and you get AD's support

Dr Harry Vassallo, chairman of Alternattiva Demokratika (the Green Party), writes an article in today's The Times, commenting on the political pirouettes of the PN and Labour's stance on the hunting issue. Here are a few quotes from Dr Vassallo's article:

"Performing a political pirouette with surprising deftness and grace, Minister Pullicino appeared to avoid head-on collision with the criminals (who destroyed the 3,000 trees and shot 'protected' birds) but sent them a message they cannot fail to understand. It was a horse's head in the bedclothes, not the clink of handcuffs. This is an island south of Sicily after all.

It offends every one who has ever been obliged to pay a parking fine. Not having shown the least compunction about the slaughter of birds migrating to breed for years before, having taken on all ornithophiles and the EU Commission in a show of bluster and obstinacy, having rolled out its big guns in the form of the Prime Minister himself in defence of spring hunting, the government suddenly became conscious of the slaughter of protected species. Or did it suddenly realise that some hunters had made their lobby expendable?

Quite naturally very many of us breathed a sigh of relief. At last the government had shown itself capable of resisting the Rambo rabble. Much more than that has happened. The volte face is also a tour de force. At this point Labour cannot defend the hunters. It too must admit that the defence of hunting and the humiliation of the other two-party politics has gone too far.

Roderick Galdes' commitment to defend hunters' rights in the EU now leaves the MLP out on a limb. We have had a decade of PN and MLP grovelling before the hunters' lobby because of the blackmail stalemate imposed by the other parties on one another. At this point an MLP insistence on its 1996 opportunism would serve the PN superbly. So would another act of vandalism: the spring hunting issue could be zapped for good in the wake of the next paroxysm of hunting imbecility. A small riot would wrap it all up. A big riot could see the end of autumn hunting too.

Acknowledging that it is not politically expedient to punish the tree slayers and those slaughtering protected birds, the government has punished all hunters indiscriminately. Pirouette or otherwise, it can hardly now point out that hunting in spring should not have been allowed in the first place. First it countenanced an illegality and then retracted it causing an injustice in the upside down world of its own making. The move became irresistible once it was realised that this would also turn the hunting issue inside out and reverse the bi-partisan stalemate on the issue. Anyone dizzy yet?

This is the time for the Greens to offer their support to the government. With a 31 per cent approval rating on environmental issues, the Greens are where the government wishes it could be. If the Minister of the Environment made it clear that spring hunting is ended for good we are more than willing to back him up. Would it not be better to have the Greens on board than to stick to ambiguity and half measures that displease everybody? Together we could even avoid further damage to the rule of law".

On hunter self-regulation, pro-environment momentum, an obsession with secret weapons, and the MLP

Minister's call for hunter self-regulation

In a statement reminiscent of Pilate's washing of hands, Environment Minister George Pullicino yesterday told a delegation from the hunters' federation that "the future of hunting depends on the hunters themselves. Before the government engages in talks about the subject, it needs to have effective proposals from hunters' organisations stating how they intend to self-regulate".

Asked by The Times about the outcome of the meeting with the hunters' federation, Mr Pullicino said various points were raised, including the abrupt closure of the spring hunting season for quails and turtle doves following police reports that a large number of "protected" birds of prey were gunned down yesterday week.

The minister said he insisted that the hunters' federation had to come up with concrete proposals aimed at self-regulation and there could be no talks about hunting before this was done. "The future of hunting is in their hands. All depends on how successful they are in bringing about discipline", he said.

Mr Pullicino thus has abducted his sole responsibility to abolish spring hunting, not to mention all hunting. Hunting should not be abolished because hunters do not "self-regulate". Hunting should be abolished because it is unnecessary killing, which is tantamount to murder. Spring hunting in particular should be abolished because it is illegal, now that Malta is a member of the European Union. No matter how much hunters "behave", there is no excuse for not abolishing illegal spring hunting, and incrementally (if not immediately) abolishing all murder of birds.

Mr Pullicino told The Times that actions by hunters showed the government was right in imposing tougher penalties for illegal hunting because there were some who were still intent on breaking the law. "Hunters had called the heftier penalties anti-social, yet even these do not seem to be enough of a deterrent", he said. "The best form of enforcement has to follow from self-regulation. If hunters are unable to do this, I have little hope we can unblock this situation" the minister said. However, in the case of spring hunting, there is no situation to be unblocked. Spring hunting, apart from being immoral, is also illegal now that we are EU members. All that Minister Pullicino has to do is to comply with EU law. That is what the people who voted "yes" in the EU referendum voted for. Mr Pullicino should not abdicate his responsibilities, and should comply with EU law (not to mention the will of the majority of Maltese citizens) immediately.

Pro-environment momentum

Meanwhile, Mr David Casa, a Nationalist member of the European Parliament, writes an opinion piece in today's The Times about the "pro-environment momentum".

Mr Casa writes: "The environment was once again in the news for most of last week. On May 9 we woke up to the shocking news that 3,000 pine trees in an area close to the Red Tower in Mellieha had been damaged and destroyed. An act that followed a series of other terrorist attacks on the environment. This attack was followed with the killing of several protected birds of prey.

The government, led by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, has once again proved itself and acted accordingly. The hunting season was closed down following the shooting of protected birds by irresponsible hunters. Such a decision was an act of courage indeed, but it had to be taken once irresponsible hunters opted to abuse the law and acted recklessly to the detriment of law-abiding hunters".

The fact that the action (stopping spring hunting 10 days early) was taken because of hunters murdering "protected" birds shows that the only thing the government has proved is that appeasing the hunters always backfires. The decision will only be an act of courage if it is followed up by a total abolition of spring hunting, not just for this year, but for the years to come, in line with EU law. This was not a case of irresponsible hunters abusing the law to the detriment of "law-abiding" hunters. This was the case of all hunters abusing European law by hunting illegally (spring hunting is illegal in the EU) with the government's approval. Of course, the government hopefully has learnt that if one plays with fire, one is likely to get burnt.

Mr Casa goes on to list some environmental benefits which came about through EU membership. "That is what the EU means: direct involvement by civil society through active citizenship in the creation of a better place to live in. An opportunity to harmonise not only the environment and human nature but also society itself". However, this claim by Mr Casa completely contradicts his own governing party's insistence with maintaining the spring hunting season, in direct and total defiance of the EU and the majority of Maltese citizens. The EU also means the abolition of spring hunting. Civil society wants spring hunting abolished. What does this say about the government's insistence in retaining it? And doesn't voting against a resolution against spring hunting (like Mr Casa did) contradict the above statement by the same Mr Casa?

Mr Casa concludes his opinion piece by saying that "a clear massage (I'm sure he meant 'message') must be sent out: No criminal will stop the momentum achieved to improve our environment". How about doing this by abolishing spring hunting once and for all, for a start?

Alfred E. Zammit's obsession with secret weapons

Mr Alfred E. Zammit, yet again, replies (in The Times) to a letter from George G. Debono. Mr Zammit writes:

"In his letter What secret weapon? (May 11) George G. Debono refers to what he calls 'the preposterous claim' I made concerning Tolga Temuge's 'secret weapon'.

If Mr Temuge, the executive director of BirdLife Malta, had felt misinterpreted or even aggrieved by the (FKNK) hunting federation's press release of November 29, 2006 which referred to his 'secret weapon', he should have sought redress or taken other action then".

Well, Mr Zammit, perhaps Mr Temuge did not feel aggrieved at all by an inconsequential claim from the hunters' federation. If we had to reply to all the nonsense from the hunters' federation, a whole book would not suffice. I presume that Mr Temuge did not feel aggrieved at all. He simply ignored the claim. Seeking redress or taking (legal) action for an inconsequential statement such as that of a "secret weapon" is just a waste of time. The claim has not changed the public's perception of BirdLife Malta one iota. As for the reputation of the hunters...make your own conclusion, particularly in view of recent events.

Furthermore, this is all besides the point, since the use of the term "secret weapon" in the hunter federation's press release did not imply that BirdLife ever used that exact phrase, or that BirdLife Malta actually had a real weapon which they would use on hunters. This has already been explained in Mr Debono's letter of May 11. If Mr Zammit still can't make the distinction between actually quoting someone, and paraphrasing, that's his problem. I will accept the fact that some are good at speaking, writing and understanding the English language, while others are only good at murdering birds.

Mr Zammit continues his letter by saying that "If reference to this in my letter of April 19 had irked Mr Temuge, he could easily have corrected my statement himself. That he did nothing on both occasions is significant enough".

Wrong again, Mr Zammit. That Mr Temuge was not at all irked by your letter is evidenced by his totally ignoring it. He only gave his comment on being asked by Mr Debono. He did not wish to correct your statement because he deemed it inconsequential. Birdlife Malta's reputation was not tarnished in any way. Now that is significant enough.

Mr Zammit continues: "Mr Debono quotes from the same press release: 'The aggression of (Tolga Temuge) becomes apparent when he even mentions the 'secret weapon' - are we at war or what?' Secret weapons aside, the word 'aggression' applied to Mr Temuge does not augur for a peaceful approach in his relations with the hunting federation, does it? At the hunters' demonstration held by the FKNK at Rabat on December 13, 2006, Lino Farrugia, the secretary general of the federation, spoke loud and clear of the 'Turk's secret weapon'. Again Mr Temuge did nothing to quash the allegation".

Again, Mr Temuge probably did nothing to quash the "allegation" because first of all it was not an allegation. The FKNK does not literally believe that Mr Temuge has an actual weapon. Secondly, Mr Temuge probably did not reply because he deemed the claim to be inconsequential, especially coming from a racist bird murderer (calling Mr Temuge 'Turk' with obviously negative connotations, when nationality is irrelevant, is clearly racist).

And in any case, if Mr Zammit believes that Mr Temuge literally has a secret weapon, why doesn't he say so? Is he perhaps safely playing with words, since if he makes the claim that Mr Temuge literally (not metaphorically - look it up, Mr Zammit) has a secret weapon, Mr Temuge could choose to take legal action (libel) against him? Does Mr Zammit perhaps also believe that Mr Temuge has weapons of mass destruction as well? If only George W. Bush had known this earlier! Iraq would perhaps have been spared a war!

Mr Zammit concludes by saying that "In The Times issue of February 22, 2007 Mr Temuge reportedly stated that 'BirdLife is not as confrontational as Greenpeace and the tactics are different. But if the Birds Directive continues being threatened by a small number of politicians and bully hunters then we have no choice but to change tack'. Lest these words be 'misconstrued as suggesting that BirdLife might resort to violence', perhaps Mr Temuge would oblige, even at this late stage, to explain exactly what he meant".

Perhaps I may oblige Mr Zammit myself. Has Mr Zammit not heard of non-violent direct action? In view of Mr Temuge's mention of Greenpeace and their tactics, it is obvious that non-violent direct action is what Mr Temuge meant. Greenpeace's tactics are all non-violent. So changing tack to methods employed by Greenpeace obviously means changing tack to non-violent direct action. Yes, Mr Zammit, hard as it is to believe for someone addicted to violence (killing is violence, and all hunters kill birds), some people do not like to play with guns and to prove their "manhood" by murdering defenceless and harmless birds. But what does a gun-toting man in "Rambo" attire know about non-violence?

The Malta Labour Party on hunting

I have already made my opinion on the Labour Party's immoral stance on the spring hunting issue (see "On Labour's stand on hunting, and the proposed "Marine Adventure Park"" and "On spineless politicians supporting bird murder, and terrorist suspects questioned by police"). However, I felt I should quote some excerpts from The Malta Independent's editorial on the issue. Of particular importance are the following quotations from today's editorial:

"The government’s decision to stop the spring hunting season with immediate effect, 10 days before the programmed end to the season, has turned hunting into a burning political issue that will have its effect on the outcome of the general election. And, as such, the position that will be taken by the Malta Labour Party on the issue will be a determining factor...

Few expected the Labour leader to shower praise on the government for the decision taken. However, few were also those who would have thought that Dr Sant would have described the government's move as having been an 'unjust u-turn'.It seems that the word 'u-turn' has become one of the most favourite buzzwords with political parties and politicians. Each time there is a hint of a change in direction, the two sides accuse each other of 'u-turns' in an 'I-told-you-so' tone that has become a characteristic of the way politics is done in Malta. And each side is proud to come up with a list of these u-turns – real or perceived – as a means to ridicule the other side.But, in this case, it is not a question of the government doing a u-turn. It is a question of the government taking action, in a decisive way, to stop illegal activities...

This decision (to stop spring hunting 10 days early) was welcomed across the board, except of course by the hunters’ lobby, which is understandable. For his part, the position taken by Dr Sant – and, by default, of the Malta Labour Party – can be interpreted to mean that, in a similar situation, the MLP would not have cut the spring hunting season short.This stand was also confirmed yesterday in a statement issued by MLP spokesmen Joe Brincat and Roderick Galdes, who said that they cannot understand why the government chose to end the spring hunting season abruptly before making a attempt to increase enforcement against abuse.

It is probable that the MLP’s position on this particular issue was taken to earn political mileage from the hunters’ lobby. With an election a few months away, and possibly to be held before the next spring hunting season is due to open, the MLP feels that it would score points among the hunters’ group if it is seen to be against the decision taken by the government.

The MLP knows that the hunting community – and this includes the hunters’ families too – forms a sizeable chunk of the electorate. By not condoning a decision that hit hunting hard, the MLP felt that it would make inroads among the hunters.

Yet, there is another side to the coin. What Labour could gain from the hunters’ side after such remarks could backfire, in the sense that it could end up losing more than it would have gained.

As The Malta Independent concluded last Saturday, 'there are many who may not necessarily be active environmentalists, but who were pleased that the government has taken a strong stand on the issue'".

Precisely.

On Labour's stand on hunting, and the proposed "Marine Adventure Park"

Labour urged to take clear stand on hunting

Today's The Times reports that five environmental groups yesterday called on the Labour Party to take a clear stand on the issue of spring hunting after its leader Alfred Sant criticised the government's decision to cut short the open season following a massacre of migratory birds.

Of course, the five environmental groups' intention, I suspect, is to put pressure on the Labour Party (MLP) to oppose spring hunting. The MLP's position was made very clear last Sunday, when the Labour leader stated that "the MLP believed that the European Union's rules and the 'agreement' reached between Malta and the EU on hunting and trapping had to be observed while fully respecting, however, the Maltese 'tradition'". This could not be interpreted any differently than that the MLP is in favour of retaining the spring hunting season.

In a joint statement issued yesterday, Gaia, Din l-Art Helwa, Nature Trust (Malta), Friends of the Earth (Malta), the Ramblers Association and BirdLife Malta said the issue was a matter of nature conservation and Malta's international image, and not a political one. It was the duty of all political parties in Malta to unite on such environmental issues for the common heritage.

In an email I had sent Labour Leader Alfred Sant on March 8, I had personally asked him:

"Dear Dr Sant,

I would like to ask you the following question, the answer to which, animal rights activists and supporters would be eager to know before the next general elections. In view of the present Government's clear breach of EU regulations in allowing hunting in Spring, what is the Malta Labour Party's position on the issue, and what action will it take if/once in government?

More to the point, would a Labour Government ban spring hunting and submit to any EU directives on hunting and trapping?

Before answering the question, I would like to remind you that unlike the Nationalist Party, the Labour Party made no commitments to hunters and trappers conditional to Malta's membership of the EU. Therefore, your party is in a comfortable position to simply act on EU regulations while maintaining that it is not the Malta Labour Party's fault that Malta is now an EU member, and therefore, compliance with EU regulations is the responsibility of the people who voted Yes in the EU referendum.

I eagerly await your reply, which we will share with all animal rights supporters.

Yours,

Kenneth Cassar
Animal Rights Malta"

As I expected, I still have received no reply to my email.

Spring hunting is not allowed within the European Union in order to protect wild birds before they are about to reproduce in their breeding grounds in Europe. In spite of the ongoing infringement procedure opened by the European Commission, the government opened another spring hunting season in 2007, considered by the Commission to be a fourth consecutive breach of the EU Birds Directive since Malta joined the EU.

The government insists this is not the case and intends to defend its corner at the European courts.

However, following illegal killing of many protected birds the government decided to abruptly end the spring hunting season 10 days before it was originally planned to.

The NGOs welcomed this decision and held that this should be the end of spring hunting and trapping in Malta for ever.

"We appeal to all political parties to respect the EU bird protection law, show their commitment to protect birds before they are about to reproduce and not risk allowing our country's international image to deteriorate any further" the NGOs said.

Birdlife Malta's executive director Tolga Temuge said the illegal shooting of protected birds had been taking place on a regular basis and the shooting of a number of Honey Buzzards last Wednesday was the last straw.

"These strictly protected birds were greeted by fierce gunfire from the south to Tal-Handaq and beyond. The birds were flying low, in search of a place to roost and, stood no chance. They were massacred. We have heard about hunters bagging up to 23 birds and they were boasting about it over their radios. One hunter posted a message on the hunters' federation website saying he was ashamed to see a flock of 30 going into a valley, of which only one survived", Mr Temuge said.

"EU law is very clear. There can be no spring hunting and irrespective of who is in government, the law will have to be applied and enforced".

An opposition party should not oppose good policy

In the meantime, in today's The Times, Kenneth Zammit Tabona writes:

"If the hunting U-turn is unjust and the decision to make Ix-Xaghra l-Hamra a nature reserve is a trick, what sort of alternative government is Alfred Sant proposing?

These strong decisions by the government have caught the Opposition and Malta unawares.

If the MLP reacts to wise governmental decisions by calling a long overdue decision unjust and another environmentally sound one, deceitful, that is merely going to put off floating voters like myself, who were actually toying with the idea of either not voting for the PN or not voting at all, to think again; and very seriously too.

Although we have long resigned ourselves to having governments voted in by default, a few more of these decisions will possibly tip the scales, making it possible to vote for a government with a proper and definable agenda next time round".

Like I said in "On spineless politicians supporting bird murder, and terrorist suspects questioned by police", it seems like Labour's proclamation in defense of spring hunting was not a wise decision at all.

Marine park harmful for fishes

Alex Buttigieg, from Sharkman's World Organisation, writes (in The Times):

"With reference to the proposal for a Marine Adventure Park, I honestly hope that Mepa will refuse this application.

Catching and confining species of fish that are pelagic, migratory or deep dwelling does not do these species any good and they would not last very long in such a small space.

Also the fact that the organisers will be buying their fish from fishermen will inspire more fishermen to hunt these species, thus catching and killing quite a few before managing to keep one alive long enough to get it to the park. I know that the organisers will respond that they are only buying from a select group of fisherman and that these fish will be getting a second chance to live, which may be true, but is it not much better to leave these fish in their natural habitat and not hunt them at all?

Another issue that I wish to point out is the fact that, while the organisers are advertising this as a 'conservation' project, they are going to be allowing fishing to take place inside one of the enclosures!

Foreign divers come here to see the natural beauty of our marine world and if we want them to be impressed, then we should start working on protecting our dive sites and turning them into marine reserves where no fishing is allowed. It's much better to protect what we have than try to create a fantasy world by confining species that would not survive in such conditions".

I have nothing to add to Mr Buttigieg's excellent letter except that all fishes, like all other sentient animals, have the right to life and liberty. The unnecessary confining and/or killing of any sentient animal is always immoral and wrong.

On spineless politicians supporting bird murder, and terrorist suspects questioned by police

Malta Labour Party pro-spring hunting

If we ever needed proof that the two major political parties in Malta are nothing but opportunists with questionable moral standards, this was it. Labour leader Alfred Sant yesterday called the government's decision to end the spring hunting season an "unjust" U-turn and said that "law-abiding hunters" had suffered because of the "few" who were left to do as they pleased. I'm more inclined to believe that "law-abiding hunters" are "suffering" the consequences of the many who do as they please. But this is irrelevant in any case. All hunting is murder, and all hunting is wrong.

It is only spineless politicians who let hunters do as they please - that is, murder innocent, sentient birds. According to Dr Sant, however, the sudden decision (to stop spring hunting 10 days early) showed that the government "was not serious in its approach". "While punishments for people who hunt down protected species had been made more severe on paper, there had been no proper enforcement". Of course, here we must agree with Dr Sant. However, this too, is besides the point. The fact is that all hunting is wrong, and spring hunting, besides being morally wrong (because it permits murder), is also illegal now that we are members of the European Union.

Dr Sant told Malta Labour Party (MLP) supporters in Mellieha that the government's decision would not have been necessary had hunters been kept at bay through proper enforcement. Dr Sant should know that the government's decision to stop spring hunting 10 days early was not only necessary, but, as Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) said, was "too little, too late". The spring hunting season should not have opened in the first place. For one thing, all hunting is murder. Secondly, spring hunting goes against EU regulations, of which we are now members. I wonder when will both leaders of the PN and MLP realize this simple fact. Let me make a wild guess: maybe after the next general elections? You don't need a university degree to know that spring hunting goes against EU rules, and that no derogation was ever given. All one needs to do is check the facts. But of course, when facts are politically inconvenient, who needs them?

Perhaps it would have been more wise for the MLP to stay silent on this issue, knowing full well that spring hunting will be history soon enough, now that the Nationalist Party (PN), through a very legitimate referendum, has entered Malta into the European Union. But of course, since when have most politicians been "wise"? All most of them care about are short-term gains in their quest of being elected at any cost.

Dr Sant, as reported in The Times, said the MLP believed that the European Union's rules and the "agreement" reached between Malta and the EU on hunting and trapping had to be observed while fully respecting, however, the Maltese "tradition". The last time I heard that statement, it was from the Nationalist government. Dr Sant seems to conveniently believe (now that the Nationalist government has stopped this year's spring hunting season) that there was any agreement on a derogation in the first place. Now that political exigency makes it convenient to do so, the MLP apparently has changed tack from its previous position where it was saying that now that the PN got us into the EU, we must abide with EU rules. Now that it is suddenly convenient for the MLP to openly support bird murder (in view of the government's closing down of the hunting season), it chose to do so.

But on second thoughts, even if we disregard moral integrity for a moment, the MLP, by declaring that they will work to keep spring hunting in Malta, are shooting themselves in the foot (Minister George Pullicino should perhaps thank his lucky stars for Dr Sant's statement). If the MLP had kept mum, most hunters would have voted Labour anyway (many hunters are Labour supporters, and in view of the government's decision to stop spring hunting 10 days early, and also in view of the uncertainty about whether spring hunting will be allowed next year, many hunters would be inclined to vote Labour).

Now that the MLP has unequivocally declared itself pro-spring hunting, it will keep the same hunters' votes (or maybe not, since both the PN and the MLP are now basically saying the same thing with regards to spring hunting - that it is traditional, and that we should work to "keep" or obtain a derogation). But now, the MLP, by being so obviously pro-spring hunting, will lose lots of votes from floating voters (to whom the moral integrity of politicians matters), and also from many people who oppose spring hunting for whatever reason (be it environmental, animal rights, harm to tourism, fines from the EU, etc).

Apparently, with regards to the hunting issue, there is no choice to be made between the PN and the MLP (see also "The EU on the closure of the spring hunting season, cheers and moans, and why you should vote AD"). Both consider hunting as a justifiable "tradition", and both insist on maintaining the illegal (by EU standards, of which we are members) spring hunting season. This, of course, makes it blatantly clear (if there ever was any doubt) that animal rights supporters should give their number 1 vote to Alternattiva Demokratika. Especially in the hunting question, we cannot trust neither the PN, nor the MLP.

Hunters questioned over terrorist act

At least two hunters were arrested and interrogated by police on suspicion that they may have been involved in the violent destruction of 3,000 trees on the night between Tuesday and Wednesday, deemed to be the worst case of ecological terrorism in Maltese history.

Police sources confirmed to Maltastar.com that further arrests are expected in the coming days. More persons were expected to be interrogated on Saturday afternoon. Between Thursday and Friday night, at least two persons were taken in custody for a few hours. They were interrogated and later released.

Police are also expected to conduct searches in properties of suspects, according to Maltastar.com.

The destruction of 3,000 trees forming part of Malta's largest afforestation project, at Ghadira Bay, Mellieha, has shocked the country, and brought back memories of the atrocious vandalism of Mnajdra Temples in 2001. Ghadira's 'Foresta 2000' project was launched in 2003. Birdlife Malta initiated this afforestation as its 'millennium project'. Din l-Art Helwa and the Environment Ministry are partners in the same endeavour. The vandalism of over 3,000 trees has set back the project’s fruition by a number of years. Moreover, tens of thousands of Maltese Liri will be required to replant new saplings.

Evidence gathered from the site indicates that there was more than one perpetrator involved. "The way the trees were hacked shows that different tools were used. In itself, that may be an indication that this was not the work of just one or two persons" police sources told Maltastar.com. Investigators also found other crucial evidence on site, which may help in identifying the culprits.

And while other motives are still being investigated, the thesis that the culprits were hunters is being held as one of the major possibilities. Sources in Mellieha explained that some hunters considered the Foresta 2000 as a threat. Once the forest project is concluded, migrating birds will be attracted to roost in the trees, and away from other areas where they can be easily hunted down.

In the meantime, other sources told Maltastar.com that during the night between Tuesday and Wednesday, persons present at Ghadira Bay did see torch lights flashing close to the Foresta 2000 site, but they presumed they were simply hikers.

This week’s attack on the Foresta 2000, is the second case of vandalism on a nature reserve in less than a month. On 21 March, the Ghadira Nature Reserve, also managed by Birdlife Malta, was polluted with over 10 litres of used engine oil. These were hurled over the fence into the reserve’s pond, contaminating water and soil. The Nature Reserve is a few metres away from the Foresta 2000 site.

The EU on the closure of the spring hunting season, cheers and moans, and why you should vote AD

European Union Commission on government's closing down of hunting season

The European Commission yesterday, commenting on the Maltese government's decision last Thursday to immediately close the spring hunting season, said it supports the government's stand but reiterated its position that spring hunting should not be allowed because it goes against EU law.

As reported in The Times, a Commission spokesman said: "The Commission welcomes the decision by the Maltese authorities to stop spring hunting earlier than anticipated. The prohibition of hunting is crucial at this time in order to allow birds to complete their migration and breed successfully".

The spokesman added that the Commission hopes that spring hunting will no longer be allowed. "The Commission hopes this move by the Maltese authorities indicates recognition of their obligations under EU law and that spring hunting in future years will not be permitted, to ensure that the current infringement of the Birds Directive in relation to spring hunting may be closed".

The government's decision was taken following urgent consultations between Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and Environment Minister George Pullicino after several incidents were reported on Wednesday, when, according to police reports, "protected" birds were shot down by hunters.

The EU executive insists that the government is not justified in allowing spring hunting based on a derogation permitted under the Birds Directive. In a recent interview with The Times, Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas made it clear that the continuation of spring hunting was a no-go area.

The government officially answered the Commission's first warning letter at the end of April. The Commission is still studying Malta's reply and is expected to take a decision on whether to move to the second stage of its legal proceedings shortly.

The Times reports that Commission sources said yesterday that if the government does not change its position and again allows hunting to take place in spring, the issue is likely to end up before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The chairman of the European Parliament's Petitions Committee Marcin Libicki, who authored a report condemning spring hunting last year, yesterday welcomed the Environment Minister's decision as a step in the right direction. "It remains, however, essential that the Maltese authorities follow through this decision with a clear commitment that there will be no more spring hunting next year, nor the year after, nor ever" he said.

Public cheers and hunter moans

The Times of today also reports that the hunters' federation says it fears the anger of hunters could spiral "out of control" over the abrupt closure of the spring shooting season.

The federation will not take the government's "vindictive" decision lying down, secretary Lino Farrugia charged, amid rumours that hunters are prepared to take action independently. The hunters' federation council met last night to try and map a way out of the chaos.

"We're not going to reach decisions hastily as the Prime Minister did" Mr Farrugia told The Times. Though there was anger at the "few" who broke the law, many hunters are calling on the federation to take drastic action in protest against the government.

Asked by The Times if he feared their anger might get out of hand, Mr Farrugia replied: "Yes, I do fear it. Some people are saying things but it's difficult to say whether they will actually do anything". "You might have heard, as I did, that some people want to organise their own protest in Rabat. So far we've planned nothing and I'm telling our members to wait".

Mr Farrugia told The Times that the federation had no problem in condemning illegal hunting. "But you simply cannot blame everybody. You don't close a Church just because one priest errs". What Mr Farrugia is missing is that in the analogy he gives, one priest errs, while in hunting, all hunters err, because all hunters murder innocent sentient individual animals.

Mr Farrugia told The Times that he is not concerned that the spring hunting season might never open again, saying the government will eventually realise its "mistake".

"The government got its first warning in the local elections. If need be, it will get a reply in the general election" he warned, expressing disappointment that the Prime Minister was reluctant to meet the federation. What Mr Farrugia is conveniently ignoring is the fact that many of the protest votes in the local council elections could actually have been protest votes by people opposed to the government's insistence in permitting spring hunting.

According to The Times' report, Environment Minister George Pullicino insisted last night that the decision to stamp out hunting this season was taken because of the indiscriminate shooting of hundreds of birds of prey in the south of the island on Wednesday.

"We needed to address what happened in the strongest of manners. We were let down by the hunters and the hunters have let themselves down - they've shot themselves in the foot" the minister said. Mr Pullicino said he expected the hunters' federation to have a system of self-regulation to control its members and change the Rambo image to one of "sustainable hunting" (as if there is such a thing as "sustainable hunting". The only thing hunting sustains is murder). "It was useless for the federation to point fingers at the few renegades. Parish churches have sometimes cancelled feasts because of fighting triggered off by the few. Likewise, the Italian football federation postponed matches all across the country following serious clashes outside the Catania stadium. There was a need for a period of reflection in Italy at the time. Likewise, the hunters need to take stock of the situation" Minister Pullicino said.

"Still, despite the decision, the government will continue to maintain that it has a right to obtain EU permission for spring hunting for two species" Mr Pullicino said.

While applauding the government's decision, BirdLife Malta executive director Tolga Temuge said the infringement situation vis-à-vis the EU had not changed. Asked by The Times whether he was optimistic that the police enforcement will be enough to stamp out hunting, Mr Temuge said the Administrative Law Enforcement Unit had been doing a difficult job with extremely limited resources. Some hunters may choose to continue hunting and risk getting fined but BirdLife believes illegal shooting will decline drastically.

Mr Temuge said BirdLife Malta was in touch with the police to ensure important sites are safeguarded. "Yet, it is almost impossible to police all the sites that might be attacked. The important thing is that these criminals are brought to justice as soon as possible. Otherwise it will send the wrong message".

Labour Party makes it clear it supports bird murder too

While condemning illegal hunting (who doesn't?), the Labour Party accused the government of effectively giving up on enforcing its own laws. "It is clear that the ALE cannot stamp out illegalities with the existing resources", Labour spokesman for the environment Roderick Galdes said.

"The government's decision to stop spring hunting would weaken its case when the EU takes its infringement proceedings to the next step". "The Labour Party", he added, "would persist with the request to continue hunting for two species in spring, justified by a 'scientific study'". This statement eliminates the Labour Party, along with the Nationalist Party, as voting options for people who care at all about animal rights.

One is obviously left with Alternattiva Demokratika (the Green Party), the only Maltese political party which has been consistent throughout the years in its opposition to spring hunting.

In its declaration on the closure of the spring hunting season, Alternattiva Demokratika said: "Alternattiva Demokratika – the Green Party (AD) feels that the Government’s decision to close down the hunting season with immediate effect is too little, too late.

Whilst AD cannot hide its satisfaction that the hunting season has been closed down earlier, since AD has always maintained that hunting practices in Malta generally serve to make our countryside inaccessible; closing the season just 10 days before the actual day it should have been closed, is surely no reason to celebrate. This is a case of too little too late".

Ralph Cassar, AD’s spokesperson for the environment and energy said that "EU membership is finally having an effect. The basic minimum standards even as regards to hunting have to be implemented. That is what people voted for in the accession referendum. AD will continue to press for rehabilitation of the countryside and the creation of more natural parks".

Dr Harry Vassallo, Chairperson of AD said that "the hunting season has been suspended 10 days before the actual agreed day. This is not what the breaking news should be about. The news is that this season should never have opened in the first place".

Dr Vassallo said "Cutting the hunting season short in some form of punishment action is not the point. There should be a clear policy to abide by EU laws and regulations prohibiting hunting in Spring and a clear determination to enforce the law regardless of any form of terrorist act on our national heritage or ecological assets".

The number one vote should definitely go to the only party we can trust, which is the green party Alternattiva Demokratika. They may not be an animal rights party, but on the hunting issue, and other non-human animal related issues, they're our closest bet. Add to this, they are the only honest political party in Malta who do not show a different face according to political exigency.

The Times editorial on the government decision

Meanwhile, today's The Times editorial states: "If there is one thing about this year's spring hunting season on which everyone will agree, it is that it has been mired in controversy.

Before it began, the European Commission and the government were, and still are, involved in a very public tussle over whether Malta should be entitled to an exemption, known as a derogation, from the EU Birds Directive which outlaws spring hunting.

The matter is yet to be resolved on an official level - the Commission has started infringement proceedings and will take the case to the European Court of Justice - but regardless of that, and regardless of the Maltese public's belief that voting for the EU meant abiding by its rules and regulations, the government allowed this year's hunting season to open on April 10.

That this was not good enough for those opposed to hunting is understandable. What is not, and certainly not acceptable, is that nor was it good enough for the hunters themselves.

Rather than stick to shooting quail and turtledove - as the government had laid down and as the hunting federation itself had agreed - a not insignificant number of them turned their barrels in the direction of several protected species. Again and again. As if that were not enough, they also used illegal shooting methods. Again and again.

After a whole month of this, the government decided last Thursday that enough was enough and brought the season to a premature end, prompted by incidents described as a shooting massacre on Wednesday. The irresponsible minority of hunters have only themselves to blame for what has also befallen the law-abiding majority.

Irrespective of the merits over whether spring hunting should have been allowed in the first place or not, we cannot but agree with the decision. True, the president of the hunters' federation, Lino Farrugia, has consistently condemned illegal hunting. But action speaks louder than words. And it was time for action. As Mr Farrugia himself said, 'it has to stop'. There was plainly no other way.

The question now is simple enough: Where do we go from here? Though the answer is nothing like as straightforward. Emotions are running high on both sides of the hunting divide and if we can be sure of one thing, it is that it is impossible to please everybody.

It is important that the government spells out clearly, now, the line it is going to take, particularly in relation to the enforcement and penal measures in place to tackle the destruction of protected birds in the permissible hunting season or seasons that continue to exist.

However, it would be a mistake to think that the hunting issue is the government's problem. It is Malta's problem. It is a problem with the EU, and a problem with the tourists we seek to attract.

This is why the government must go one step further than it has done to date, and take a decision once and for all regarding its position on spring hunting in future years.

For the same reason, the Labour Party must do exactly the same. Its contradictory stance, and desire to gain political mileage from this issue in the meantime, is unacceptable. Not only does the electorate have a right to know what the opposition party thinks, but the EU, which may be dealing with a Labour government, has the right to know too.

The worst thing that can happen to this country, and its reputation at home and abroad, is for this issue to drag on without being resolved and to become a political football in a field that already has too many".

There was never any derogation

Meanwhile, in a letter to The Times, hunter supporter Sylvana Zarb Darmanin asks: "I wonder if the government's action to close the hunting season is only an excuse. Could the government's assurance to hunters that a derogation for spring hunting was obtained from the EU have been only a ruse?".

Yes, Ms Zarb Darmanin. Precisely. The government's assurance to hunters of a derogation for spring hunting was only a ruse. As the EU itself has stated, there was no derogation given (see "On fundamentalists, mandates and votes" and "Has the government not read the EU Accession Treaty?"). It is one thing having the right to apply for a derogation. It is quite another acting as if it was actually given (like the government did), when this is not the case. So stop deluding yourself and finally realize that we are now European Union members.

Closing down of hunting season, acts of terrorism, and BirdLife's "secret weapon"

Closing down of hunting season

The government yesterday evening has decided to end this year's spring hunting season with immediate effect following the shooting down of a number of "protected" birds on Wednesday. However, "trapping" (bird imprisonment) is expected to continue until May 20 - the day when the hunting season was also meant to end.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi announced the government decision to close down the hunting season before the originally set closure on May 20th, and warned that a zero-tolerance policy will be applied on whoever is caught abusing.

In a short press statement, the government has declared that the reason for abruptly stopping the spring hunting season is that on Wednesday, "hunters shot at protected birds". This decision was taken by the prime minister Lawrence Gonzi after a meeting with the environment minister George Pullicino. The government also reportedly said that "this abuse seriously undermines the government’s position to protect the hunting tradition in our country".

Around 600 Honey Buzzards flew over Malta on Wednesday and about 150 were shot in Zurrieq and other areas in the south of Malta, environment ministry sources told Maltastar.com.

BirdLife Malta explained that after 6.30pm on Wednesday, a group of approximately 150 Honey Buzzards descended towards the centre of Malta in order to roost and spend the night before continuing their long journey to their European breeding grounds. Birdwatchers reported hunters shooting at these birds particularly in the Handaq area as well as other locations in the south. The Administrative Law Enforcement Police was called into action to investigate the matter.

Thus this year's "controversial" spring hunting season has come to an abrupt end ten days before it was supposed to close down on 20th May 2007.

Lino Farrugia from the Hunters' Federation said he was flabbergasted by government’s decision to stop hunting. "We do not have a reaction as yet but I was swamped by phone calls from hunters demanding an explanation. It would be a pity if the government issues such a blanket-cover decision just because of a few irresponsible hunters who keep shooting at protected birds", Mr Farrugia told Maltastar.com. The Hunters’ Federation had also issued a press statement on its website on Wednesday evening condemning reports of illegal shooting on Honey Buzzards. According to the Hunters' Federation, "Those few that shot (illegally) are not hunters. Shooting on protected birds should end once and forever. FKNK (the hunters' federation) will not allow those few irresponsible people to ruin the work that the organisation was doing to secure the future of the socio-cultural tradition of Maltese and Gozitans".

BirdLife Malta, as a reaction to the government’s decision, said: "We acknowledge that this is a departure from the previously entrenched position of the government on spring hunting. This is a very positive decision that will benefit people, Malta’s international image and wild bird conservation both in Malta and abroad".

The EU Birds Directive does not allow hunting in spring and this in order to protect wild birds before they are about to reproduce. BirdLife Malta president Joseph Mangion told The Times: "We are pleased to see that the government has realised the error of the course they were pursuing in allowing spring hunting, which is illegal in the rest of the European Union. We sincerely hope this will be the end of spring hunting and trapping in Malta".

The Malta government is under pressure from the European Union and various European-wide organisations that condemned government’s stand to keep spring hunting. The government is also facing EU infringement procedures on hunting.

Police sources said that last night, Police Commissioner John Rizzo issued a circular informing all police officers that the shooting season was closed, and that they were to ensure that no illegal hunting took place.

As of the time of writing, in a Times of Malta online poll asking whether the government is justified in ending spring hunting so abruptly, 89.5% have voted "yes".

Acts of terrorism

As reported in yesterday's The Times: "About 3,000 pine saplings were destroyed on Tuesday night when an entire area beneath the Red Tower, in Mellieha, known as Foresta 2000, was systematically wiped out by vandals. Trees and shrubs which were planted over the past three years in an afforestation project involving Din l-Art Helwa, BirdLife and the Environment Ministry's Parks, Afforestation and Countryside Restoration Department were uprooted, their branches broken or sawn off one by one. Part of a newly-built rubble wall was also spoiled. The extent of the damage shows that the culprits had planned the act because it was next to impossible that an entire hillside could have been reduced to such a state by a single person or a small group.

Some of the trees planted three years ago had grown to almost two metres high. Most cannot be replanted or saved. Some had been donated by the Italian government and the Corpo Forestale had paid visits to see the progress of the site.

Din l-Art Helwa president Martin Galea, who was on site (on Wednesday), told journalists the damage was estimated between Lm40,000 and Lm50,000, expressing great disappointment that three years of work had been ruined. 'This is a slap in the face to all Maltese. The authorities have to find and stop these people before the acts escalate and somebody gets hurt', he said.

According to Mr Galea, this was organised cultural vandalism. The systematic way in which the act had been carried out showed that the people who did it knew the area well or had been monitoring it for some time.

He said Din l-Art Helwa would like to express solidarity with BirdLife which had received a number of threats in recent months.

In March, spent car engine oil was poured into ditches surrounding the Ghadira nature reserve. On that occasion vandals had also thrown oil-filled plastic bottles far out into the ponds and reservoir.

Tolga Temuge, from BirdLife, has been informing the government and the police about the spate of incidents but nobody has been caught so far. He said on that occasion, the police had not taken fingerprints that could be seen on the bottles containing oil.

'The fact that nobody has been caught gives out the message that people can carry out vandalism with impunity', Mr Temuge said. Environment NGO Gaia Foundation called the act an atrocity against nature. Gaia's Rudolf Ragonesi said such spiteful acts were nothing less than a manifestation of 'unbridled hatred and contempt for nature, causing substantial harm to our islands and to future generations'.

The foundation called on the authorities to bring the culprits to book, and to allocate more resources to substantially increase police patrols to prevent such acts.

The Environment Ministry condemned the senseless act saying most of the trees had been planted by schoolchildren, companies under the Tree for You scheme and donations from the Italian government.

The ministry said the act would not discourage the government from pursuing further embellishment projects but would do its utmost to mitigate the effect of this vandalism fast. On its part, BICREF expressed its indignation at what it termed the terrible act of vandalism on the Foresta 2000 project.

It is incredible what human stupidity and selfishness can do. Is this the gift to our children and natural heritage? Bicref asked in a statement.

In April, a stone structure erected at a bird conservation site in Mellieha was reduced to a pile of rubble. Earlier, spent oil was spilt over the rocky beach next to Wignacourt Tower, St Paul's Bay.

In March, a bus shelter, a farmhouse and a stretch of rubble wall close to the Neolithic temples of Hagar Qim and Mnajdra were vandalised when graffiti relating to restrictions on hunting and trapping were sprayed.

Some Lm2,000 had to be forked out to repair the damage caused by vandals at Howard Gardens, in Rabat, in February. That same month, a waste bring-in site in Qormi was set on fire".

Speaking at a press conference at the Foresta 2000 site yesterday, Police Commissioner John Rizzo personally condemned the vandalism as "acts of terrorism" and "senseless, criminal acts". "We are doing all that is possible to find those responsible. As an indication of the priority we are giving the matter, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), as opposed to the district police, is investigating the incident. We are confident that we will find those responsible". He added that next month members of the corps would be planting trees at the site. Mr Rizzo also appealed for anyone with any information on the commission of the crime or the identity of the culprits to come forward by phoning freephone numbers 119 or 112, or by calling the police headquarters on 2122-4001.

Political will and action

It is to be hoped that we will see more police presence in our streets, to prevent any further acts of terrorism, particularly in view of the premature closing of this year's spring hunting season. It is also to be hoped that, while 10 days less of hunting means hundreds (if not more) lives spared, the government will take the opportunity to take the sensible decision, and ban spring hunting once and for all, if taking the moral decision to ban all hunting is too much to expect from speciesist politicians who do not believe that all sentient beings have the right to life and liberty.

BirdLife's secret weapon - another blunder from Alfred E. Zammit

In the meantime, George G. Debono replies to hunter Alfred E. Zammit's letter of April 19 (The Times), where Mr Zammit insinuated that BirdLife Malta's Tolga Temuge had stated that he had a "secret weapon which he would not hesitate to use if he thinks it necessary" (see On extremes, secret weapons, peace and murder"). It traspires that this claim was just a figment of Mr Zammit's imagination.

Mr Debono writes: "In his letter No Peace On The Hunting Front (April 19), Alfred Zammit made the preposterous claim that the executive director of BirdLife stated that he had a 'secret weapon which he would not hesitate to use if he thinks it necessary'.

Mr Zammit's claim prompted me to contact Tolga Temuge, the executive director of BirdLife, to seek an explanation. He drew my attention to the article where his statement could have been misinterpreted and he denied ever having said anything of the sort.

He suggested that the hunters' federation's incorrect declaration could have arisen through misinterpretation of a sentence in an article that appeared in The Times on September 13, 2006. This sentence read: 'Mr Temuge intends to make his presence felt and says BirdLife is preparing a more pro-active campaign against illegal hunting. But he is keeping his cards to his chest'.

Another possible source for Mr Zammit's claim might have been an allegation in a press release issued by the federation on November 29, 2006. The pertinent sentence (translated from the original Maltese), in the press release, is: 'The aggression of (Tolga Temuge) becomes apparent when he even mentions the 'secret weapon' - are we at war or what? That would not be a problem for us, as we did not fear 30,000 Turks long ago, let alone one' (note the racist slant in the statement, considering Mr Temuge is a Turk, which makes the similarity of speciesism to racism so much more obvious).

If the source of Mr Zammit's incorrect statement was indeed the federation's press release, then the onus falls on it to substantiate, with evidence, and provide a reference to, the claim that the executive director of BirdLife used the words 'secret weapon' when discussing BirdLife's campaign against illegal hunting. Unfortunately, these words were subsequently used by Mr Zammit in his letter in such a way that they could be misconstrued as suggesting that BirdLife might resort to violence.

Mr Zammit is advised to check his facts carefully before going to press".

Yet another letter from the pro-hunting fundamentalist

More nonsense from a pro-hunting fundamentalist

Michael Falzon (The Times, May 9) claims that the replies of Mark Grima and myself to his "short" letter of 648 words (The Times, April 11) confirm that we are fundamentalists. This claim cannot be further from the truth.

My contention about Mr Falzon's letter of April 11 (which I did not send to The Times) is that "cutting and pasting" does not make an article false, and that although one might disagree with a boycott of Malta, a boycott is perfectly legitimate, since no one has any duty to visit Malta. I personally do not call for Malta boycotts, but I understand that people have the right to boycott anything. After all, for a boycott to work, it must be accepted as justified. If a growing number of foreigners opposed to spring hunting see a boycott of Malta justified, the onus is on the government to recognize the signs of the times.

It is not Mr Falzon's article of April 11 that makes him pro-hunting, but the fact that he is only opposed to illegal hunting. This makes him anti-illegal hunting and pro-legal hunting. Legal hunting is still hunting. Elementary, Mr Falzon. This has nothing to do with being a fundamentalist, and everything to do with the correct use of the English language. If I am mistaken, and Mr Falzon is opposed to all hunting, I would appreciate a statement to this effect.

Mr Falzon says that I "do not even accept the possibility of anyone being against hunting in spring but not against hunting in autumn". I never said that. What I always say is that to be anti-hunting is to be against all hunting.

Fundamentalists say non-human animals do not have rights

Mr Falzon also calls me a fundamentalist because I "persistently equalise human rights" with "so called animal rights". I do nothing of the sort. I only claim that sentient non-human animals have the right to life, and are not human property. They do not have rights to things which do not matter to them. But life and freedom from exploitation do matter to all animals.

It is not feasible to present here the whole philosophy behind the reasoned claim that all animals have the right to life and liberty. Here I shall limit myself to some arguments which I have already made in my post entitled "Open your prison doors, not your kitchen doors", where I said that:

"To claim that non-humans do not have the right to life and liberty for any human attribute (like intelligence) that they supposedly lack, is a prejudiced claim, since it pre-supposes that all humans have intelligence to a sufficient degree, and that all non-humans lack it. It also suggests that intelligent humans have more of a right to life and liberty than less intelligent ones. Therefore, to base one's claim for rights on a supposed attribute which is not universal in humans, while it may be found in an even higher degree in some non-humans, would be nothing but arbitrary speciesist discrimination. All sentient beings are individuals, and should be treated accordingly. Sentience is generally acknowledged to be the only attribute necessary for the granting of rights to humans. There is no non-speciesist reason why the same should not apply to non-human animals".

The conclusion that all animals have rights comes from several philosophical works (visit www.animalrightsmalta.com/blogbooks.html for a short list of some), books which I have read, and probably Mr Falzon has never even heard of, let alone read.

Fundamentalism implies irrational beliefs which are not backed by evidence. I will let go of my convictions as soon as I am convinced of their falsity. Likewise, Mr Falzon could avoid the label of "fundamentalist" by showing that he has ample knowledge on the topic. Simply saying that non-humans have no "so called animal rights" just because this belief is convenient, does not make it true.

In the absence of providing any rational and morally justified reasons for excluding non-humans from having rights, I take it as just a prejudiced fundamentalist belief. Mr Falzon, in his letter of May 9, says that having "unchangeable preconceived ideas" is also a "fundamentalist stance". Mr Falzon has unchangeable preconceived ideas about the moral status of non-human animals (according to him, they do not count morally, and they have no rights). This preconceived idea is just prejudice not backed by reason. Apparently, in Mr Falzon's case, it is also unchangeable. By Mr Falzon's own standards, he is a fundamentalist.

Mr Falzon would do well to start ordering some books on the topic, if he wants to debate animal rights and be taken seriously. As for rational arguments for acknowledging animal rights, one may find a reasonable introduction at http://www.animalrightsmalta.com

Conveniently ignoring questions

Meanwhile, in his letter of today, Michael Falzon conveniently fails to reply to several questions Mark Grima and myself posed to him in our letters of May 5.

In his letter, Mr Grima wrote: "A fundamentalist is someone who persists in dogmatic beliefs in the total absence of evidence. A fundamentalist never so much as contemplates what it would take to change their mind. By contrast, I know exactly what it would take to change my mind and I can assure Mr Falzon that I will change my position on the sustainability of hunting in Malta (especially in spring) if he can present firm evidence that supports his case. Let us be clear, the onus is on him, not me, to argue for derogations from European laws. I say again that pointing fingers at our European neighbours for their hunting transgressions is not evidence to back up his position". Mr Falzon conveniently ignored this.

Mr Grima also wrote: "Once again, I challenge him to explain why the Maltese (Peregrine) Falcon lives and breeds in every country in the world except Malta. I have selected the case of the Maltese Falcon, out of a whole host of potential local species, due to the symbolic nature of this particular bird. I argue that the local absence of this breed forms part of the substantial body of evidence that demonstrates the unsustainability of hunting in Malta. So far, Mr Falzon has chosen to ignore this challenge. If he has any type of evidence that might dispute the link between the relative paucity of local avi-fauna and hunting, let him present it publicly. If his arguments are reasonable and scientific, I will perform a u-turn and admit publicly that he is right. Alternatively, he might opt to present a case to show that our country would be no worse off if the sum total of our local flora and fauna was limited to cats, dogs, rats, pigeons and flowers on roundabouts. I assure Mr Falzon that he has my full attention". Once again, Mr Falzon very conveniently chose to ignore all of this.

Mr Grima continued: "Regarding the 'personalised' nature of my comments, I would argue that Mr Falzon is a public figure and former Minister for the Environment and hence is fair game for public ridicule, particularly when he talks nonsense. I can assure Mr Falzon that it is nothing personal as I have an equally low opinion of the catastrophic administrative record of both his political colleagues and adversaries. Frankly, he is crying wolf by claiming that I am suppressing his 'right and freedom to have an opinion'. This from a guru of local propaganda media. He doesn't make a very convincing victim". Again, Mr Falzon ignores all of this.

Finally, Mr Grima wrote: "Finally, Mr Falzon had originally claimed that noisy 'eco-fundamentalists', with (no doubt) their radical brand of Ornithologicalism, are wreaking havoc on our prospects for long-term sustainable tourism. I reiterate my view that the fault lies squarely with the policies (or lack of them) of our invertebrate politicians", and once again, yes, you guessed it - no comment.

Meanwhile, I had written: "Michael Falzon tells Mark Grima and Charles Scerri that they are stooping low by personalising issues. I fail to find any kind of personal insults in these correspondents' letters, which cannot be said of Mr Falzon's letter, where he calls them fundamentalists. By Mr Falzon's same standards, it is Mr Falzon himself who has 'stooped the lowest'". Of course, Mr Falzon does not address this.

"Mr Falzon accuses the correspondents of labelling people indiscriminately. Neither Mr Grima nor Mr Scerri's letters have labelled anyone. On the other hand, it is Mr Falzon who has labelled them extremists and fundamentalists. Mr Falzon accuses others of something of which he is guilty himself". Of course, Mr Falzon backs off from commenting on this one.

"Mr Falzon insists on 'middle of the road' positions. In questions regarding the unnecessary killing of sentient individuals with a right to life, there is no middle of the road position, and it is a question of black or white. Would Mr Falzon compromise if the question was on whether one should be allowed to kill 20, 30, or a 1,000 humans? Would he say that perhaps a hundred would be a fair compromise? There is no logical reason why the matter should be any different in the case of sentient non-human animals such as birds". Mr Falzon avoids having to deal with this, simply by conveniently implying that non-human animals have no rights.

"Mr Falzon seems to be a moral relativist where it concerns non-humans, and presumably not so where it concerns humans. This comes out from the fact that to be logically consistent, Mr Falzon would have to concede that people who oppose racism also want to impose their values on the rest of society. To be logically consistent, Mr Falzon would have to describe people who oppose racism for moral reasons as 'racial equality-fundamentalists'. The same could be said of any kind of opposition to immoral beliefs and practices". Once again, Mr Falzon pretends not to understand my implication that only moral relativists do not believe that respect for fundamental rights should be imposed. But of course, Mr Falzon conveniently does not address the issue of moral relativism.

"I also find it quite rich for Mr Falzon to claim that anyone wants to deny him the right to have an opinion, when Mr Falzon is a regular correspondent in more than one newspaper". Again, no comment from the fundamentalist Mr Falzon.

"Mr Falzon concludes his diatribe by saying that 'Sadly...environmentalists are polarising the issue of bird hunting - whether in spring or in autumn. They want to deny us the right to be in the middle ground and force us all into either of two regimented extreme camps'. Once again, in questions of literally life or death situations, there is no middle ground. One either permits unnecessary killing, or one does not. If taking sides necessarily makes one an extremist, then anyone who is against the murder of humans is also an extremist, and anyone who sometimes justifies human murder is the 'moderate' who chooses the 'middle-ground'. It is such moral relativism which I find truly dangerous and extremist". Yes, you guessed it once again. No comment from Mr Falzon.

Instead, Mr Falzon insists on wasting newspaper space with inaccuracies, twisting of the truth, and outright prejudice.

Lies, damn lies and Michael Falzon

As a final note, Mr Falzon claims (in today's letter) that he never expressed any opinion about any derogation on spring hunting. This is simply untrue. First of all, the fact that Mr Falzon is in favour of a derogation is blatantly obvious, and in any case, for one to be taken seriously when discussing hunting in Malta, one would have to make it clear what one's position on such a derogation is. In essence, the failure of doing so in the hunting debate makes one's contributions simply lots of talk and no substance. Also, one should never forget Michael Falzon's own words prior to the MEP elections (of which he was a candidate who did not get elected) when he said that "hunters can only get what they want (including spring hunting) by the election of Nationalist MEPs".

One should also note Mr Falzon's own unequivocal words, when in the Malta Today issue of May 16, 2004, he wrote: "During the interview that was then reported in the May 2 issue of Malta Today, Kurt Sansone asked me for my views on the fact that the hunters’ were going to have their own candidate in the forthcoming EP elections. I argued that in the remote chance of the hunting lobby electing their own MEP, this lone representative would be on the fringe of the fringe of the European Parliament and would certainly not be in a position to improve the hunters’ cause. On the other hand, my reasoning went, MEPs elected in the interest of the PN (unlike those of AD) are committed to maintain the present laws on bird-shooting (including the compromise on spring hunting) and therefore it would well be in the shooters’ interests to vote for PN candidates".

Michael Falzon was a PN candidate. The "compromise" was the supposed derogation on spring hunting. Therefore Michael Falzon is in favour of a derogation on spring hunting, and his claim that he "never expressed any opinion on such a derogation", which he makes in his letter in today's The Times, is nothing but a blatant lie. Can anything be clearer than this?

Who's the fundamentalist? - An environmental and animal rights trashing of Michael Falzon's diatribe

Today's The Times features two letters, one by Mark Grima, and one by myself, in reply to Michael Falzon's diatribe of May 2 (see "On fundamentalists and pro-hunting moral relativists"). Mr Grima provides a rebuttal of Mr Falzon's letter from an environmentalist perspective, while I do much the same from an animal rights one. No matter which one you prefer, Mr Falzon is shown to have no valid arguments, and his not too hidden agenda becomes amply clear - that of helping out his political party at any cost, even if this means labelling valid and reasonable arguments as "fundamentalist". It transpires that it is Mr Falzon who is the real fundamentalist, as will be very clear when one reads the following two letters.

An environmentalist perspective

Mark Grima writes: "Michael Falzon (Fundamentalist Stance, May 2) perpetuates the myth that those with firm and well-argued views are "fundamentalists". No doubt he includes the European Commissioner for the Environment within this category. He also accuses me of 'stooping low by personalising the issue'. Let me address these accusations for the sake of readers who might be following the debate on hunting in Malta.

A fundamentalist is someone who persists in dogmatic beliefs in the total absence of evidence. A fundamentalist never so much as contemplates what it would take to change their mind. By contrast, I know exactly what it would take to change my mind and I can assure Mr Falzon that I will change my position on the sustainability of hunting in Malta (especially in spring) if he can present firm evidence that supports his case. Let us be clear, the onus is on him, not me, to argue for derogations from European laws. I say again that pointing fingers at our European neighbours for their hunting transgressions is not evidence to back up his position.

Once again, I challenge him to explain why the Maltese (Peregrine) Falcon lives and breeds in every country in the world except Malta. I have selected the case of the Maltese Falcon, out of a whole host of potential local species, due to the symbolic nature of this particular bird. I argue that the local absence of this breed forms part of the substantial body of evidence that demonstrates the unsustainability of hunting in Malta. So far, Mr Falzon has chosen to ignore this challenge. If he has any type of evidence that might dispute the link between the relative paucity of local avi-fauna and hunting, let him present it publicly. If his arguments are reasonable and scientific, I will perform a u-turn and admit publicly that he is right. Alternatively, he might opt to present a case to show that our country would be no worse off if the sum total of our local flora and fauna was limited to cats, dogs, rats, pigeons and flowers on roundabouts. I assure Mr Falzon that he has my full attention.

Regarding the 'personalised' nature of my comments, I would argue that Mr Falzon is a public figure and former Minister for the Environment and hence is fair game for public ridicule, particularly when he talks nonsense. I can assure Mr Falzon that it is nothing personal as I have an equally low opinion of the catastrophic administrative record of both his political colleagues and adversaries. Frankly, he is crying wolf by claiming that I am suppressing his 'right and freedom to have an opinion'. This from a guru of local propaganda media. He doesn't make a very convincing victim.

Finally, Mr Falzon had originally claimed that noisy "eco-fundamentalists", with (no doubt) their radical brand of Ornithologicalism, are wreaking havoc on our prospects for long-term sustainable tourism. I reiterate my view that the fault lies squarely with the policies (or lack of them) of our invertebrate politicians".

An animal rights perspective

Meanwhile, The Times of today also publishes an abridged version of the article "On fundamentalists and pro-hunting moral relativists" which I sent them on May 2. My letter goes as follows:

"Michael Falzon tells Mark Grima and Charles Scerri that they are stooping low by personalising issues. I fail to find any kind of personal insults in these correspondents' letters, which cannot be said of Mr Falzon's letter, where he calls them fundamentalists. By Mr Falzon's same standards, it is Mr Falzon himself who has 'stooped the lowest'.

Mr Falzon accuses the correspondents of labelling people indiscriminately. Neither Mr Grima nor Mr Scerri's letters have labelled anyone. On the other hand, it is Mr Falzon who has labelled them extremists and fundamentalists. Mr Falzon accuses others of something of which he is guilty himself.

Mr Falzon insists on 'middle of the road' positions. In questions regarding the unnecessary killing of sentient individuals with a right to life, there is no middle of the road position, and it is a question of black or white. Would Mr Falzon compromise if the question was on whether one should be allowed to kill 20, 30, or a 1,000 humans? Would he say that perhaps a hundred would be a fair compromise? There is no logical reason why the matter should be any different in the case of sentient non-human animals such as birds.

Mr Falzon seems to be a moral relativist where it concerns non-humans, and presumably not so where it concerns humans. This comes out from the fact that to be logically consistent, Mr Falzon would have to concede that people who oppose racism also want to impose their values on the rest of society. To be logically consistent, Mr Falzon would have to describe people who oppose racism for moral reasons as "racial equality-fundamentalists". The same could be said of any kind of opposition to immoral beliefs and practices.

I also find it quite rich for Mr Falzon to claim that anyone wants to deny him the right to have an opinion, when Mr Falzon is a regular correspondent in more than one newspaper.

Mr Falzon concludes his diatribe by saying that 'Sadly...environmentalists are polarising the issue of bird hunting - whether in spring or in autumn. They want to deny us the right to be in the middle ground and force us all into either of two regimented extreme camps'.

Once again, in questions of literally life or death situations, there is no middle ground. One either permits unnecessary killing, or one does not. If taking sides necessarily makes one an extremist, then anyone who is against the murder of humans is also an extremist, and anyone who sometimes justifies human murder is the 'moderate' who chooses the 'middle-ground'. It is such moral relativism which I find truly dangerous and extremist.

For a more detailed reply, one may visit www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com and read the article entitled 'On fundamentalists and pro-hunting moral relativists'".

Now who is the true fundamentalist? Judge for yourself.

On fundamentalists and pro-hunting moral relativists

Michael Falzon, the tireless hunting apologist, provides us with another letter in his seemingly endless list of letters and articles justifying the murder of birds. In today's The Times, Mr Falzon writes:

"The two letters (Hunting: Losing The Argument, April 14) in reaction to my article of April 11 are quite indicative of the fundamentalist stance that has been adopted by the anti-hunting lobby. Ignoring the point and thrust of my original article, I was accused - among other things - of trying to justify spring hunting and supporting the bird carnage that is allegedly going on. In my article - or in any of my writings - I have never done anything of the sort!".

While the labelling as "fundamentalist" of anyone who disagrees with the pro-bird murder lobby is becoming a sort of fashion or trend, and is indicative of people who have no valid pro-hunting arguments (the label of "fundamentalist" is usually intended as a means of discrediting the opposition, and thus stifling debate), I will concede that Mr Falzon, while obviously defending the government's stand on spring hunting (he calls people who will not compromise on the issue as fundamentalists), is not entirely clear on whether he, in principle, supports spring hunting or not (although one should not forget his claim prior to the EU MEP elections that "hunters will get what they want (spring hunting) only through the election of Nationalist MEP's" - for which he was one candidate).

So one should perhaps pose a direct question. Mr Falzon, do you support or oppose spring hunting? Of course, I do not expect an answer, considering that Mr Falzon has ignored my letters in reply to his. And in any case, it is abundantly clear that Mr Falzon is pro-hunting, since his letters and articles clearly show that he does not oppose all hunting in principle. To oppose only "illegal" hunting makes one anti-illegal hunting (not anti-hunting) and pro-legal hunting, which is still hunting, and therefore makes one pro-hunting.

Mr Falzon goes on to say that "The reaction of the two letter writers is typical of fundamentalists who (a) stoop low by personalising issues, (b) label people indiscriminately, (c) do not accept middle of the road positions, (d) accept only two extremes - the pros and the antis, black or white".

Now let us examine these claims, one by one. Mr Falzon tells the two correspondents that they are stooping low by personalising issues. Mr Falzon should understand that once a letter is published, both the letter and the author of the letter are open for criticism. I fail to find any kind of personal insults in these correspondents' letters, contrary to Mr Falzon's, where he calls them fundamentalists (with the obvious negative connotations). Therefore, on close examination, and by Mr Falzon's same standards, it is Mr Falzon himself who has stooped the lowest.

Mr Falzon accuses the correspondents of labeling people indiscriminately. Neither Mark Grima's, nor Charles Scerri's letters have labelled anyone (not even Mr Falzon himself). On the other hand, it is Mr Falzon's labelling of those who oppose hunting as extremists or fundamentalists, which prompted these correspondents to reply. Mr Falzon accuses others of something of which he is guilty himself.

The next two accusations (that the correspondents do not accept middle of the road positions, and accept only two extremes - the pros and the antis, black or white) could be taken together. In questions regarding the unnecessary killing of sentient individuals with a right to life, there is no middle of the road position, and it is a question of black or white. Like I said in "No animal rights, no vote", "if it is a question of killing innocent and sentient individuals, there should be no compromise. Would Mr Falzon compromise if the question was on whether one should be allowed to kill twenty, thirty, or a thousand black humans? Would he say that perhaps a hundred would be a fair compromise? I am confident that Mr Falzon would say that there should be no compromise, and that the killing of any single black human should be illegal. There is no logical reason why the matter should be any different in the case of sentient non-human animals such as birds. To state that birds are not humans, simply begs the question: why does it matter to kill humans unnecessarily, and not matter if the individuals killed unnecessarily are not human?".

Mr Falzon continues: "In my article I used the term 'eco-fundamentalist' purposely and the two letters confirmed that my choice of the word was right. For me, a fundamentalist is someone who wants to impose his values on the rest of society and believes that for this 'noble' purpose, the end justifies the means".

So now we know that Mr Falzon is a moral relativist where it concerns non-humans, and presumably not so where it concerns humans. This comes out from the fact that to be logically consistent, Mr Falzon would have to concede that people who oppose racism similarly want to impose their values on the rest of society. To be logically consistent, Mr Falzon would have to describe people who oppose racism for moral reasons as people who want to impose their values on the rest, and therefore, this would make them "racial equality-fundamentalists". The same could be said of any kind of opposition to immoral beliefs and practices.

As for Mr Falzon's claim that the correspondents believe that "the end justifies the means", this is an obvious slur to gain cheap advantage by lies or inaccuracies. No one suggested that the end necessarily justifies the means. It's just a figment of Mr Falzon's imagination. On the other hand, it is some hunters themselves who believe that the end justifies the means, which was proved by the violence and vandalism (terrorism) perpetrated by such hunters for their unjust cause.

Mr Falzon then goes on to tell us that "Typically, our eco-fundamentalists do not want to accept that anyone who disagrees with them on any detail need not believe in everything that 'the other side' says. The bird lobby denies me (and anybody who tries to be neutral) the right and freedom to have an opinion that does not agree with their stance and is not ready to be pigeon-holed in a cage that is built by them to fit their arguments".

Two replies are in order here. First of all, it is quite rich for someone like Mr Falzon to claim that anyone wants to deny him the right to have an opinion, when Mr Falzon is a regular correspondent in more than one newspaper. No one has asked for the censuring of any of his letters and articles. Secondly, in questions about the right or otherwise to kill, people are necessarily "pigeon-holed". One either opposes killing or does not. Once someone is dead, he/she cannot be returned to life, so this makes it a matter of right or wrong, or in Mr Falzon's words, "black or white". This is fact, and not something we invent to "fit our arguments", unless of course, one is a moral relativist, which makes any moral debate with such a person futile. It is precisely because many World War II Germans (and many other Europeans) chose to be "neutral" that the Holocaust was permitted to happen. Would Mr Falzon claim that those who opposed the Holocaust were extremists, because they wanted to impose their values on the rest of society? I think not.

Like I said in "One man's meat...is another being's murder", "One should always remember that the worst excesses of Nazism were permitted to happen because otherwise 'moral' persons stood by and did nothing to stop them. The same excesses are being permitted daily on millions of sentient non-human animals just because most people either do not want to know, or simply do not care".

Mr Falzon continues by saying: "They do not accept the fact that thousands of Maltese are totally indifferent to the hunting issue. Not only that, they try to ridicule and insult anyone who declares he is neither pro-hunting nor an eco-fundamentalist".

Again, two replies are in order. First of all, if thousands of Maltese are really indifferent to the hunting issue, still, 80% are totally opposed to spring hunting, and a significant number are opposed to all hunting. It seems like Mr Falzon conveniently ignores this fact. Furthermore, I have already sufficiently explained that in questions of life or death, there is no "middle way". One is either pro-hunting (pro-bird murder) or anti-hunting (or eco-fundamentalist, if it pleases Mr Falzon).

Mr Falzon concludes his diatribe by saying "Sadly, in this way environmentalists are polarising the issue of bird hunting - whether in spring or in autumn. They want to deny us the right to be in the middle ground and force us all into either of two regimented extreme camps. Ironically, they are the same people who are the first to condemn the polarisation in Maltese politics. That is why today many Maltese are sick and tired of the fundamentalist antics of both the pro and the anti hunting lobbies".

Once again, in questions of literally life or death situations, there is no middle ground. One either permits murder, or one does not. If taking sides necessarily makes one an extremist, then anyone who is against the murder of humans is also an extremist, and anyone who justifies human murder in some cases is the "moderate" who chooses the "middle-ground". It is such moral relativism which I find dangerous and extremist, and it is of such moral relativists that the Maltese are becoming increasingly sick of.

One man's meat...is another being's murder

Today's The Times features an interesting letter (entitled "One man's meat...") from Alexander Cortis. Mr Cortis refers to the several pro and anti-meat eating letters, and recounts his personal experience and "conversion" to vegetarianism. Mr Cortis tells us:

"I have been following with interest the arguments made in these columns for and against eating meat and decided to contribute to it. Quite frankly, I consider arguing about it a pointless exercise as nothing one can say to another is going to change the other's habits, unless it is the right time for one to change.

For example, I turned vegetarian in 1973 while in the US. Prior to that I had been an avid meat-eater and had no intention of changing my habits. In September of 1973, I met someone at a social do and we got talking. Vegetarianism came up and during the discussion this young man said something to me (what it was I do not even remember) that made something click inside of me. Whatever it was made sense and I decided to try a veggie diet.

Within a week I felt better inside of me. I also remember having more energy! Being young, I just put it down to something as profound as 'just one of those things'.

About a month later I discovered that I just had no interest in eating meat again. I am still a vegetarian. One interesting fact is that even at the young age I was then already suffering mildly from arthritis.

It runs in the family and I had it. About two months after adopting a veggie way of life I realised that the stiffness and pain I used to get had stopped completely.

To this day I do not get those symptoms and can gratefully say that I am now, 34 years later, in a healthier state than before 1973.

This is my experience. I cannot say it will be that of another, but I know that a vegetarian diet is kinder to the animals and to one's own body. Man does not belong to the meat-eating food-chain. Let's face it! Eating decomposing flesh cannot be very healthy. And yes, no matter how fresh the meat may be it is already decomposing.

Bringing in so many socio/religious arguments is quite irrelevant as man always justifies what he does and even changes the truth to prove he is right".

Despite being a good description of the personal benefits of not consuming non-human animal products, the above letter requires some comments on my own.

First of all, Mr Cortis' claim that arguing about the wrongness of meat-eating is a pointless exercise (as nothing one can say to another is going to change the other's habits, unless it is the right time for one to change), is fallacious for the following reason: Not to argue about the wrongness of meat-eating deprives one of the opportunity to learn about it. Mr Cortis' claim is therefore a self-fulfilled prophecy, in that if we don't give people the opportunity to look into the good arguments for stopping the consumption of meat, the right time for one to change will never come. We have to be the ones to provide the opportunity for people to think about these issues, and it is us who should be creating the right time for people to change.

Mr Cortis himself recounts that his opportunity came through a friend at a social gathering. My personal opportunity came through listening to animal rights songs and reading animal rights philosophy books. Other people's opportunity could be through visiting animal rights websites (and I've personally had some success in this through www.animalrightsmalta.com). Yet, other people's opportunity could arise from reading letters in newspapers. Mr Cortis' argument that nothing that one can say to another can change the other's habits is factually mistaken. I, and thousands of others (including Mr Cortis himself), are proof of that. I too was an avid meat-eater, before I learned the facts and realised the grave injustice of depriving sentient individuals of their life just for the pleasure of the taste of their flesh.

A vegetarian (actually vegan) diet is not only "kinder" to non-human animals. It is also morally just and morally obligatory. Kindness has little to do with an animal's right to life and liberty. Kindness is simply something you give out of good will. It is justice which demands that sentient and conscious individuals should not be deprived of their lives and liberty unless in self-defence. The health and environmental arguments for a vegetarian/vegan diet are an added bonus to the cause, but it is strict justice which demands that whenever possible, humans should not consume non-human animals or products derived from their exploitation.

Mr Cortis says that "bringing in so many socio/religious arguments is quite irrelevant as man always justifies what he does and even changes the truth to prove he is right". I find this claim very defeatist. If this were the case, no one would be inclined to oppose even the gravest human rights injustices. Not even human torture would be opposed, since some people could always produce their own reasons to justify torture.

Moreover, when someone brings in socio/religious arguments in support of any kind of injustice, not to oppose those views with rational argument would be to condone the injustice by doing nothing to prevent it. Apathy permits the worst cruelties and injustices.

Therefore, to bring in rational (secular) arguments in defence of individuals suffering from injustice is not only justified, but is morally required from anyone who believes oneself a moral person.

One should always remember that the worst excesses of Nazism were permitted to happen because otherwise "moral" persons stood by and did nothing to stop them. The same excesses are being permitted daily on millions of sentient non-human animals just because most people either do not want to know, or simply do not care. It is up to us to provide the opportunity for others to wake up and realize the wrongness of exploiting non-human animals. And this opportunity will not come about by sitting on the fence and doing nothing. Being vegetarians or vegans ourselves, while definitely a good and necessary thing, is not enough.