On fair trade and the action to save "farm" animals

EU subsidies and fair trade

On July 19, I had written about the immigration issue and EU meat subsidies. I did not elaborate on the fact that EU (and US) subsidies are part of the reason for emigration out of Africa due to unfair competition, but left this issue on hold until after a possible reply to my letter which was published in The Times. I also hoped that my letter would at least encourage some people to do their own research on these issues themselves. Thankfully, Stephen Farrugia took the initiative to expand on the issue of fair trade himself. Mr Farrugia, in today's The Times, writes:

"In his letter (July 24), Kenneth Cassar, of Animal Rights Malta, argues that the billions of euros spent on farm subsidies to producers of meat could be put to much better use if spent in humanitarian aid to refugees.

What he failed to mention is that these subsidies are one of the main causes of the immigration problem in the first place. Because of these subsidies, agricultural products from the EU are so cheap that they are literally dumped in Africa at giveaway prices, making it impossible for local farmers to compete.

Some might argue that affordable products are exactly what is needed in the poorer countries but the vast majority of Africans (85 per cent of the total population in some countries) are farmers who end up financially ruined and cannot even afford to buy the cheap, competing products from the EU. The only alternative for many is to leave, so the taxes that you and I pay as our share for these subsidies are actually contributing to the immigration problem.

Now I am not going to launch a crusade against these subsidies since, not being an economist, I do not know what effect stopping them might have on Europe's economy, but I am absolutely certain that there is no cheap and quick solution to the immigration problem. If accomodating immigrants in Malta costs the governmment Lm10 million a year, the efforts to keep them away must not be cheap either. The constant patrols by the armed forces need to be paid for and will be a burden on the taxpayers' shoulders for eternity because, so long as Africa remains in its current desperate state, nothing, not even fear of death, will stop the constant influx of refugees. The only permanent solution is to help African countries' economies get on their feet.

While the main contributors have to be the goverments of the G8 countries, which have bragged so much about the aid they intend giving to African countries, we, the normal citizens can contribute a bit by buying Fair Trade-certified products (www.fairtrade.net).

Why not buy Fair Trade-certified coffee, fruit or chocolate for example, and ensure that, instead of a filthy rich multi-national company, the profits actually go to the farmers who worked in the plantations, helping them obtain financial security and making it unnecessary for them to leave their country?

I am certain that everybody in Malta, whatever her or his motives, as well as the immigrants themselves, want the immigration problem to be solved so, instead of arguing among ourselves or waiting for Libya, the Maltese government, Frontex, the EU or the UN to do something, we should take action ourselves by creating demand for African products and help Africans earn a decent salary while still living in their country with their families and loved ones".

I have nothing to add to this letter except that I am in complete agreement. While it is a fact that Malta cannot deal with the immigration problem alone, it is also a fact that here we are dealing with living individuals who desperately need help. For many of these people it is truly a matter of life and death. It is also important to note that many of these people's hardships come out of unfair competition intended to make our lives comfortable at their expense. And before anyone asks what this has to do with animal rights, keep in mind that humans are animals, so human rights are animal rights.

On the action to save "farm" animals

Sylvia Zammit, PRO of The Island Sanctuary Association writes in today's The Times:

"Well done to Noah's Ark for keeping the pressure up for all these years regarding the 'concentration camp for animals' at Mizieb.

On the other hand, did it have to take so long for the authorities to do something about it? It's amazing how promptly action is taken when the complaint made is against an animal - such as the dog removed from a beach recently!

Apparently, some animals were removed during this period but, just as apparently, the so-called farmer could not care less about the ones left. The fact that he refused the help he was so generously given shows just how callous his attitude is.

In the circumstances, it does not seem likely that last Monday's raid will change things.

Island Sanctuary Association would like to join Noah's Ark and ask that the other animals - that continue to suffer - should also be evacuated.

Better still, we believe this particular 'farmer' should never again be allowed to keep animals if he can't be bothered to do the job properly".

On pet shop blues and equestrian competitions

Pet shop blues

Corinne Caruana writes the following letter in today's The Times:

"I would like to express my disgust at the conditions in pet shops.

I visited a pet shop in Fgura which, as its name implies, keeps all of its animals in aquariums, regardless of species. One essential element normally found in aquariums is missing throughout though, water.

As I walked in, the first thing I noticed was a squirrel cage just inside the glass, in direct sunlight (need I not mention the weather conditions right now) without any source of shade, shelter, water or food.

Further into the shop, I see about five glass aquariums on the floor which contained a mix of animals; one had puppies, one had cats, one had baby ferrets, one had rabbits, etc., animals which (sic) you wouldn't normally associate with living in an aquarium (actually no animal should live in an aquarium). They were all lying in their 'cage' completely dehydrated and lethargic due to the intense heat and no source of cooling (not even a fan). When I opened up one of the puppy aquariums to let some air in (they're covered over with dense chicken wire), one of the sales assistants there told me not to touch them because they haven't had their shots yet!

What could I do to them, give them rabies? Aside from the fact that all puppies have to be inoculated weeks after they are born to avoid the deadly parvo virus.

After seeing all this, I called the only people who promise to do something about these sort of situations, ALE. They promised to send someone to inspect the place but she told me that it might take a while because they are short on staff.

Two months mater, I visited the pet shop again. Nothing had changed, except for the stock (sic). I asked the owner why they don't have any water; he just shrugged and laughed and said: 'They keep spilling it'.

So they don't bother replacing it. Ever heard of hanging bottles?

I called ALE again. I was recognised straight away and their immediate excuse was that they were too busy wearing boots on the sand and sea. Two months and they 'didn't have time'. I was instructed to call the local police, which I did, and was given the number for the local police inspector. I called him and he said, without much enthusiasm or interest, he would look into it, although I'm not too hopeful.

I am writing this letter to bring to light one, out of many, instances where animals are neglected and no action is taken. Writing this was the only option I had left.

The farm that was recently taken over by ALE spent four years in neglect (which they knew about) before any action was taken. Does this augur well for the pet shop?"

Corinne Caruana's letter is loaded with details on animal rights violations, and it is laudable that people like Ms Caruana go out of their way to try to help non-human animals who are clearly in distress and who are treated as nothing but things to be bought and sold. And herein lies the main problem. As long as non-human animals are considered property, they will continue being treated as property. But more on this in a moment.

Regarding enforcement by the police and ALE officers, it is a well know fact that the ALE are very under-staffed. If the government takes animal welfare seriously (we can't expect it to take animal rights seriously, can we?), it would provide the ALE section with more man-power and more resources, or better still, create a new police unit to deal with animal welfare issues.

As for conditions in pet shops, a few years ago, a sub-committee within the now defunct Animal Welfare Council (which, it must be said, was a total failure due to the lack of interest of some members who were not representatives of animal organisations) was drafting new regulations on the conditions of pet shops, which included health considerations, cage space, feeding, and more. Years have passed, and the regulations have remained on draft paper and the pet shops remain with little or no regulation. But what if regulations were put into place? Would this mean that everything is ok? Certainly not!

Animals are not property, and they should not be bought or sold. To sell or buy a non-human animal is to treat that animal as human property - basically as just a thing. The abuse is made worse when the animals in question need to be confined before their actual sale, which is what has to happen if pet shops are to sell non-human animals. All animals have the right to life and liberty, and so, even if we were to ignore the fact that to buy or sell an animal is to breach their right not to be property, by confining them to restricted spaces (no matter the size of the cages and no matter for how long) we are denying them the right to their liberty and freedom of movement.

In Malta there are two types of pet shops. One type sells non-human animals and "pet food". The other type only sells "pet food". People who really care about non-human animals and their rights should first of all not breed, buy or sell any non-human animals. If one breeds, buys or sells animals, one would be treating them as property or things, and would furthermore be profiting from, or subsidising the animal abuse and exploitation. Secondly, if one already has pet animals, or if one intends to adopt some from a no-kill sanctuary (which is commendable and actually saves animal lives), one should buy pet food only from shops that don't sell animals. As long as animal selling pet shops remain in business, animals will continue being abused.

Equestrian competitions

Meanwhile, Emmanuel R. Mallia writes in The Times:

"Passing through Marsa on my way to work I saw a group of 12 mounted police horses. So appealing to the eye! All smart in their gala hats and uniforms, horses nicely groomed coming back from the Valletta Police Day activities, which the public awaits so eagerly every year. A real shame such a spectacle is a one off".

Appealing to the eye! That is if one is not concerned about the horses themselves, and sees them only as a means of transportation. Once again, non-human animals are not human property and should not be treated as such. The use of non-human animals for transportation is animal slavery, no matter how "well" the owner treats his slave. It is truly a real shame that such a "spectacle" is a one off. It should not be even that. A civilized country would not breed, buy, "import" and basically enslave horses just for a "spectacle" nobody needs.

Mr Mallia goes on to say: "I do appeal to the authorities to work and upgrade attractions for us Maltese citizens and, yes, why not, also for the tourists. Encourage horse activities/high quality sports - horse racing, equestrian competitions, employing proper advertising and organisation.

I also would like to say well done to the La Valette riding club for the dressage and horse jumping competitions in Marsa. Pity the press reported nothing on this event last May. I attended the competitions both as a horse lover and as a spectator and I also noticed a member of the police force in uniform participating in such events. If the police force has such riders why not participate in similar activities? All sports related to horses can be such a classy activity for which there is a high demand in Malta. Let this appeal not fall on deaf ears".

I won't appeal to the authorities to ban such activities as slave shows, slave races, and so called "competitions", because I know that a speciesist government won't listen. However I do appeal to people who care about non-human animals to boycott such events. A horse lover does not enslave horses. A horse lover does not participate in activities which are abusive of horses. A horse lover does not import, sell or buy horses as if they were nothing but property or things. And a horse lover definitely does not participate in the raping of horses (forced breeding is rape) so that he will have more slaves to profit from.

Mr Mallia concludes his letter by saying: "Let us not forget those horse owners who are keeping horses out in the scorching sun in places such as Valletta and Qormi. Who is going to speak for these blessed horses? Are animal rights being monitored all year round? The police Administrative Law Enforcement section raided a farm in Mizieb the other day, rescuing four horses and seven dogs from a pitiful state. A lot is being done but more attention is required".

I certainly appreciate Mr Mallia's concern about the worst abuses on horses (though I personally cannot really decide which is worse - carrying passengers or being forced to take part in races which could at the very least result in injuries). However, from someone who declares his love of practices which abuse horses (horse shows and races), I would not have expected the question "are animal rights being monitored?". Animal rights requires no less than the abolition of the property status of animals, and this includes a complete ban on breeding, selling, buying, importation, and activities which involve captive horses. Perhaps Mr Mallia meant "animal welfare", which incidentally is a clear indication that welfarist campaigns only serve to confuse people, and that the language of rights should only be used by people or organisations who actually know what it means to have rights.

If animals have rights, animals should not be property. If animals are property, they have no rights, and they can only hope to be granted privileges, but only as much as would not interfere with the practices their owners expect to go on. If the practice requires some suffering, so be it, according to the welfarist position. If the practice requires severe suffering, so be it as well. It is only the animal rights position, which includes the abolition of animal slavery, that is the only hope for the gradual elimination of animal suffering and all animal abuse. To work for anything less is simply futile. Property is property, and property has no rights. All animals are sentient individuals with rights, and so should not be human property. One may treat a slave better than another slave, but one can never treat a slave well. A "well-treated slave" is an oxymoron.

On slave horses in the baking summer heat

On July 23, in The Malta Independent's "Odds and ends", the following statement was made with regards to "Karozzin horses":

"A real furore was whipped up in previous summers about horses being left in the sun without shelter near the Palace in Valletta and eventually a shelter was erected. People were satisfied and the issue died down. However, a walk down to the Valletta Waterfront will show an even worse situation than the one there used to be in the upper reaches of Valletta. Cabbies descend on the area to ply their trade, and at any time you can see at least 20 of the animals (and owners) standing in the baking summer heat. Something must be done".

It must be said that the shelter erected in Valletta still left most horses in Malta without any shelter, and still left all slave horses without any proper regulations regarding the working conditions of their slave labour (slave labour time, routes, provision of facilities such as drinking water, etc). It must also be said that justice requires the abolition of slavery, and not its regulation. However, I do know that a speciesist government would not abolish this particular form of slavery, since to speciesist politicians non-human animals do not matter morally and have no right to life and liberty.

So the comment that "people were satisfied and the issue died down" is not accurate. The issue died down not because people were satisfied, but because people felt helpless in the knowledge that after several protests and letters to newspapers, and after several meetings within the now defunct Animal Welfare Council, no significant "improvements" were made. So even if we disregard the fact that animal rights advocates would demand no less than the abolition of slavery, the government did not even try to appease the welfarists and their few demands for minor welfare improvements.

In reply to the above "Odds and ends" piece, Mr Joshua G. Giordimaina on behalf of VISET Malta plc, in today's The Malta Independent writes:

"With reference to the comments made in Odds & Ends as published in The Malta Independent on Monday 23 July 2007, VISET highly sympathises with the position of the drivers and their horses. The increasing number of cruise passengers that descend on the Port of Valletta are extremely important for the livelihood of many people, including horse cab drivers and their families. However, the summer heat tends to be particularly hard on the horses who do not have any protection from the sun.

Due to the particular traffic management and logistical challenges that were being caused by the increasing number of visiting cruise ships and passengers, a written agreement was drawn up between MCN, VISET, ADT and the Police, in October 2005 on a Traffic Management Scheme for the Cruise & Ferry Terminals. Among other items, the plan specified the setting up of a Horse Cab Stand for 12 cabbies at its present location, which is managed by ADT.

Subsequently ADT submitted an application with MEPA for the installation of a shelter at this location, which was however rejected. Following this, the horse cabbies were offered an alternative location, where such protection could be erected, which was, however, refused by the cabbies themselves. VISET is still committed towards resolving this issue for the benefit of all concerned and will continue to cooperate with all parties concerned".

VISET sympathizes with the position of the "drivers" and their horses. I only sympathize with the position of the horses. The "drivers" (slave-masters) show how much they really care about "their" horses in the single act of refusing an alternative location which included shelter from the summer heat. This clearly shows that their only concern is to make money out of their slaves.

The fact that their slave-trade is their source of income does not change the fact that slavery is wrong. If income automatically justified a practice, we would still have legalised human slavery. But then again, to expect these people to stop making money out of slavery when they would not even consider changing location which would provide "their" horses with some shade, just because presumably the alternative location would make them less money, is perhaps asking too much.

The only people who have the power to stop this kind of slavery, considering that the overall majority of politicians are speciesists, are the so-called "animal loving" tourists who somehow see the few minutes "pleasure" in being pulled around by a struggling horse as a justification for the continuation of horse-slavery.

And lest the government feels it is off the hook, the government is left with the following options:

1. Abolish horse-slavery unquestioningly and unreservedly.

2. Erect shelters and water facilities where the slave-owners want them, and regulate them according to the proposals submitted through the Animal Welfare Council.

3. Erect shelters and water facilities where the authorities want them, regulate them according to the proposals submitted through the Animal Welfare Council, and revoke the permit of the slave-owners who refuse to comply.

Of course, only option 1 is the non-speciesist and just option. However, since the overall majority of Maltese politicians are known to be speciesists, perhaps they should realize that if they do not abolish horse slavery, they are only left with options 2 and 3. The choice is theirs, just as the choice is ours whom to vote or not vote for in the coming general elections.

Non-human animal and refugee rights

Louise Vella sends The Times another of her series of racist letters, today's letter being in reply to Roberta Buhagiar, which Ms Vella entitles "Is there no limit?".

Among other things, Ms Vella writes: "There is no doubt that these penniless Africans are a burden on all of us, except, possibly, those employers who exploit them. The Prime Minister and others have given figures that indicate that illegal immigrants cost the government about Lm10 million a year. Ms Buhagiar may be happy to pay her share of that sum by way of her taxes. I am not".

Interestingly enough, the European Union, through its common agricultural policy, pays billions of Euros as farm subsidies to producers of meat. Ms Vella may be happy to pay her share of that sum by way of her taxes. I am not, since meat to me means the unnecessary killing of sentient non-human animals. I personally believe that those billions of Euros would be much better spent in humanitarian aid to refugees and in trying to solve this humanitarian crisis. This apart from the fact that EU and US subsidies are one of the sources of third-world poverty. But alas, I have little say in the matter.

But consider this: If those millions of Euros were indeed redirected from the subsidy of meat products to humanitarian aid, where would Ms Vella find any affordable meat to purchase and eat?

If Europe went vegetarian or vegan, this would provide millions of surplus Euros currently used for meat subsidies, which might in turn help solve Malta's immigration problem, apart from sparing millions of non-human animals from a life of suffering ending in a violent death. But alas, people like Ms Vella want to "have the meat and eat it too".

Dimas insists spring hunting is illegal, and more on the FKNK's absurd proposals

Spring hunting goes against EU rules, Stavros Dimas insists

The recent environmental infringements proceedings against Malta by the European Commission on Fort Cambridge as well as spring hunting dominated a meeting yesterday between European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas and Environment Minister George Pullicino.

Commission sources told The Times after the meeting that Mr Dimas praised the decision taken by the government to abruptly close last spring's hunting season following reports that a massacre on protected birds had occurred in the south of Malta.

Mr Dimas told Mr Pullicino the Commission fully supported the Maltese decision.

The sources also told The Times that the commissioner again insisted with the Maltese authorities that the island should not allow spring hunting any longer, an issue on which Brussels has already started legal procedures against Malta as it maintains that this goes against its rules (Mr Mark Mifsud Bonnici, please take note).

"Commissioner Dimas expressed his confidence that Malta will not open the hunting season again next year and urged the Maltese minister to make sure the problem is resolved without the need of going to court", a spokesman for the Commission told The Times.

Speaking to The Times, Mr Pullicino described the meeting as a "routine one" in which the government had the opportunity to present its position on different issues.

"We spoke about infringements and the way we are looking at the issues being raised by the Commission. The meeting was a very positive one and helped each side to understand better the pending issues", Mr Pullicino said.

Fuelling an already sizzling controversy

Clifford John Williams writes the following letter in today's The Times, which needs no further comment:

"Lino Farrugia's (FKNK) latest demands for yet more privileges for hunters and trappers is outrageous.

'Hunter' appointed marshals to report illegal hunting to a 'hunter' board who will then 'decide' whether or not to report it to the police!

Oh yes, that will cure it all right - just like it's done in the past... and what's the betting the Ornis committee will unilaterally recommend it again!

Then he wants to allow shooting 100 metres from habitation instead of 200 metres, 'because space is getting smaller'. Mr Farrugia and his hunters already deny most of the countryside to non-hunting country lovers. Yes, space is getting smaller for those too! And what's going to happen when it continues to get smaller? Is he going to want to shoot in our front gardens then?

Shooting at sea after 1 p.m., more killing time in late summer, hoping to continue after 2008, and, of course, keep spring hunting... etc etc.

Like most of Malta's indigenous species, which hunters have 'conserved' to extinction, spring hunting itself is now under threat. So Mr Farrugia and the FKNK have decided, as usual, to go over the top, fight fire with fire; they've nothing to lose so go for broke!

This attitude, and the demands themselves, show clearly how effective Mr Farrugia's 'self regulation' idea would be. Furthermore, does he not realise that by constantly demanding even more of these shrinking islands for himself and his hunters, he is merely throwing more fuel onto an already blazing controversy, and putting the backs up of more and more people both at home and abroad.

If you'll excuse the pun, I hope all these suggestions are shot down!"

Police raid farm and rescue neglected animals

Today's The Times reports that the police Administrative Law Enforcement (ALE) section raided a farm in Mizieb yesterday morning, rescuing a number of non-human animals from their pitiful state, despite the owner's protests.

Four horses, a dalmatian, a boxer, a fox terrier and four puppies were seized after the owner refused to heed several warnings to improve the animals' welfare and upgrade the farm's pitiful state of abandonment.

Noah's Ark, an animal welfare organisation, first reported the matter in 2004 and, while the authorities have tried to intervene time and time again, even taking a few of the animals, the state of neglect remained.

"This is an animal concentration camp. It's a sorry excuse for a farm and something had to be done to rescue the animals from their misery", Noah's Ark founder Fabio Ciappara said.

The police unit, led by Inspector Alex Miruzzi, and accompanied by vet Duncan Chetcuti Ganado, arrived at the farm about 8.30 a.m. after receiving numerous reports.

The owner got so upset with the situation that he started to threaten the police and had to be removed from the area under arrest, while the animals were taken away.

One of the horses waited patiently in a field, with a corrugated metal sheet providing the only shelter from the scorching sun. He later joined the three other horses and was taken to an animal sanctuary.

Two abandoned cars were parked in the adjacent field and plenty of junk, scraps of metal, and old glass bottles littered the area.

"We have been trying to get him to improve the situation, but to no avail. The animals cannot live in these primitive conditions. Most of them don't have water and those that (sic) do have to settle for stagnant water", Dr Chetcuti Ganado said. As he inspected the pens, he pointed to a tattered green rag saying it was the farmer's sorry response to repeated orders to provide shelter.

"Animal welfare is not just a matter of ensuring they are fed. You have to see what you are going to feed the animal, where it (sic) sleeps, and the overall quality of life. This place does not provide proper ventilation, shelter or flooring", he added.

Dr Chetcuti Ganado said the animals who had been taken away were in a bad state, in a poor body condition, while the dogs were full of ticks, in a bad condition, and starved.

Mr Ciappara said that some time ago Noah's Ark volunteers used to go to the farm every day to care for the animals and feed them, but after a while the owner kicked them out because he felt they were wasting a lot of water.

"The other day one of the puppies died and I buried it (sic). The owner's reaction was that I should have left it (sic) there as food for the big dogs. Here, whichever (sic) animal dies is left on the spot rotting", Mr Ciappara said.

Noah's Ark, which has been monitoring the situation for years, said it's not the first time that the owner hurled a plastic bag of bread on the roof for the dogs, who stood around in their urine and faeces.

In his father's defence, Hubert Vella, who yesterday morning rushed to the farm to see what was happening, said the animals were not in a bad state.

"They're picking on my father. This is all clowning about. My father even took in a handicapped horse because she was going to be put down. Is that cruelty to animals?", Mr Vella said.

Of course, while taking in a handicapped horse could be an indication of good intentions, leaving totally human-dependent non-human animals in such a bad state does amount to animal cruelty, especially when one knows that help was being offered by an animal society, and the help was refused.

When asked why his father was refusing to heed the warnings, Mr Vella said his father was doing things gradually because everything cost money.

"My father told the volunteers to stop coming because they were wasting too much water to wash the floors and, given the surcharge, you have to be careful", he said.

Mr Vella added it was not the first time a few of their animals had been stolen and he was suspecting that there could be some plot against his father to bring him down. What Mr Vella does not perhaps understand is that it is better for the animals concerned that they be taken away to people who could afford to take better care of them, than for them to stay in a farm whose owner clearly couldn't do so. What Mr Vella perceives as "plot to bring him down" is more likely to be a plan of action to take away animals from a situation of abuse, no matter whether the abuse is intentional or not.

What comes out as ironic from this episode is that while the lack of provision of decent shade, supply of clean water and lack of other welfare necessities are rightly considered as animal cruelty by the authorities, nothing has yet been done about the lack of exactly the same necessities with regards to "Karozzin horses" who slave their whole days under the scorching sun for their human masters.

Animal rights and hunter nonsense

The EU and derogations

Mr Mark Mifsud Bonnici, secretary of the bird-murderer organisation called "St Hubertus" Hunters, never tires of making a fool of himself. In a letter to The Sunday Times entitled "Animal rights or just plain nonsense?", he writes:

"In his reply to my letter (The Sunday Times, June 24) Kenneth Cassar states that he 'will not waste any more time arguing whether a derogation should be given or simply taken' (I wonder where a derogation can be taken) after his rambling on about this subject (June 10) he now states that he has wasted his time on this argument since as we have proven, derogations are not applied for but applied".

At this point it must be stated that Mr Mifsud Bonnici has proved absolutely nothing. It is his word against EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas. However, it must be pointed out that the final say on the matter rests on the EU, as Mr Mifsud Bonnici himself admits further down in his letter.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici goes on to say: "Mr Cassar in his letters of June 10 and 24 quotes Commissioner Stavros Dimas on the 'granting' of a derogation, and consequently stubbornly concludes 'that derogations are given, that the conditions for a derogation were not met, that the EU has not granted any derogation to Malta, and that Malta must come in line with EU rules and stop hunting in spring'.

He implies that the Maltese government could not be telling the truth. Is he not aware of Government's reply to the EU Commission justifying its use of the derogation?

I quote from a letter received by St Hubertus Hunters on June 15, 2007, from Commissioner Dimas to this effect:

'In April 2007 the Commission received a reply from the Maltese authorities which is currently being studied'.

Also: 'The Commission is keen to ensure the correct implementation of EU legislation and to base its decision on objective, factual information. This means that we have sought to collect the best available scientific data concerning the spring and autumn migrations and the opportunities for hunting which exist in these two periods'.

Mr Dimas is hereby confirming that Malta's case is being studied and, contrary to Mr Cassar's statement, nothing has been concluded".

Mr Mifsud Bonnici assumes that I am not aware that the Government has sent a letter to the EU to justify a derogation. The fact that the Government has sent a letter to justify a derogation proves that a derogation must be justified and is not simply a matter national EU member governments should take unilaterally. What's the point of justifying a derogation you have every right to use? I know that the EU has recieved correspondence from the Maltese government and is studying its content. However, Mr Dimas' comments on the matter are unequivocal. Malta has not been granted any derogation, and if it will ever be granted one, the decision rests solely on the EU and not the Maltese government or the local hunters.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici goes on to say that: "The fact is that all reports and studies prepared over the years by reputable ornithologists (hopefully this time Mr Cassar will bother to check facts) state that the autumn migration of dove and quail is negligible and consequently the hunting opportunities are practically non-existent and so, do not offer a satisfactory solution. The government and the hunters are basing their case on this truth.

That is why the government has commissioned a scientific report from a reputable foreign institute to study the hunting and bird-migration patterns of spring and autumn in 2007. Understandably BirdLife Malta refused to accept the invitation to participate, no doubt because they know that the scientific report cannot but confirm the true state of things. And the true state of things is the very same that BirdLife Malta and its sympathisers have constantly tried to distort".

I shall not go into the merits of the mentioned "scientific report", as this, unlike BirdLife, does not concern animal rights organisations. To animal rights organisations, all animals matter, be they "protected", "endangered", "common" or whatever. We have a clear agenda that is no secret - that of abolishing all animal abuse and murder. The only thing that concerns us in respect of the spring hunting issue is whether the EU will ban the murder of all birds in spring. And the say rests on the EU commission, and not on the Maltese government or the local hunters. I also hereby challenge Mr Mifsud Bonnici to mention where I have distorted any facts.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici goes on to say that "Spring hunting does not breach EU directives. We have proved that the EU allows hunting in the UK, 365 days a year. This proof was conveniently ignored by Mr Cassar when he states: 'I won't even look into whether this is true or not.' So much for his verifying facts. I ask Mr Cassar to check on this fact and to reply on whether EU directives allow spring hunting in the UK. As in the case of Alternattiva Demokratika, Mr Cassar's statement that spring hunting breaches EU rules is untrue".

First of all, spring hunting in Malta does breach EU directives, as I have amply demonstrated by quoting the person who really matters, namely Mr Stavros Dimas. Secondly, the issue of hunting in the UK is besides the point. I am a local campaigner and I will focus on local campaigns. What matters locally is that spring hunting in Malta breaches EU directives. If the EU allows hunting in the UK the whole year round (and I neither acknowledged nor disputed this) this has no bearing on whether the EU allows spring hunting in Malta. I shall only be bothered to verify facts when those facts really matter, so I will disappoint Mr Mifsud Bonnici on this point. Or perhaps I will reply to Mr Mifsud Bonnici's question on whether the EU allows spring hunting in the UK when he gives an answer to the question of whether there is life on other planets. Both questions are irrelevant to whether the EU allows spring hunting in Malta.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici continues: "The fact that he will not 'waste any more time' to admit that a derogation is applied and that he 'won't even look into' whether the EU allows spring hunting shows how thorough and precise his arguments are. Mr Cassar certainly enjoys his right of expression; the only problem is that his writings, apart from being totally biased and extremist, are nothing but a concoction of untruths and misinformation written for the sake of his convenience".

Again, I challenge Mr Mifsud Bonnici to mention one "untruth" I ever said on the issue. As for being biased, I am as biased in favour of protecting sentient life as much as he is biased in favour of killing sentient animals. As for being "extremist", an animal rights campaigner is an extremist to a bird killer as much as a human rights campaigner is an extremist to a child killer. Further comment is superfluous.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici continues: "Had it not been for similar nonsense, untruths and misinformation spread worldwide by the likes of Mr Cassar, Alternattiva and BirdLife, the use by the Maltese Government of the spring hunting derogation would, in most respects, have been more acceptable to the EU".

And here, Mr Mifsud Bonnici unknowingly admits that a spring hunting derogation for Malta is not acceptable to the EU. In matters of whether allowing or denying a practice, degrees of acceptability do not matter. Spring hunting is either allowed or prohibited. Mr Stavros Dimas has already made it clear that as far as things stand, spring hunting is prohibited in Malta. Of course this does not necessarily mean that it may never be permitted, and I never made such a claim. I only hope that the decision by the EU not to permit spring hunting in Malta will not be overturned. But of course, the say does not rest on neither me nor Mr Mifsud Bonnici. The final say rests on the EU commission.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici says that "It is quite obvious that people defending animal rights, a political organisation intent on banning hunting, and a society set up for the protection of birds would resort to any means to strengthen their cause (that of banning hunting); the truth is definitely not within their vocabulary".

Again, I will only speak for animal rights campaigners. I agree that I will resort to any legal means to strengthen my case, as long as the means employed are truthful.

My whole campaign rests on two truthful claims:

1. Hunting needlessly kills sentient animals.
2. Spring hunting in Malta breaches EU directives.

The conclusion from this is that a ban on killing birds in spring would at least spare lots of birds. Would I like a total hunting ban? Of course. But in focusing on spring hunting, I'm just being realistic. The way to ban spring hunting is to campaign at national and EU level. The way to ban all hunting is to educate the public that hunting is unnecessary killing.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici continues: "As a matter of fact, although the government exercised its right to a derogation from May 1, 2004, it was only in the spring of 2006, i.e. after three spring seasons, that the EU started taking notice. It did so, mainly on account of a malicious, orchestrated plan drawn up by people with more than bird protection in mind and on the insistence of AD".

Again, the government has not exercised its right to a derogation, since it had none. The fact that it was only in 2006 that the EU decided to take action on the matter does not prove anything except that the EU, like all other international organisations, is a beurocratical organisation which very often loses valuable time before taking action on important matters. It is also interesting that Mr Mifsud Bonnici mentions an "orchestrated plan drawn by people with more than bird protection in mind", when all that matters to us in this campaign is bird protection. You don't protect birds by killing them! What is the "more than bird protection" Mr Mifsud Bonnici imagines, I would like to ask him.

Yes, the "St Hubertus" Hunters are bird-murderers

Mr Mifsud Bonnici continues: "In his article on his Website Mr Cassar refers to St Hubert Hunters as "bird murderers". Here again Mr Cassar's animal rights sentiments seem to have been tickled beyond reason as he pathetically equates the killing of a bird with that of a murdering a human. I wonder what he calls all those millions of humans who enjoy a juicy steak, a succulent pig, a tender cut of veal, a finger lickin' fried chicken and all the other delicacies that fish, birds and animals provide. Probably cannibals!"

First of all, again I repeat my claim that the "St Hubertus" Hunters are bird-murderers. The undeniable fact is that they murder birds. As for Mr Mifsud Bonnici's claim that I equate the killing of a bird with that of murdering a human, I do no such thing. My only claim is that both cases involve premeditated unnecessary killing of sentient individuals, and therefore both cases involve murder. However, I did qualify my claim by saying that they (hunters) are bird-murderers, and nowhere did I claim that hunters necessarily murder humans. I'm only interested in the truth, and that hunters murder birds is enough of a sad truth. Mr Mifsud Bonnici asks what I call millions of humans who eat meat, and he asks if I call them cannibals. The fact that he uses the word "cannibals" shows that he has no idea on the subject he is talking about. Cannibalism involves eating members of one's own species. Meat-eating usually involves eating members of different species. Therefore meat-eating is not cannibalism. However, meat eating always involves either unnecessarily killing sentient individual animals, or paying for someone else to unnecessarily do the killing for the meat-eaters. Since meat-eating is unnecessary for human health, we see meat-eating as participation in a practice which unnecessarily kills sentient individuals, and that's why we consider it wrong.

Confusing animal rights with party politics

Mr Mifsud Bonnici says that "Incidentally, a member of AD happens to be involved in one of the largest local poultry processing farms. Perhaps, in order not to appear to be defending a party with a mass 'bird murderer' in its ranks, Mr Cassar chooses to keep silent about this fact in order not to expose his hypocrisy".

Mr Mifsud Bonnici should recognize the fact that I never claimed that Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) is an animal rights party. I am sure that Mr Mifsud Bonnici votes in national elections. I'm also sure that Mr Mifsud Bonnici does not agree with all the policies or actions of the party he votes for. This does not mean that by voting for "his" party, he is a hypocrite. In politics, you vote for the party which in your opinion does (or plans to do) most good and least bad. The fact that I "keep silent" about a member of AD being involved in a "poultry" processing farm is simply because this is irrelevant to the spring hunting issue. Though I do vote at national elections, I do not consider myself a member of any national party. I only vote for the party or parties which do most good and least harm, and I sometimes even go as far as to cross-party vote, since which candidates make it to parliament matters. Does that amount to hypocricy? I think not.

Who's saying untruths?

Mr Mifsud Bonnici finally says that "Mr Cassar seems to be happy that he has a Website and suggests that we should thank him for publishing our letters on his site. Indeed we do, since our letters and other pro-hunting letters he so willingly publishes on his site at no expense are the best form of free publicity for our cause, namely that of stating the true facts.

His feeble attempts, in his letters and on his Website at discrediting our truths are what we refer to as nonsense.

We base this statement on his own words. How can a person be called credible if he is 'not wasting time' to verify facts or when asked to reply about a fact, he states: 'I won't even look into whether this is true or not'.

Indeed we agree, with his suggestion: let the public judge".

Mr Mifsud Bonnici once again claims that I say untruths without proving that what I say are untruths. This makes his allegation that I say untruths as just an unfounded allegation. Also, the "facts" that I do not care to verify are "facts" which are irrelevant to the issue at hand. When discussing whether spring hunting is allowed in Malta, whether it is allowed elsewhere is inconsequential and irrelevant. What really matters is that the EU does not allow spring hunting in Malta.

Let the public judge on who's being honest. Like I already said in a previous correspondence, I suspect we won't have to wait too long for an answer, considering the general elections are fast approaching.

Summary and conclusion

In essence, Mr Mifsud Bonnici's letter can be summarised by the following points:

1. Hunting derogations are not applied for, but applied.
2. The EU allows hunting in the UK throughout the whole year.
3. My writings are biased and extremist.
4. Hunters are not bird murderers and I equate killing birds with killing humans.
5. An AD member has a poultry farm, therefore I should not support AD.

The above points are all shown to be just utter nonsense by my own summary in the following points:

1. If hunting derogations are not applied for, but just applied, then the government would not need to justify its position, and no "scientific studies" would be necessary. The fact that the EU is studying Malta's case is ample proof that derogations are not simply taken, but are given. If this were not so, the EU would not need to study Malta's case in the first place.

2. If it is the case that the EU allows hunting in the UK throughout the whole year (and I will neither deny nor confirm this), this simply means that the type of hunting that goes on in the UK throughout the whole year is not hunting which affects migratory birds. The EU is not an animal rights organisation, and does not care about individual birds. All it cares about is protecting migratory birds and "protected" species. Malta's case is different because all hunted birds in Malta are migratory birds.

3. Like I already explained, my writings are biased and extremist to a bird killer in the same way that a human rights campaigner's writings are biased and extremist to a child killer. What's more, Mr Mifsud Bonnici's writings are obviously biased too, since he has an obvious interest in being allowed to kill sentient animals in spring.

4. Hunters, by definition, are bird murderers. Hunters murder birds. I never made the claim that hunters murder humans, thus my specific claim that hunters are bird-murderers does not necessarily imply that I equate birds with humans. I simply acknowledge the fact that both birds and humans have the right not to be killed unnecessarily. His mention of cannibalism which he expects that I would call meat-eaters simply shows that he has no idea on what animal rights is all about, and that he has no idea on evolutionary biology. Meat-eaters are definitely not cannibals unless they eat members of their own species. However, meat-eating is still wrong since it unnecessarily deprives sentient non-human animals of their lives.

5. The fact or otherwise that a member of AD participates in a "poultry" farm is irrelevant. First of all, I never claimed that AD is an animal rights party. Secondly, all political parties have some (or most) members who participate in animal abuse or animal killing. The majority of the political party members are in any case meat-eaters. Thus, if they do not do the killing themselves, they pay others to do the killing for them. When supporting AD on the (anti-) hunting issue, I do just that - support them on their anti-hunting stand. No more and no less. There may be other issues on which I would agree with AD in the same way that there might be some issues I disagree with them on. Representative democracy involves choosing the party which does (or plans to do) the most good and least harm. It does not require 100% agreement with any party.

So in essence, Mr Mifsud Bonnici's letter amounts to just a collection of inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and mistaken ideas coming from the fact that he is not knowledged on the topic of animal rights, thus having several wrong assumptions on what it means to be for animal rights. It is a bad sign when someone pretends to make an intelligent debate on a topic he has no knowledge of. It generally does not augur well for the content of the unknowledged person's arguments. I would honestly suggest to Mr Mifsud Bonnici that he drops his guns and starts reading.

Don't just take my word for it

Mr Wylie Cunningham's article in Maltastar.com of July 14 on the same topic also makes an interesting read. Here's an excerpt from his article:

"Under EU law, no national government has any right whatsoever to apply derogation to any EU Directive unilaterally. Malta, like all 27 EU states ceded that right the instant the pen hit the paper to sign the Treaty of Accession. It’s what Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, described earlier this week as 'the voluntary surrender of sovereignty'.

May I repeat that? The voluntary surrender of sovereignty. In EU terms, the Maltese government has no right, no power, no authority to derogate from anything!

The word 'derogation' has many meanings - it is, after all, from the same Latin base as 'derogatory' - so beloved of Maltese public figures. In the legal sense, its primary meaning is that of an abrogation or lessening of the extent of a law. Within the EU, it is a legal mechanism deployed to buy a member state - usually a new member state - some extra time before it needs to implement a Directive which that member state would have particular difficulty with.

But, and it is a mighty big 'but', it is not automatic and it depends on a formal request being submitted by the member state in question, supported by detailed evidence. And the ultimate decision rests exclusively with the EU Commission. As far as I can gather from the official statements issued by EU Commissioner Stavros Dimas, the Maltese Government failed even to make a formal application, let alone supply supporting evidence, so the Commission was never even asked to consider a decision. I suspect that on that basis alone, FKNK’s suggestion that the Government should attempt to 'renegotiate' this part of the Treat of Accession will be met in Brussels with outright refusal… to say nothing of sarcastic laughter.

Oh dear!!!!!

All that said, although I don’t like their hobby and have little time for their arguments, I do think that the FKNK (and Mr Farrugia) might just have identified a very, very important argument on behalf of Malta. The leaders of the FKNK, whatever else I, you, or one might say about them, are knowledgeable about hunting, care about it and are, indeed, passionate about it. They work hard to protect and further their interests. I do recognise that.

So why then is their understanding of the legal reality of EU membership so flawed? Where, when and how did the information flow fail them? Was it an act of omission, or one of commission? I do not know the answers to that. But, then, I do not have the right to vote in Malta. If I did, I would be asking some very, very serious questions - like, for example, where else has the information flow failed. Where else have acts of omission and/or commission occurred?

In the week that Malta has committed itself - irrevocably - to the Euro, that’s a question Castille needs to answer".

Precisely.

Labour MP threatens to break the law if the "hunting season" is closed

Bird murderer Adrian Vassallo, an MP from the Malta Labour Party joins the pro-bird murder bandwagon, and provides us with his version of the pathetic pro-hunting letters we have become accustomed to read. Dr Vassallo writes in today's The Times:

"The Environment Minister, George Pullicino, is reported to have declared that the hunting season will open as usual in autumn. He added, with characteristic bombast that 'as soon as the first massacre of protected birds takes place, I will stop the hunting season'. In saying so, he may have made an effort to ingratiate himself with the environmentalists, who were outraged when he declared the opening of the spring season.

In fact he has, once again, brandished the bludgeon of collective punishment against law-abiding hunters.

The government is there to legislate and enforce the law on the one hand, and to safeguard the rights of law abiding citizens on the other.

Surely it is up to the forces of law and order to restrain and prosecute hunters who massacre protected species - but, to punish collectively and law-abiding majority of hunters is a non sequitur.

Besides being patently undemocratic, this amounts to an admission of weakness and incompetence".

The above echoes the Secretary of the bird-murder federation Lino Farrugia's statement of June 14, where he wrote that "The police and members of the armed forces failed miserably to bring the few law-breakers to justice, and the Environment Minister, with the approval of the Prime Minister, opted for the unjust measure of collective punishment, an action that goes against the Constitution of Malta. What the Prime Minister should have done was to hold an inquiry into whether the police and the armed forces are really doing their job. He could still do so", so it merits the same reply.

Dr Vassallo and Mr Farrugia's statements being equivalent, I shall do no more than repeat my reply of June 14, where I wrote that "I will not go into whether the Prime Minister should hold an inquiry into whether the police and the armed forces are really doing their job. I will only say that I am sure that they are. However, like all environmentalists and animal rights activists have been saying for a long time, the Administrative Law Enforcement unit within the police force should be strengthened (both in numbers and equipment). I will also not comment on whether "collective punishment" (if it really was collected punishment) goes against the constitution (I will leave that for Mr Farrugia and the Prime Minister to resolve). I will only say that since we became EU members, spring hunting is illegal. Therefore, if there was any illegality, it was the opening of the spring hunting season in the first place. Mr Farrugia (and now also Dr Vassallo) is ironically complaining about the government's late stopping of an illegality. Mr Farrugia obviously wants to continue to breach EU rules and to continue hunting in spring, despite the fact that a derogation to permit spring hunting was never given to Malta, which makes spring hunting illegal by EU rules (to which we now have to comply)".

Adrian Vassallo goes on to say that "Due to my professional and other commitments, I have not practised the sport (murdering birds) for some time. But if Mr Pullicino will ride rough-shod over the hunting community for the second time running, I would go out of my way to provoke prosecution, with a view to challenging him in court. This would raise the dispute over collective punishment to the status of an electoral issue. Mr Pullicino's bombast is a cover-up for the administration's weakness and inertia".

Interesting. So Dr Adrian Vassallo, a member of parliament, is threatening that if the environment minister closes the hunting season, Dr Vassallo will go out of his way and break the law. I hope that the ALE unit within the police force is taking notes. And just in case anyone has missed the seriousness of such a statement from an MP no less, it bears repeating. No matter whether one supports or opposes the murder of birds, would you trust a politician (and give him your vote) who openly claims that he will break the law just because he finds the law inconvenient or disagreeable? I surely wouldn't!

But then again, what would you expect from a politician who is reported to have told Malta Today in March of 2002:

"The fact that I hunt does not mean I don’t love birds (he loves them so much that he kills them). It’s the thrill of the chase that lures all hunters, not the wish to hurt birds (pity the birds get hurt anyway, I guess). If I didn’t love them, would I keep an aviary with dozens of the creatures? (sure, he loves his prison inmates) I love anything to do with birds, whether it’s reading about them, breeding them, rearing them, keeping them…I never enjoyed killing too many birds, getting one or two should be enough. And protected species are obviously a no-no. But this whole business of closed and open season makes no sense. Nature itself can regulate the seasons, after all if there’s no migration there can be no hunting. The closed season in effect should be those months when the migratory pattern does not include our islands (very convenient...when there are no birds, stop hunting...such philosophical insight!)".

So does Dr Adrian Vassallo deserve your vote? It depends. If you are opposed to bird murder or imprisonment, or are just a law-abiding citizen, I guess the answer is obviously no.

On "Karozzin horses" and the regulation of slave-labour

Dawn Penny writes the following letter in today's The Times:

"When will legislation be introduced to help the poor horses drawing the traditional Maltese carriages (karrozzin). I had been sitting enjoying lunch on my shady terrace when the familiar clip clop of a karrozzin could be heard.

A poor horse was literally foaming at the mouth and in great distress at being forced to pull a carriage along Tigné seafront at 1.15 p.m. on June 28. The recorded temperature was 30 degrees, which is somewhat lower than of late, although judging by the state of the poor horse, I doubt if this was any consolation, as it was almost on the point of collapse.

I am at a loss as to why this cruelty is allowed to continue in a country that is now in the EU and wants to show itself to be modern and progressive and not still living in mediaeval times".

It must be said at the outset that justice will only be served when horses are no longer held as slaves, who are forced to work for their human masters. No matter the conditions of their "employment", horses do not consent to doing any work, and any work that they do is forced (slave) labour. It might be argued that the horses themselves would not exist if their "breeders" did not breed them for their own purposes. This kind of reasoning would seem to justify having human children born for the purpose of acting as slaves. It is only current speciesist mentality which makes it seem acceptable in the case of non-humans, and immoral and illegal in the case of humans.

Considering that we presently live in a speciesist society where politicians would not dare to ban such an immoral practice as slave labour, the best way forward is to boycott the "service". Anyone using the Karozzin (cabby) "service" is an accomplice to slave-labour (prospective tourists, take note). I hope that much is clear.

Regarding legislation covering the "working conditions" of the "Karozzin horses", despite the fact that any regulation would still leave the horses in a situation of abuse (forced-labour), perhaps it would not be too much to ask from a government which boasts (for propaganda purposes) to care about "animal welfare", to at least provide the horses with decent shade, a working time schedule, and perhaps compulsory supply of drinking water. In fact, these proposals, along with some others, were made by a sub-committee on horses within the government's Animal Welfare Council years ago, to which proposals there was unanimous agreement within the committee. But of course, what do government ministers in their air-conditioned offices care about horses in distress under a scorching sun?

Regarding the European Union (EU), it is also clear that the EU does not care at all about non-human animals. In fact, EU legislation specifically does not cover animals who fall under the umbrella of so-called "tradition". This is why the EU will not legislate on such issues as fox-hunting, bull-fighting, and other such cruel and abusive practices. Legislation on "traditional" spring hunting in Malta is an exception, simply because other considerations (environmental) apply, considerations that are covered in the Birds Directive. If hunting did not matter environmentally, the EU would simply not care about the murdered birds. As much as I recognize that membership in the EU provided some minor improvements to the welfare of a minority of non-human animals in Malta, for one to think that entry in the EU meant heaven to non-human animals is simply an illusion.

The most effective way to stop animal abuse and exploitation is, first of all, to stop participating in the abuse oneself (be it through stopping direct abuse, and through stopping subsidising the abuse, by not using animal products or services), and secondly through education (by educating the public about the wrongness of speciesism and animal abuse). To expect significant improvements in the treatment of non-human animals from speciesist governments and speciesist institutions such as the EU, is simply delusional.

Former hunter to set up "bird of prey" prison

Today's The Times reports that Mr Robbie Whytock, a professional falconer, is engaged by Renè Scicluna to launch a falconry centre in less than a month. Mr Scicluna, a former hunter, made up his mind to set up the centre after seeing one in the UK.

"I immediately realised that a falconry centre could provide people, including hunters, with an opportunity to see birds of prey at close range. I know there will be people who will argue that these birds are not free, but all the birds are bred in captivity and trained just as other pets are. I believe the educational value that one derives from this sort of thing outweighs the arguments against it" Mr Scicluna told The Times.

While recognizing that perhaps "falconry" may be seen as a "step in the right direction", considering that Mr Scicluna is a former-hunter who used to kill birds, Mr Scicluna is correct in saying that there will be people (including myself) who will argue that "these birds are not free". The fact that the birds are bred in captivity does not take away the wrongness of imprisoning birds. On the contrary, it compounds it. Breeding animals for captivity is no different from breeding human babies in prison where we would keep them for their entire lives. The fact that we do find a problem with breeding humans in prisons, even though we know that if we do, the prisoners would know no other life, clearly shows that captive breeding is wrong. To think it wrong in the case of humans, and not wrong in the case of non-humans, is speciesist.

Mr Scicluna says that the birds will be bred and trained just as pets are. This statement takes it as granted that there is no problem in breeding pets in the first place. To breed any non-human animal for human purposes, and to make it worse, to keep them in unnatural environments and confined to human-assigned spaces, goes against animal rights. Non-human animals are not human property.

Mr Scicluna also says that he believes that the "educational value" that one derives from this sort of thing outweighs the arguments against it. This statement places no value to the inherent rights of the individual animal, and treats the non-human animal as just a human resource. No amount of educational value for humans justifies the imprisoning of non-humans. After all, no one would suggest imprisoning innocent humans, even if their imprisonment would be vital to an important scientific study on the psychological effect of imprisoning innocents.

Mr Scicluna also told The Times that he believes that when hunters see birds of prey at his centre they may become reluctant to continue shooting at such species. "I had some very bitter experiences when I started", he added. A hooded vulture and a kestrel he was training were blasted out of the sky when they ventured out of the sanctuary of his place. "I have been speaking to people in the area and they now refrain from shooting at my birds of prey, and I dare say, at other birds of prey flying over our area", Mr Scicluna said.

However, this is all besides the point. If it is the case that hunters would not shoot at the falcons Mr Scicluna breeds (which cannot be guaranteed in any case), if Mr Scicluna does not breed any falcons at all, the hunters would have no falcons to shoot at.

The centre, close to Limestone Heritage in Siggiewi, occupies some seven tumoli of land, where Mr Scicluna has erected several aviaries. He holds captive some 30 birds of prey, ranging from golden eagles to eagle owls, as well as several falcons, hawks and vultures.

A pair of Harris hawks, an American species very popular with falconers, is currently raising two young in one of the aviaries.

"We'd like to set up a breeding centre here. Eagles are easily bred as they are artificially inseminated" (read "raped"). "We will try to breed Pergerines here too. The aim is to have a centre which can treat injured birds and have them breed so that some can be returned to the wild", Mr Whytock said.

Like all zoo-keepers, Mr Whytock uses the feeble excuse that some can be returned to the wild. Apart from the fact that Mr Whytock does not guarantee that any will be returned to the wild, the rest, of course, stay imprisoned for life.