Editorial

The Federation for Hunting and Conservation as well as BirdLife Malta both took pot-shots at the package being negotiated by the government on hunting and trapping.

Where the former criticised the package for permitting fewer species to be shot or trapped, the latter called on the government to take bird protection seriously and to stop negotiating a favourable deal for Maltese hunters and trappers. Emotion was the order of the day.

Both organisations would do well to suppress these emotions, the federation in particular. The package so far negotiated should have been welcomed by it. The fact that the EU side has accepted the government's recommendation that hunting in spring, between March 25 and May 21, should continue when, as BirdLife has pointed out, "hunting in spring is internationally unacceptable" was a major concession for hunters, if not for birds. The federation should acknowledge this and understand that all negotiations are a process of give and take.

Trapping is also to continue, but no new licences above the present figure of around 4,500 will be issued. It is generally felt that 4,500 licences are more than enough.

AD spokesman on EU affairs, Arnold Cassola, sees it all as "absolutely appalling". There will be many who agree with him and with the party's commitment to work for the abolition of hunting in spring.

The government is walking a tightrope. The government and opposition are agreed that hunting and trapping are activities that pertain to long-held traditions.

Neither the Nationalist Party nor the Labour Party would consider the abolition of hunting. Politically, therefore, the two parties will do everything possible not to upset in any serious way this applecart.

In this respect, the two parties have to keep in mind too that the great majority of people are against hunting.

Animal welfare organisations and all those who regard bird shooting as a horrible indulgence leave politics out of their equation when the subject crops up. More realistically, people generally point to the absence of law enforcement and the shock created by irresponsible hunters when, for example, these shot down nine swans, a protected species.

The Federation for Hunting and Conservation (many ask: what conservation?) should acknowledge that the government has so far negotiated a package that is favourable to what they consider a sport and many of us regard as a gruesome form of recreation.

BirdLife, in this instance, should continue to voice its concern over the retention by the government of springtime shooting and trapping and work towards a dismantling of trapping licences so that the figure of 4,500 will slowly be diminished.

At the moment, a licensee who no longer wishes to trap can have the "vacancy" he creates taken up by a new trapper. BirdLife should also exert maximum pressure on the government to see to it that "indiscriminate destruction" is curtailed and law enforcement applied.

In fact, the government would do well to heed the very strong demand for stricter law enforcement.