When we first read Kenneth Zammit Tabona's piece of August 19, the Federation for Hunting and Conservation - Malta (FKNK) was tempted to put pen to paper. However, on further reflection and also because Mr Zammit Tabona is an old college friend of the FKNK's secretary and administrative consultant, with whom we both have had the occasion, over the years, to briefly discuss the issue, we are sure that his intentions are genuine and could, consequently, see a certain rationale in his words.
On the other hand, Martin Scicluna's weak effort to humour readers (September 3) cannot pass without comment. We have purposely used the word humour since any other interpretation of the thoughts expressed by him would border on lunacy.
We have had no hesitation in the past, and have not changed our views today, to publicly express ourselves against illegal hunting activities. Any illegal activity should be condemned but hunting in Malta seems, as usual, to be the most important, evident, appalling etc., superseding all others in terms of news value and disgust for certain Maltese citizens (presumably Mr Scicluna is Maltese and for all that is Maltese, although we can still vividly recall when, on behalf of Din l-Art Helwa, following the Mnajdra incidents of 2000 he preferred to address a news conference to the local media in English). Here we will stick to illegal hunting.
Senior officials, both in a personal capacity and on behalf of the FKNK, have sat on panels in which enforcement issues were a priority. And, improvement in various sectors relating to such activities was factually evident, with results applauded by one and all. We do not believe in overnight changes, and never have, believing continuity to be the key concept.
Coming back to Mr Scicluna's letter in more detail, we fully concur with his question regarding the swans' incident (even though, as a matter of information, these birds and dozens of others, including the cormorant indicated by Mr Zammit Tabona, can be legally hunted in various other member states of the European Union, which Malta worked so hard to join). "And if not, why not?" - But please, for goodness' sake, that answer can only come from the persons who know why or why not!
Definitely not from the serious hunters and trappers who have had to suffer the consequences of being discriminated against by persons the like of Mr Scicluna, in the same manner as they had to suffer the inexcusably unfair slander of being blamed for the infamous Mnajdra incidents. No apologies followed after the real culprits were apprehended, not even from Mr Scicluna, who had been first in line to point fingers at hunters and trappers.
Mr Scicluna's comments on hunting are unacceptable, besides being purely arbitrary. Furthermore, these constitute misinformation and ignorance of the facts surrounding today's concept of wise use of renewable natural resources regarding habitat conservation and game management.
Mr Scicluna uses the word primitive and here lies a serious contradiction in terms: Mr Scicluna embarks on projects aimed at restoring certain constructions to as much as possible their, using his ideology, primitive state.
For all he knows these could have been the work of our hunting ancestors who lived and used the same land he now claims for himself. And, following on his train of thought, what about the money his organisation receives from the government? Could this not, already, be part of the excessive hunting fee that we hunters pay?
Again to enlighten Mr Scicluna and his like, hunters and trappers happen to be the only sector of Maltese society to be directly fiscally contributing, since part of the licences we pay had been so raised in 1997 to contribute as eco-taxation.
Mr Scicluna is very keen and well versed in spending this money but also just as keen in putting his hand in other people's pocket to obtain it.
Dear Mr Scicluna, some of us pay Lm61 for our hunting licences to practise the sport. We feel this to be extremely excessive when compared to a mean average level to what our European counterparts (not to mention that in some African countries one can hunt for several head of big game with such licence money), contribute to their respective countries' money-box.
May we also add that in these "civilised" countries more than 50 per cent, in some instances as much as 85 per cent, of all fees paid by hunters to practise the "civilised" sport in their "civilised" European country, is refunded to the hunting organisations to be utilised in game and habitat management and never to any society that persists in destructive criticism with absolutely no knowledge of what hunting as a whole is all about.
Were Mr Scicluna and Din l-Art Helwa to publicly criticise the illegal hunting incidents then they would meet with the approval of several thousands of hunters. But then, and in order to seem credible and genuine, they also have to equally publicly criticise all sorts of illegalities that continuously occur in our islands on a daily basis.
Otherwise, one could be led to believe that there is something personal against hunting, rather than an inherent will to curtail anything illegal.
Finally, if Mr Scicluna also wants to criticise the government for the creation of the present deficit, he should find another scapegoat and once and for all refrain from always incorrectly and discriminatorily addressing the law-abiding taxpaying and proud Maltese hunters and trappers.
If Mr Scicluna would like to express his views that Malta is in fiscal difficulties, then he and his like, should target both the source and whoever, directly and indirectly, was responsible for these difficulties.