Hunting decision unpopular

More than 80 per cent of the respondents to a The Times online poll, do not agree with the government's decision to allow spring hunting to go on.

The poll, which lasted nearly three days, asked: "Do you agree with the decision not to ban spring hunting given the bird flu scare?"

A total 83.15 per cent of respondents said they did not agree with the decision and the remainder said they did.

Those who did not agree with the decision included hunters. One wrote:

"If the risk of bird flu is very low, why was it reported that hunters should not let their dogs eat any shot birds and to wear gloves before handling any birds. One cannot say that sick birds do not migrate since the virus has been found in various countries... I believe that it is better to be disappointed now than to suffer the consequences later."

A man who is definitely not a hunter wrote:

"So our health and safety have been compromised for the sake of a few votes of a few pampered bullies. Roll on election day. Since childhood I have identified with the PN. Unfortunately, at 64, this has ceased to be. My ideals have remained the same, but the parties have changed."

Another described this as a lost opportunity to ban spring hunting.

"The public's opinion of the government is particularly low in most aspects, however, on the bird flu issue people trusted the government.

"Following this refusal to ban spring hunting there will be repercussions on the government from a political point of view and, unfortunately, maybe also from a health point of view...

"Does the government understand that if Malta's first bird flu case takes place this spring, all fingers will be pointed towards its weakness on the hunting issue?"

Another asked if the health minister is Lino Farrugia (the hunting federation's secretary general).

"Can somebody illuminate me as to why on such an important issue the government has to consult the hunters' organisation. Is it this organisation which dictates what should be done?" he wrote.

One reader described the decision as another fine example of the government giving in to a powerful lobby.

One who voted in favour of the decision argued that if there were any risk, the EU would have suggested that all member states impose a ban.

And another who voted in favour said: "This could be the birds' opportunity to get back at hunters."