Barrage of criticism from foreign respondents

Spring hunting is having far-reaching consequences - even in geographical terms, with the majority of respondents to a timesofmalta.com poll on the issue being foreigners, who did not hesitate to criticise Malta and in particular, the hunters.

The poll highlighted how international the issue of spring hunting is.

Many threatened they would not only never visit the island (or stop visiting even though they loved it), but were discouraging anyone intending to holiday here if the "sickening illegal slaughter" of birds goes on.

A strong majority, 85.4 per cent, of respondents feel spring hunting should not be allowed, given that Brussels is proceeding against Malta over the issue. Nine per cent believe it should be allowed, while 5.6 per cent think Malta should go to the European Court.

The poll has highlighted the negative image Malta has acquired overseas, and the damage that has been caused is evident in the interest the matter has aroused among foreign respondents.

"European law is quite clear on the issue and the scientific reasons are solid. I will continue not to visit Malta until the excessive and non-selective hunting issue is resolved there," said one respondent.

Owners of bird-watching companies and professional wildlife tour guides vowed they would never include Malta on their itineraries. Quoting examples of the benefits other countries were gaining from such tourism, they highlighted how much Malta was losing out.

The country has earned itself a negative reputation when it could have been promoted for its eco-tourism had its wildlife been protected instead.

Respondents asked: "Why are you letting a minority of your citizens do so much damage to your image in the EU?"

The negative repercussions of spring hunting were also far-reaching in that it was not only detrimental to the environment, but also to tourism and the economy, shedding a bad light on Malta as the "shame of Europe". Respondents did not mince their words when it came to objecting to spring hunting, describing the "unacceptable" practice as "Neanderthal"; "disastrous"; "an archaic tradition that is harming Malta and Europe's natural heritage"; a "despicable hobby"; a "needless, wasteful sport"; "barbaric, non-democratic, selfish and heathen"; "senseless and appalling actions of a selfish but significant minority"; and "only practised by uncivilised, ignorant and uneducated people".

Maltese men were also ridiculed about the virility they sought through hunting.

It was about time Maltese hunters recognised that shooting birds was not a God-given right, but was increasingly seen as unjustified and barbaric, a respondent said.

"Lay off our birds of migration," was the general cry. Birds migrating through Malta belonged to everyone, and it was everyone's right to enjoy them.

Tradition was no excuse, said one respondent, stressing that just because things have always been done one way, it did not make them right. There was no justifying the shooting of migratory birds on their way to breeding grounds.

Respondents asked who would be footing any fines imposed by the EU - the hunters or the public?

On a broader note, they questioned: "Why did we join the EU if we have to try and fight it on every issue that carries votes?"

"If Malta wishes to remain in the EU, it should abide by civilised conservation practices as do most member states."

The government was not completely out of the line of fire either, with respondents calling it weak and urging it to take a serious stand on the issue.

Political parties were urged to unite and stop hunters bullying them, while a referendum on the issue was also suggested.

On the other side of the fence, spring hunting should be allowed since it was the main reason why many hunters and trappers voted in favour of EU membership, maintained an outnumbered respondent.

"Leave hunters in peace," said another.