Hunting regulations shot down

Both the Federation for Hunting and Conservation (FKNK) and BirdLife yesterday shot down new hunting regulations a few hours after they were unveiled by the government.

The amendments, published in the Government Gazette, were followed in the afternoon by a government statement saying their main aim was to curb abusive hunting through the introduction of harsher measures.

To this effect, the regulations introduce the possibility for the courts to permanently revoke a hunter's licence to carry a weapon in the case of a relapser.

Moreover, penalties of aggravated offences have been doubled and will now go up, in the case of fines, to Lm6,000, and jail terms of two years.

Both the hunters' lobby and BirdLife were unequivocal in their criticism of the amendments, pointing out that their reactions were, however, "preliminary".

Hunters' federation secretary Lino Farrugia said the regulations do not reflect a list of points the hunters' lobby agreed upon with the government.

His reaction, Mr Farrugia specified, was preliminary, given that he was still reading through the amendments. He said the federation had taken part in "countless meetings" between May and November last year with a task force the Office of the Prime Minister had specifically set up to deal with the matter.

"We had discussed endlessly a series of issues and even agreed on a number of amendments but here there is hardly anything of what we agreed upon. BirdLife, on the other hand, had one meeting and both their proposals were taken on board," he added.

The BirdLife proposals Mr Farrugia referred to were those of introducing harsher penalties for abusers and barring hunting from seaside areas.

However, on this last point, BirdLife executive director Tolga Temuge said the government had only superficially adopted what BirdLife had recommended.

BirdLife, he said, had proposed a 200-metre no-hunting zone all around the Maltese coast and the reason behind it was to enforce, conclusively, the ban on hunting at sea.

The government, on the other hand, introduced a 50-metre zone around public beaches.

Mr Temuge insisted that the reason behind BirdLife's proposal was to protect sea birds and because some birds are at their most vulnerable when they are near cliffs and other such habitats. In this respect, he insisted, the government's move would do little to help.

What is more, Mr Temuge, said, the government was "lying" when it said in its statement that the amendments were the result of several meetings with BirdLife and the hunters. He said BirdLife had only had one meeting while the hunters had had several, a comment sustained by Mr Farrugia's own comment.

On this point, the government said it did not want to be drawn into an issue over how many meetings were held. "The truth is that Birdlife had the opportunity to present its proposals for the government's consideration and that is in itself adequate."

The government also contradicted the NGO on the proposals, which Mr Temuge claimed BirdLife had made. Birdlife's proposal was that "no person shall carry a firearm, whether loaded or not, that is not in its case, or discharge any firearm within a stipulated distance, from any beach, the government said. In fairness sake, it added, even if the government's proposal does not reflect Birdlife's proposal to the letter, the least one would expect from Birdlife would be to support a step in the right direction.