An overwhelming number of respondents to a timesofmalta.com poll have chastised the government's reasoning for sanctioning spring hunting.
Over 85 per cent showed their disapproval for the government's stand in a survey that elicited nearly 4,000 votes in five days.
A number of readers claimed they would abstain from voting for the Nationalist Party in the upcoming election because of the controversial decision.
Spring hunting for two bird species is allowed in Malta as the government applies a derogation under article 9 of the Birds Directive. Every year, however, Malta has to justify the derogation, which is allowed only if it is proven that there is no other alternative to spring hunting.
The contentious decision was taken last Monday, prompting a chorus of disapproval among environmentalists. The same scathing criticism was manifest in the timesofmalta.com poll results, with many comments directed at the government.
"The government knows it has no case, and is simply trying to buy time - and the hunters' votes for the next election," one respondent summed it up.
"The government is completely spineless in the face of an upcoming election and has passed the buck to Brussels," another said.
One of the reasons people voted for the EU was to put an end to hunting abuses, many respondents argued, and it was, therefore, insulting to hear the government say it had a mandate to allow spring hunting.
The vast majority argued that the government, the Nationalist Party or the hunters' federation should fork out any impending fines as a result of legal action initiated by the European Commission.
Some respondents identified themselves, even providing their identity card numbers as proof that they would not vote for the party they traditionally support.
"This was the decisive factor for voting against the Nationalists in the upcoming election," one man said, and another vowed to vote for Alternattiva Demokratika.
"Here are two votes, mine and my wife's... When we voted for the EU, the Maltese voted in the interest of the country and not to open spring hunting. On the contrary, we voted for a better environment," said another man who identified himself.
One respondent said the government had better think twice if hoped to garner more votes from its stunt - "because it has surely lost mine and many others like me".
A member of an animal rights' organisation concluded: "Animals don't vote, but we do".
Some respondents argued that hunting should be outlawed in an overpopulated and overbuilt island.
Hunters should be fined for littering the countryside with shotgun shells and spoiling the water table with lead shots, one respondent suggested.
Several foreigners also lent their voice to the debate with one Englishman claiming that holidaying here during certain times of the year is "like being in a war zone".
Malta could be a perfect location to develop a thriving tourism industry, from bird-watching holidays, another foreigner suggested.
The pro-hunting comments were few and far between. One reader accused The Times of spreading hatred towards the hunting community.
"If the hunters managed to obtain a derogation for spring hunting let them enjoy it and punish severely those who do not obey the rules," a respondent suggested.