UK hunting regulations

From the comfort of her Xlendi home, Mrs Haines (The Sunday Times, April 15) attributed to me statements that I had never asserted.

Where did I ever state that hunting in the UK is wrong, or that all UK residents support shooting? She also questions politicians' credibility. Is she trying to imply that politicians are liars? Or are these statements spurred by her utter bias?

Mrs Haines seems quite conversant with the UK firearm regulations. Having regularly shot as a paying guest in the British Isles since 1982, I can assure her that my knowledge of these regulations is first-hand and that I have never been questioned or have encountered any problems with the British authorities.

Mrs Haines might want to explain what she is implying by stating "with Mr Zammit's mindset he would never have been allowed to keep a firearm in the first place".

I also never stated that I am proud of the birds shot in the UK. On the contrary, it makes her countrymen proud. As further proof of her lack of knowledge of the subject, she states that pigeons (hopefully she means wood pigeons) are not shot for the pot. Has she never been to a game dealer? Is she not aware of the wood pigeons being exported to the continent to grace some Frenchman's cuisine? And what about the shooting of crows, magpies, jays, gulls, foxes and other pests - are these also shot for the pot?

She goes on about no migratory birds being listed. Is she not aware that woodcock, geese and ducks and other wildfowl migrate to Britain? She also implies that shooting protected birds would result in prosecution. It would have been more enlightening had she referred to numerous such incidents that occur in the UK. Raptors are regularly covertly poisoned, trapped and shot to protect reared game birds and racing pigeons. If she has any doubts about this I suggest she visit the Defra site "Wildlife Crime" at www.defra. gov.uk. Or is she more intent on criticising what goes on in Malta while ignoring similar incidents in her own country?

Rightly, such criminal behaviour should be condemned and penalised. For her information, as she seems to be ignorant of what Maltese regulations stipulate, locally such crimes also carry the same penalties (viz. revocation of licences, confiscation of weapons, etc.) In her opinion, wouldn't a Lm6,000 fine and a two- year prison term be enough of a deterrent?

Mrs Haines refers to the "undisciplined rabble" as being the cause of having tarnished Malta's international reputation. This rabble also exists in the UK, yet their actions go unnoticed and they do not grace front pages on national papers nor do they tarnish the UK's international reputation. It is the complete manipulation and distortion of facts by the anti-hunting lobby, or rather "rabble", and the prominence given to these issues by the media that have tarnished Malta's reputation. It has also influenced unknowledgeable people like herself to write similar biased letters which was the point I was making in the first instance.

Finally, I have to tell Mrs Haines that she is wrong again in presuming that my day is over. If the ECJ rules against spring hunting in Malta. I assure the dear lady that at the cost of coughing up my hard-earned cash, I will be a more than welcome hunting guest in her country of origin where hunting is sanctioned by the EU (whether she likes it or not) 365 days a year.