Strong support for decision to close hunting season

The vast majority (87 per cent) of respondents to the latest timesofmalta.com poll believe that the government was justified in ending spring hunting so abruptly.

Some questioned how abrupt the action actually was and felt it was long overdue.

The more optimistic, however, felt it was better late than never, while others congratulated the government on its tough stance.

"The violent minority cannot hold law-abiding citizens at ransom through threats and Rambo attitudes," one respondent wrote.

Another said the government should take the same stand if the same kind of slaughter took place in autumn.

The move seems to have earned the government some brownie points - votes, in this case - with one respondent saying he was sceptical about the Nationalist Party's policies, but were the party to ban hunting completely, he would certainly vote for them in the next election. Others too pledged their votes to the PN.

The party had finally woken up to the fact that a lot of supporters were against hunting, one respondent said, while another maintained that a political party that sided with the hunters would definitely be signing its own death sentence.

On the other hand, threats of not voting for the PN came in from the hunters, but another respondent suggested that both political parties condemn the hunters and say they do not want their votes, rendering their threats meaningless.

The unfairness of punishing all hunters - even the law-abiding ones - was highlighted by a number of respondents, who felt it was unjust that those who broke the law and those who respected it were treated in exactly the same manner.

"Those responsible should be found and brought to justice. It is unjust to penalise all hunters when only a few were irresponsible and acted illegally," said one respondent.

The move was also seen as an excuse on the government's part to abolish hunting once and for all. "It is never right to stop something just because a group of people are infringing the law," a respondent said.

The blanket punishment was criticised by another hunter, who said he only shot quail and turtledoves, and described himself as a passionate sportsman.

But others felt it served them right for not turning the tide against those who broke the law, and a name-and-shame system within the hunting community was proposed.

Others called for harsher penalties, particularly in view of the fact that gunshots were still heard after the season was declared closed.

In the case of difficulty to apprehend hunters, roadblocks should have been organised around certain areas and vehicles checked for shotguns and dead birds, it was suggested.

The government should have consulted with the law-abiding, professional hunter on where it was most likely that the birds would fly over Malta and send enough patrols to make their presence known, suggested one respondent.

Polls on hunting always seem to attract foreign respondents, who are vociferous about their opposition to the issue. An English countryside officer, protecting wildlife in a small part of the UK, was appalled at the annual slaughter in Malta and said it should not happen in a civilised society.

Among the 13 per cent of respondents who felt the government's action last week was unjustified were those who said the government was to blame for illegal hunting because of its "improper enforcement" and that the Environment Minister had acted fast and in anger.

More retaliation and vandalism were expected, and more police patrols would be required to catch the culprits, some respondents argued.

Current poll:
Is the Union Haddiema Maghqudin justified in threatening sympathy strikes in defence of hawkers?