Bird shooting incidents

We refer to the news report (June 6), complete with photo, about a honey buzzard that had been shot and brought in live to the BirdLife (Malta) office by a person who said "he found it in Zabbar". We condemn the downing of this protected bird unconditionally.

It was also reported that "since the season came to an abrupt end on May 10, no fewer than 51 incidents of illegal hunting were reported directly to the organisation, BirdLife (Malta), by 'reliable sources'". Assuming that these sources are indeed reliable, and that none of the sources referred to the same incident, we note 51 incidents of illegal hunting from May 10 until June 5, a period of 26 days. This means an average of two incidents per day. Considering that there are an estimated 16,000 hunters who shoot, we think that 51 breaches of the law over almost one month demonstrate what we have been maintaining all along, namely, that the vast majority of the hunters are keeping strictly within the law.

These findings of Birdlife (Malta) confirm that the vast majority of hunters suffered a great injustice when the spring hunting season was abruptly ended.

The police and members of the armed forces failed miserably to bring the few law-breakers to justice, and the Environment Minister, with the approval of the Prime Minister, opted for the unjust measure of collective punishment, an action that goes against the Constitution of Malta. What the Prime Minister should have done was to hold an inquiry into whether the police and the armed forces are really doing their job. He could still do so.

We question why this newspaper keeps on giving prominence to these reports of BirdLife. If they really wished to stop hunting abuses, their informants should report them immediately to the Administrative Law Enforcement unit of the police. The ALE are obliged, and we emphasise "obliged" to take action. Otherwise we can only conclude that this newspaper is colluding with the bird-fundamentalists to give the impression that the hunting laws are constantly being broken by all and sundry.

We request an explanation as to why the editor of The Times permits the following wording: "Despite the closure of the spring hunting season three weeks ago, reports of illegal hunting and shot protected species continued to flood in to the Birdlife office". Do two alleged incidents per day make "a flood"? We demand that The Times puts an end to this perverted way of sensationalising the issue of illegal hunting.

Editor's note:
In the item in question - a news item - The Times reported factually what Birdlife (Malta) had to say.