Hunting as it should be

In the past, hunting was the prime source of food for mankind, and all men were hunters. Development has brought about a change in this instinctive practice. City dwellers who obtain their food from supermarkets have lost their primeval instinct and unknowingly ignore the fact that all meat is not born in plastic bags, but reared, fattened and slaughtered in abattoirs.

These people, far removed from the unpleasant realities of life and conditioned by the fictional trappings of modernity, are usually the first to condemn hunting as a barbaric, obsolete practice.

Hunting has now evolved into a regulated form of relaxation and recreation enjoyed by many people worldwide. It also provides the hunter with a source of healthy food. In fact the benefits of eating game are steadily being promoted as part of a healthy diet.

The situation in Malta is different. Until very recently hunting regulations were not observed, except by those hunters who realised the need for discipline. Obtaining a hunting licence required only the signatures of two other hunters and a clean-conduct police certificate. Police enforcement was almost non-existent. As a result, irresponsible hunters were left to their own devices, shooting of protected birds became rampant, and the situation was allowed to degenerate almost into a national disgrace.

The anti-hunting lobby exploited the situation. They lost no opportunity to publicise hunting offences. They organised tourism boycotts, sabotaged Malta's stands at overseas travel fairs, were instrumental in freezing EU funds, and even manipulated Malta-EU negotiations over hunting. Still underestimating the lengths to which the anti-hunters were prepared to go, the authorities remained passive and gradually Malta acquired a bad name. Matters came to head, and now what the Maltese government had promised to hunters prior to EU accession has been put in serious doubt. The future of spring hunting is now to be decided by the European Court of Justice.

In a late bid to prevent the matter being taken to the ECJ and to show the world that the environment was still on the agenda, new bird protection regulations were hurriedly drawn up. They were for the main part totally inappropriate. Some were so ambiguous that not even the police knew how or whether they could enforce them properly. One or two very discreet U-turns were made within a few months, which did not reflect well on the Environment Minister.

The Ornis Committee was the main cause of the anomalies. The only record it probably holds is in the number of resignations of its chairmen and members. Not because there were no persons of integrity, but because the nature of its functions and composition is a non-starter. Various opinion-makers have commented about its 'use' as a screen or scapegoat for the minister. In spite of, or rather because, of its recommendations, no other country has so miserably mismanaged matters pertaining to hunting.

What all responsible hunters long for is suitable legislation that would ensure sustainable hunting according to the limitations and conditions pertaining to Malta. That apart, there is a need for administrative guidelines to enable the responsible hunting bodies to co-operate with the police in a discreet way to enforce the regulations. The few irresponsible hunters must be reined in, if for no other reason, not to be used by unscrupulous anti-hunters to tarnish Malta's international reputation.

It is earnestly to be hoped that Lawrence Gonzi will tackle the hunting issue in an intelligent and serious way, and reach a fair and equitable solution. This is a matter of doing the right thing. Enact fair legislation, enforce it without fear or favour, root out potentially corrupt enforcers, put extremists on both sides in their place, replace the incongruous Ornis Committee with a small team of knowledgeable advisers, keeping an eye and a firm grip on what goes on.