Pierre Zammit, Birkirkara
Status of turtle doves and hunters
Richard Cachia Zammit (May 9) admits that the global status of the turtle dove is authoritatively placed in the category of Least Concern, denoting a widespread and abundant population.
He also admits that "global" includes North Africa and Central Asia. That is exactly our position. The Maltese Islands are geographically at altitude of 35.54'0" N, and Cape Bon in Tunisia is at a latitude of 36.45'0" N.
This means that Malta is further down south than the coast of North Africa.
Without the slightest doubt this puts Malta, in ornithological terms, and consequently for the purposes of hunting, firmly within the North African orbit. No amount of fact twisting by BirdLife Malta is ever going to change that.
Additionally, Mr Cachia Zammit should note that the turtle dove Management Plan 2007 - 2009 of the European Commission (DG ENV B2) itself asserts that "the turtle-dove is still a widespread and fairly common species in Southern Europe". It is in Northern Europe that the species is in decline.
In Britain where the turtle dove is protected, a 2005 study by the Game Conservancy Trust found the cause to be the destruction of suitable nesting habitat and reduced food availability. By contrast, in France where the turtle-dove is heavily shot and there are 1,350,000 hunters (the largest number in the EU), the turtle-dove population is healthy and increasing.
One other crucial point is that the turtle dove has a vast range, with an estimated Extent of Occurrence in Europe alone of 1,000,000 - 4,500,000 square kilometers, and globally 10,000,000 sq. km. As far as the turtle-dove is concerned, Malta with its 315 sq. km. is just an insignificant speck on the map. One need not be a genius to understand that the decline or abundance of turtle-doves in Europe is entirely unconnected with Maltese hunting.
On the matter of spring-hunting it is, therefore, not a case of Maltese hunters ignoring the facts or interpreting them as suits them best, as Mr Cachia Zammit writes.
It is only a matter of an EU trying to impress other member states by bullying tiny Malta, as stated in less undiplomatic language by Commissioner Stavros Dimas. If all the true facts and figures were to be taken into account without being manipulated, Malta should win the ECJ case hands down. Unfortunately, however, Malta has become an EU pawn in a game in which logic is replaced by the bible of the birds directive, at the expense of justice.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
17 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Richard Cachia Zammit
May 19th 2008, 08:41
Alfred this is absurd. Are you saying that Rollers do not breed in Europe? Please everyone check it out. I don't know why I'm wasting my time, after all we are members of the EU now and the EU doesn't allow hunting of migratory birds in spring throghout all of its member states for conservation reasons. That's a fact and like it or not, we have to live with it.
Alfred E. Zammit
May 19th 2008, 01:09
Richard ….Let me put it differently. Rollers migrating over Malta have been ringed and recovered in European countries, but that does not make them European. In a previous comment, you said that “the report is totally against spring hunting”, but now you write “this is not an anti-hunting report, but a strategy ….”!! You mention that FACE was involved in the report.
In case you don't know, FACE lawyers are helping the lawyers representing the Maltese government in the case brought against it by the EU Commissioners. Do you think FACE does not know what it’s doing? I agree that a strategy to conserve the Turtle-dove is something that every decent Maltese hunter in his right senses should be thankful for. And for this very reason, I think it was a mistake not to have asked for the reasoned opinions of a Maltese hunters’ representative. I'm convinced that the plan is just a thinly-veiled attempt to ban hunting (of turtle-doves) completely. This would fit in perfectly with the aims of BirdLife Malta and its abolitionist supporters.
Richard Cachia Zammit
May 18th 2008, 21:46
Alfred....the FACE was also involved in the report and as for P Zammit making a good case for Maltese hunting as being within the North African boundary, that doesn't hold either because practically all Turtle Doves ringed abroad and recovered here in Malta were ringed in European countries showing that Turtle Doves migrating over Malta are European birds so stop mentioning North Africa. And if this report is against Spring hunting that doesn't apply only to Malta but to all member states. This is not not an anti-hunting report but a strategy to conserve the Turtle Dove in Europe. This is conservation in action, something which the modern hunter should understand and embrace.
Alfred E. Zammit
May 18th 2008, 17:41
Dear Mr. Cachia Zammit, I’m sorry to note that it is you who are being selective with the truth. Pierre mentioned both England (turtle-doves in decline) and France (birds on the increase), and made a good case for Maltese hunting as being within the North African boundary, which you cannot deny. The Management plan is not based on one source, and I’m not saying that there is nothing valid about it. What I’m saying is that since the turtle-dove is listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive, and is a huntable species in Malta, the least the EU should have done is to invite a Maltese hunter representative, assuming it wanted to arrive at a balanced assessment of the local situation. As it is, BirdLife Malta was the only voice from Malta the EU listened to, and we now know why “the report is totally against spring hunting”.
Richard Cachia Zammit
May 18th 2008, 15:21
Sylvana, David and Alfred, the report I'm quoting is the same report that Mr P Zammit quoted when refering to the Turtle Doves in France. So if a hunter quotes something from a source it is OK but if the same source is quoted by a non-hunter than the source is not good. You have proven me right again. Hunters and now even pro-hunters, ignore the facts or twist them to suit them. And David plus Alfred, so this Turtle Dove management plan is not valid because according to you it is not an EU report but a Birdlife report. Pity because in it there is reported that according to figures given by Maltese authorities in 2004, an average of only 1 Turtle Dove per hunter is taken in Malta. But this is just a foreign report and Birdlife was involved so it must be a birdlie .
Fabian Borg.
May 18th 2008, 11:08
Dear Franco Farrugia,
Your questions to Sylvana are really interesting and I am taking up some space to give you my answers.
What I would have preferred is that the Maltese Authorities were 100% accurate with information about membership before putting in front of us the question about the EU Referendum.
I know it is the 21st Century and this should not stop me from practicing a traditional pastime which is sustainable and totally legal (with an unbiased wooking justice system).
What I would prefer is that the same people I probably helped myself to join the EU do not turn against me now calling me BLIND, a murderer and a criminal. After all this practice you are condemning has been accepted and asserted by the Maltese Government and is being defended by the Maltese Governemnt which most probably you too support.
This situation is all causing a sort of racial hatred within the Maltese people which seem to be dividing between Hunters, and anti Hunters. There is also a vast majority of the Maltese people who would care less about this as they have their own problems to live with.
Given the choice today most hunters, including thousands of PN supporters, would be ready to choose to be out of the European Union and that idea if not that farfetched especially after the Lisbon treaty. It seems that in uniting, the European Union is seeking to dissolve after some time so that maybe the reason for the reduction in red tape for any member to leave the union.
Knowing of this possibility my personal opinion is to seek the best possible solution which best suits both ends in this conflict and all this is possible while being members of the EU with good will from all ends. If this does not happen we cannot exclude other possibilites at this point.
After all even Birdlife Malta receives funds from the EU and this should not be taken from them, even though I am partly sponsoring them from the taxes I pay, but taxes should be paid anyway so I care less about that.
Birdlife could use their funds in a more constructive manner but instead they choose to damage the image of Malta, Maltese people and Maltese hunters. That I cannot accept !
Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
May 18th 2008, 10:42
Mr. Farrugia, I have NEVER used partisan arguments. It seems you are the one to bring these arguments in. Be honest and state whether you accept the way the EU and Maltese politicians have lied to the hunters. That is the argument.
I would have had no problems with the EU if it had kept to what was agreed. The Maltese cannot be trampled upon whether it is about hunting, eventually abortion and other matters. That is what I CANNOT ACCEPT.
Hope this will make you think straight and attack arguments and not persons. ...After all we are in the 21st century!!
Franco Farrugia
May 18th 2008, 09:41
@ Ms Zarb Darmanin: Be honest with yourself and put yourself this question: would YOU have preferred Malta NOT becoming a member of the European Union JUST BECAUSE there are a few Maltese citizens who will not see the light, who will not realise this is the 21st century and who therefore would not give up a pastime? Would it have been worth it? Think about it before you answer. And please, don't go into partisan-politics mode!
David Borg Cardona
May 18th 2008, 08:22
@RCZ - I have woken up and I woke up many a year ago when like all of the hunters I noticed that the organisation you form part of was out on a campaign to try and ban all types of hunting in Malta. I have challenged them many a time to prove the contrary and to date none of them has come forth with a contradictory answer. You will not substantiate this either I imagine..
I am not ignoring facts believe me, I am trying to show the public that the minimal taking of turtle doves in spring will not effect the European population where it is still widespread and fairly common as per the the Turtle Dove management plan issued by Birdlife ermm sorry the EU.
M. Cardona
May 18th 2008, 08:06
Such thwarting of facts can only be the doing of Birdlife Malta and co. The IUCN red list with regards to the Turtle dove, specifically denotes that "In using these guidelines it is important to note that national or regional assessments are NOT eligible for inclusion on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, unless they are for endemics." This means that a regional decline does not make eligible the turtle dove for inclusion in the red list of threatened species.
It may be true that North-Western countries in this case the UK have experienced a decrease in the number of turtle doves. In a Maltese framework the fact however remains, that abolitionists are repeatedly trying to hide that in the UK which remains the only region which has experienced a decline, this has coincided with a general decrease of other farmland birds which share its diet and habitat and that thus UK ornithologists attribute this decrease to the intensification of farming, use of pesticides and herbicides and habitat loss.
For the "well-intending??" protectionists here's the distribution of the turtle dove, "Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria; Andorra; Armenia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Bahrain; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Burkina Faso; Cameroon; Cape Verde; Chad; China; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Egypt; Eritrea; Estonia; Ethiopia; Faroe Islands; Finland; France; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Germany; Ghana; Gibraltar; Greece; Guinea; Guinea-Bissau; Hungary; Iran, Islamic Republic of; Iraq; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Jordan; Kazakhstan; Kuwait; Kyrgyzstan; Latvia; Lebanon; Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Mali; Malta; Mauritania; Moldova, Republic of; Mongolia; Montenegro; Morocco; Netherlands; Niger; Nigeria; Oman; Poland; Portugal; Qatar; Romania; Russian Federation; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Serbia; Sierra Leone; Slovakia; Slovenia; Somalia; Spain; Sudan; Sweden; Switzerland; Syrian Arab Republic; Tajikistan; Togo; Tunisia; Turkey; Turkmenistan; Ukraine; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; Uzbekistan; Western Sahara; Yemen.
So once more, and maybe the point one day strikes home, " national or regional assessments are NOT eligible for inclusion on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, unless they are for endemics."
For all its worth, in the hope that some well-meaning and truthful conservationist finally come to realisation, I once more reiterate that protection of a numerous species which is not in the least endangered is counter-productive since the same efforts could justly be invested in the protection of really endangered species and habitats.
Alfred E. Zammit
May 17th 2008, 23:30
Dear Mr. Cachia Zammit,
please take a good look yourself at the Turtle-dove Management plan you refer to, and on page 3 you will find that “Comments, data, or general information were generously provided by” and there follows a list of eleven names, among which – guess who – Joseph Mangion, Birdlife Malta. So, instead of asking David to wake up, do so yourself please, and admit that what you call “facts not issued by Birdlife but by the EU itself” are in reality unsubstantiated opinions fed expressly to the EU by the BirdLife Malta leadership. This is yet another proof of what we have been saying all along about BirdLife Malta’s malicious campaign against Maltese hunters.
Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
May 17th 2008, 19:54
If Mr. Cachia Zammit allows me to commenthis mention of "ignoring facts" came much as a surprise to me. He has been ignoring facts for a long, long time. I am still waiting for his condemnation regarding assurances to hunters by high Maltese authority.
This gentleman chose to conveniently avoid commenting on Mr. Zammit 's valid information with regard to France's turtle-dove population notwithstanding the high number of hunters.
This comes as no surprise. When were BirdLife's comments ever based on facts? Always mentioning millions of birds shot and never being substantiated. In fact, you are quoting a foreign report!
Richard Cachia Zammit
May 17th 2008, 19:54
David wake up please, I was quoting from an official document commissioned by The European Commission. The same document that your friend Pierre Zammit quoted to try and justify spring shooting. This document is available for download from the internet. Again David you are proving me right by ignoring facts, facts not issued by Birdlife but by the EU itself. David, try and convince THEM that they are wrong.
David Borg Cardona
May 17th 2008, 17:16
Richard,, Once again the usual lullaby about us decimating the whole turtle dove population in Spring.... Give us concrete proof and maybe I'll stop yawning! Caritas est...
Richard Cachia Zammit
May 17th 2008, 15:07
Pierre, thanks for proving me right. It is evident that just like all the others, you are ignoring facts and intepreting them as suits you. Have you really read the report about the Turtle Dove Management Plan 2007-2009? I doubt it because it reports things exactly as I mentioned in my letter and further more the report is totally against spring hunting. I just can't believe that you mentioned this report to justify spring hunting when the same report stipulates amongst other things that EU countries should "Avoid any derogation for spring hunting or trapping" as well as "spring hunting is not sustainable as it targets adult birds", Unbelievable but just the same thanks for pointing out this report as it makes good reading and also proves my point further.
Malcolm Zarb
May 17th 2008, 14:13
Without going into the merits of data produced. One can easily add to your argument.
If Malta is made up of 400K people, in comparison to the millions of Europeans which should also be allowed to puff up pollution as much as we want, because our contribution is too small to make any significance. We should also not make any investment in any environment freiendly measure (like solar power etc..) for the same reason.
Tony Gatt
May 17th 2008, 10:56
Mr. Pierre Zammit's well-written letter shies away from the fact that it's not the shooting of turtle doves that turns most people away from sympathising with the hunting fraternity, but the indiscriminate shooting of rare birds, as happened last year. That was why the government closed the Spring season early. I'm not a member of BirdLife but I can't remember them showing pictures of shot turtle doves in the newspapers. I dare say it is only a minority of hunters who break the law, but as everyone knows bad news sells newspapers much better than good news.