All birds have a right to protection

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 3rd 2008, 13:24

@ A Mizzi:

Yes, if the quote is taken out of context, it would seem that you are right.

Argument closed.

Richard Cachia Zammit

Oct 3rd 2008, 12:50

@Kenneth Cassar & A. Mizzi
The important thing is that we all agreed that with the present law enforcement, banning hunting will in no way stop the killing of protected birds. I am sure that we will end up with angry law abiding hunters, frustrated conservationists and only the poachers will be the winners. The fact is that all parties are against poachers and everyone should concentrate to eradicate this plague. Working together is next to impossible, so every party should do it’s best to stop illegal hunting. As I already said, turning your back when witnessing an illegality makes one an accomplice.

A. Mizzi

Oct 3rd 2008, 12:45

Right here:
'So basically I am also in favour of a ban and I have every right to believe that '
See it?
Argument closed I should hope.

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 3rd 2008, 11:25

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I'm still not impressed.
______________________________

@ A Mizzi:

What I said was:

"Legal hunting would only be abolished if the hunters themselves lose interest (unlikely) or if the majority turn vegetarians or vegans (highly unlikely for the forseeable future). A ban on legal hunting, although desirable to people like myself, is unrealistic, and so I would not waste time on it".

and

"I believe that if a total ban would be imposed instead of a restricted hunting season, more birds would be killed, because many hunters (or poachers, if you wil) would still go hunting as a personal vendetta and in defiance of the law".

Can't find any contradiction. Can you point it out, please?

A Mizzi

Oct 3rd 2008, 11:01

Mr Cassar,
I'm beginning to find this very boring but I have to explain it to you again. I said that although I know exactly what you meant, this is not what you originally expressed. The way you phrased your thoughts was entirely contradictory. On the one hand you declared yourself in favour of a ban and then went on to say that you weren't in favour for the reasons mentioned.
What you should have said was that in your ideal world hunting shouldn't exist but being the realist that you are you realise that a ban would have undesirable effects. Have I explained myself now???? My answer was in reply to your comment made to Mr. Zammit wherein you denied declaring yourself in favour of a ban, when in fact you had stated that you were.
I now consider this argument closed because it seems like yr not getting my point.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Oct 3rd 2008, 10:58

I urge you to read the comments again and pay special attention to the "you's" as placed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 3rd 2008, 10:44

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

You say that "when one attacks an argument, one does not start his accusations with a direct 'you'!!".

Where have you heard that? If one is replying to another, one would refer to the other as "you". Nothing wrong with that.

What I see as childish is the hundreds of exclamation marks and capital letters you frequently use, as if it adds any value to your posts.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Oct 3rd 2008, 08:44

Mr. A. Ellul, your mode of writing reminds me very well of a certain lawyer's writing. Is there some connection?!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, when one attacks an argument, one does not start his accusations with a direct 'you'!! Furthermore, I would expect you to substantiate your rude accusation. Just firing out rude adjectives is poor indeed!

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 3rd 2008, 07:15

@ A Mizzi:

It's not contradictory at all. Perhaps if I use an example that has nothing to do with hunting, you'll understand better.

Perhaps you have heard of the time of prohibitionism (of alcohol), where consuming any amount of alcohol was illegal. This was done to protect people from over-consuming alcohol, which would have harmful effect on people.

Soon after, it was discovered that the abolition of alcohol did not stop people from consuming alcohol. Actually, it made matters worse since alcohol was bought through the criminal black market. Therefore, it was decided to remove the ban but put controls.

Now, would you say that someone opposing the ban on alcohol is necessarily in favour of drinking alcohol? Someone who is even opposed to drinking a single glass of wine, if reasonable, would still oppose the ban, since the consequences of a ban would be worse. And no, this would not be contradictory at all.

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 3rd 2008, 07:07

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

Well, you and Mark and Alfred make a sweet trio. Shall we call you the three musketeers?

Mr Richard Cachia Zammit questions Alfred E Zammit because the latter said that Richard "want(s) to deprive hunters of that right by having hunting banned, and that "(T)hat is the classic example of emotions winning over reason", when that is not true at all. Richard already explained that while a ban on all hunting would be the ideal, in the circumstances it is not desirable since the effect would actually be more poaching, not less. If you try hard enough, you'll understand.

Richard Cachia Zammit

Oct 2nd 2008, 22:15

@Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
Correction, in this case I never said that I believe that banning hunting is impossible, I said that I believe that by banning hunting you will not be solving the poaching problem. And yes, I can very well understand that for an extremist it is very difficult to fathom that a person who is against hunting would admit that a hunting ban wouldn’t solve anything. I could do just like all the others and scream ban hunting but why should I when I know that that is not the solution. Actually I think that it would make things worse. Hitting at the poachers is what everyone should do.
PS You and Mr. A. Zammit also make a sweet pair (:-)

Alex Ellul

Oct 2nd 2008, 22:08

@ Sylvana-Zarb-Darmanin: please try to identify words in what I wrote that in any way indicate that I am, as you have accused me, rude, extremely arrogant, depriving you of your right to express your views, in the following:

"I was deadly serious when I said that you always manage to hit the nail squarely on your thumb, figuratively speaking; meaning that you always manage to produce mostly illogical argumentations, non-sequiturs and outright contradictions. Read all your comments and maybe you will realise that what you have collectively written during the past-months is all contradictory. The fact that we criticize your stand does not in any way mean that your comments make sense. In fact the multitude of commentators trying to put sense into your grey matter shows the opposite: That your comments are, illogical argumentations, non-sequiturs and outright contradictions.

One other thing: When you lose the argument, please do not try to defend yourself by insinuating that we attack you personally. We attack your comments, illogicities, non sequiturs and outright contradictions. Normally its the hunters who attack personally the anti-hunters, by breaking their cameras and their noses, and I am not trying to be funny or attacking you personally."

A Mizzi

Oct 2nd 2008, 20:24

Messrs Cassar and Cachia Zammit,

I understood perfectly well what was intended only the fact remains that what was actually stated was contradictory. I merely thought i'd point that out.
I note with satisfaction that at least you realise that a total ban would not help the poaching situation.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Oct 2nd 2008, 18:25

WHAT A SWEET PAIR!!!!!

Mr RCZ quoting you "I am also IN FAVOUR OF A BAN and I have every right to believe that". Now, exactly, why are you questioning Mr. A. Zammit? The facts are that you WISH to ban hunting but BELIEVE andf UNDERSTAND that your wish is impossible!!

Mr. Alex Ellul, are you trying to deprive me of my right to express my views, while also being extremely arrogant in the process?! The undesirous manner by whch you described my arguments, while also confirming that you have not missed a single one of my comments, further confirms that indeed I am hitting home!

There is a good English saying of what you can do with your thumb, but I will refrain from writing it here as I do not wish to stoop to your level of rudeness!!

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 2nd 2008, 15:51

You're welcome, Richard.

Actually, in the present circumstances, I believe that if a total ban would be imposed instead of a restricted hunting season, more birds would be killed, because many hunters (or poachers, if you wil) would still go hunting as a personal vendetta and in defiance of the law.

If, on the otherhand, hunting is only restricted, and more enforcement (and monitoring by environmental NGOs) takes place, less birds are actually killed than what would happen if a total ban was made. Not to mention the possible violent protests and confrontations.

In the present circumstances, restricted and controlled hunting, with proper enforcement, makes perfect sense.

Richard Cachia Zammit

Oct 2nd 2008, 15:01

@Kenneth Cassar
Thanks Kenneth, you understood me very well and you know why? Because you are not an extremist but just a realistic person. Extremists would never understand something like this because they can see only either black or white and nothing in between.

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 2nd 2008, 14:25

@ A Mizzi:

Mr Cachia Zammit's statements are not at all contradictory. Let me explain what Mr Cachia Zammit is saying here.

Mr Cachia Zammit would support a total ban on hunting, but since people would still hunt even if hunting is abolished completely, he would go for the second best (and only practical) option of seriously enforcing hunting laws.

A Mizzi

Oct 2nd 2008, 13:44

Mr Cachia Zammit, decide please. Are you in favour of a ban or not? You did actually make diametrically opposite statements in the same paragraph and I quote:
'So basically I am also in favour of a ban and I have every right to believe that'
vs
'banning hunting won’t solve anything because those irresponsible shooters will continue to break the law. I’d rather see illegal hunting eradicated than having on paper a total ban on hunting and '
So forgive the likes of Mr Zammit who naturally cannot make heads or tails of whether yr in favour of a ban or not.

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 2nd 2008, 13:34

@ Alfred E. Zammit:

I don't think anyone is asking for Lino Farrugia's resignation. The point was only mentioned when Sylvana said that Mario N. Pace should be expelled from Birdlife.

I personally believe that Lino Farrugia is an asset to the anti-hunting cause.

Richard Cachia Zammit

Oct 2nd 2008, 11:44

@Alfred E. Zammit
I suggest you read all my comments and not only one to get an idea of what I'm talking about, especially about banning hunting. Twice in my comments here I've said that I don't believe that banning hunting would help but just the same you accuse me of wanting hunting banned. I think YOU are a classic example of emotions winning over reason. You didn't even bother the follow the whole conversation but just started writing your reply.

Alex Ellul

Oct 2nd 2008, 00:04

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin: I didn't mean to be funny. I was deadly serious when I said that you always manage to hit the nail squarely on your thumb, figuratively speaking; meaning that you always manage to produce mostly illogical argumentations, non-sequiturs and outright contradictions. Read all your comments and maybe you will realise that what you have collectively written during the past months is all contradictory. The fact that we criticize your stand does not in any way mean that your comments make sense. In fact the multitude of commentotors trying to put sense into your grey matter shows the opposite: That your comments are, I repeat, illogical argumentations, non-sequiturs and outright contradictions.

One other thing: When you lose the argument, please do not try to defend yourself by insinuating that we attack you personally. We attack your comments, illogicities, non sequiturs and outright contradictions. Normally its the hunters who attack personally the anti-hunters, by breaking their cameras and their noses, and I am not trying to be funny or attacking you personally. I m deadly serious.

Alfred E. Zammit

Oct 1st 2008, 23:49

@ Richard Cachia Zammit

So “Wildlife belongs to everyone”, you wrote. And yet you would exclude hunters from the “everyone”. Thankfully the EU legislators think differently.

You also write about “the right to hunt”. And yet you, Mario N. Pace and others of your persuasion want to deprive hunters of that right by having hunting banned. That is the classic example of emotions winning over reason. What you, Pace, et al. should be asking yourselves is what right have you to want to remove that right.

You accuse Sylvana Zarb Darmanin of accepting “the fact that a secretary of a hunting organisation who has been convicted of inciting others to trap illegally shouldn’t resign”. What you should be asking yourself is why BirdLife Malta appear to have taken Sylvana's line and have not insisted on Mr Lino Farrugia’s resignation. It seems that the BLM decision makers have more sense than some of their members.

Richard Cachia Zammit

Oct 1st 2008, 23:19

@MARK MIFSUD BONNICI
As I said in my comment to the author of the letter, I am also against hunting because I believe that in this day and age, wild birds have enough threats to face as it is, let alone direct persecution just for pleasure. So basically I am also in favour of a ban and I have every right to believe that but just the same, that does not make me an extremist. I become an extremist only if I persist to reach my goal at all costs without considering the outcome. And in this case, I truly believe that as things are here in Malta, banning hunting won’t solve anything because those irresponsible shooters will continue to break the law. I’d rather see illegal hunting eradicated than having on paper a total ban on hunting and continue to witness protected birds being killed. The fact is that all parties involved be it law abiding hunters, conservationists and the authorities, are against illegal hunting. Working together seems impossible but at least, every party should really do it’s best to eradicate this plague.

R Muscat

Oct 1st 2008, 23:05

Well said Mr M Pace !!!!
Since yet again there has been rampant documented illegal hunting during this season it is time for a TOTAL BAN ON HUNTING. It is about time that those who think they are above the law including the squatters in Bahar ic caghaq, Armier, St Thomas bay ect. are dealt with in a Draconian manner. All those who abide by the law are fed up with this anarchy. With regards to comments regarding private property how many of these so called hunters and trappers truly own the land they are on. The truth is that many occupy public land and make it their own and to add insult to injury illegally block passage to the law abiding public as has been clearly demonstrated by the ramblers association. It is about time that the authorities show these Rambos that this is not the land of anarchy,

MARK MIFSUD BONNICI

Oct 1st 2008, 22:44

C Mallia

If this is the only way you can react to a perfectly logical argument what is your reply to my stating:

"There is nothing illegal about wanting to ban hunting. However, I am sure you agree this is the most extreme form of bird protection. Anyone sharing this view can only be considered as an extremist."

Can you deny this is extremism.

After all this is what the whole issue is about. A Birdlife member who wants to see all birds protected. Consequently a ban on bird hunting. This would only leave us with rabbit hunting. That is probably why you refer to lettuce, I don't believe gas is part of the argument.

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 1st 2008, 22:34

@ D Cachia:

You're mixing rights with privileges. No one grants moral rights. Either one has them or one does not.

Andrew Gatt

Oct 1st 2008, 22:27

@ A Mizzi........excuse the pun.........bang on!!!!!. You summed it up perfectly.

MARK MIFSUD BONNICI

Oct 1st 2008, 22:20

Charles Sammut

From: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041104005801.htm

"Professor James Craig, now retired, and Rimstidt looked first at lead corrosion and whether lead is leaching into the water table or streams. "Lead metal is unstable when it is in contact with air and water. It corrodes and forms hydrocerrussite, the white coating seen on old bullets in museums. That slows corrosion,"

However some lead escapes, he said. "But we learned that it is absorbed in the top few inches of soil and does not migrate beyond that. Lead is not very mobile. It does not wash away in surface or ground water."

This study was carried out on a shooting range in the National Forest near Blacksburg USA with 23 metric tonnes of lead shot present in a five acre area.

Considering hunting does not take place in a concentrated area and shots never fired in the same direction the concentration of lead shot is much less in Malta.

So rest assured your worries are unfounded.

I would be more concerned about lead contamination in the air we breathe considering the amount of cars on the road.

Only hunting seems to be your concern!!

Richard Cachia Zammit

Oct 1st 2008, 21:57

@Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
Are you calling selfish those who want to ban hunting? Wildlife belongs to everyone, so keep in mind that it is the hunters through their activities that are depriving others of birds and not the other way round. So much so, that the right to hunt can be withdrawn if you break the law or if it is no longer sustainable.

And as for hidden agendas, as far as you are concerned, everyone who comments something against hunting seems to have a hidden agenda.

Mr Mario N Pace has every right to believe that hunting should be banned and he also has every right to be a Birdlife member. The funny thing about all this is that you are insisting that Birdlife members who believe that hunting should be banned should be expelled but at the same time you accept the fact that a secretary of a hunting organisation who has been convicted of inciting others to trap illegally shouldn’t resign. Now who is using two weights and two measures?

D.Cachia

Oct 1st 2008, 21:54

When we say that animals have rights, we mean that humans, out of their own free will and for their own self interest, choose to grant to animals a privilege which is by its very definition, human (all too human). Therefore, even if we accept this ludicrous practice, we should not assume such rights to be a given. On the other hand, hunters have as much right to enjoy their hobby as Birdlife members have to see birds fly.

Sustainable hunting is not an obstacle to the latter. Therefore, calling for a complete hunting ban to me sounds like tree-hugging, soy-milk drinking, environmental extremist nonsense.

C Mallia

Oct 1st 2008, 21:23

@Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Birdlife is an organisation and no one, not even its members have a right to speak in its name, apart from the birdlife spokeperson themselves.

@ MMB

I have one saying to put it politely: Don't mix the gas with the lettuce....

@Mario N Pace

Although I agree with the concept that all birds in general are there for ALL to enjoy, reality is different and abolishing hunting is not the solution. It is practiced legally all over the world and like smoking, although in recent years, it is being looked down on by the general public as it infringes on the freedom of others, tolerance must also be shown. What is totally wrong in Malta is the rampant breaking of hunting laws, and it would be already a great achievement (nearly a dream) if this is properly controlled.

A Mizzi

Oct 1st 2008, 20:52

Just keep dreaming all of you. You will never get a ban on hunting. Hunting is legal all over Europe and the day it is stopped here would be the day it is stopped everywhere else. Many raptors are killed all over the continent, nobody clamours for a ban. You had better waste your energies on getting this inneffective administration to curb poaching. That way you might garner a little more respect from the law-abiding hunter and from the public at large who, as more time goes by, is realising what your game is.

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 1st 2008, 20:43

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

You ask me "remember last time you tried to defend someone?". Actually I don't. Perhaps you should remind me.

Mr. Mario N. Pace's manner of writing does NOT suggest that BidLife has a hidden agenda to abolish hunting. Mario, from what I gather, is just a member. If one of the FKNK members (actually there would be more than one) would want to hunt illegally, this would not mean that the FKNK's hidden agenda is for hunters to hunt all year round and to shoot at anything. It cuts both ways, dear Sylvana.

BirdLife, as far as I'm concerned, need not clarify any position. Would you perhaps also suggest that Birdlife expels any vegan members just because Birdlife is not a vegan organisation? Well, I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 1st 2008, 20:35

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

I never accused you of not saying the truth. In the particular case you mention, I only suggested that you might have misunderstood someone. When you pointed out that that particular person's post had been deleted by the moderator, I accepted that. I don't think this needs an apology from me, but if it makes you happy, I apologize ;)

Regarding my reputation, frankly I don't care if I have a bad reputation with hunters (a minority). I believe that my reputation with the overall majority is not blemished at all.

Regarding the court case I am "hampering about", I am properly informed. Lino Farrugia was found guilty of inciting someone to trap illegally and of disobeying police orders. Where's the half-truth in that?

As for me persistently "placing responsibility of FKNK MEMBERS who shoot illegally on protected birds on the Federation", I think you might be confusing me with someone else. If this is not the case, I would appreciate a quote and link showing otherwise.

And I repeat...if Birdlife members should be expelled for saying something legal, FKNK secretaries should be expelled for doing something ILLEGAL. Logical, dear Sylvana.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Oct 1st 2008, 20:27

Quite a number of contributors believe that by being offensive they can win an argument. Actually they will only be losing their integrity!

Mr J. Borg, which countryside are you expecting to enjoy - PRIVATE PROPERTY?! Furthermore, I urge you to check your knowledge regarding the open hunting season. This season starts on 1st September and end on 31st January. How can one expect to discuss a topic sensibly without being well-informed about it.

Mr Alex Ellul, I never praise myself for sure. I only point out that my comments are invariably attacked, mostly be attacking me personally. This I take to mean that they indeed hit home - including you. Please, please, I would prefer seeing you attacking my arguments instead of trying to be funny!

It appears that the anti-hunting lobby cannot stomach it that a non-hunter defends this traditional pastime!!

Anthony Miggiani

Oct 1st 2008, 20:18

Here's my hidden agenda:

Ban all hunting in Malta, forever, period!

MARK MIFSUD BONNICI

Oct 1st 2008, 19:13

Richard Cachia Zammit.

There is nothing illegal about wanting to ban hunting. However, I am sure you agree this is the most extreme form of bird protection. Anyone sharing this view can only be considered as an extremist.

You fail to see the connection between extremists in bird protection and illegal hunting. They both differ from our own views. I believe you are not in favor of a ban, or so you state. Wouldn't protecting all birds in effect mean - a ban. So why accept them if you don't agree with them.

I can only conclude that accepting them as members is only a matter of increasing your numbers. as I said previously, anything goes!

Alex Ellul

Oct 1st 2008, 18:16

@Sylvana Z. Darmanin. Your self-conceit knows no bounds. You praise yourself to high heaven, claiming that your comments always hit home. NO. Contrary wise you always manage to hit the nail squarely on your thumb.

J. Borg

Oct 1st 2008, 16:47

Beyond the fact that - under normal conditions - no creature looks forward to be killed, every member of the public (possibly especially vegetarians and vegans) look forward to enjoy some peaceful time in the countryside.

Hunting directly impedes such enjoyment and relaxation throughout most of the year (Sept.-March), and if it were not for the European Commission's firm stand on Spring hunting - we would have the countryside hijacked practically all year round.
And why? Just so that hunters can enjoy eating a dozen of quail/turtle doves?

There are thousands of hens on their way to the slaughterhouse daily - thus those who still need to vary their carnivorous diet can organise farms and 'killing ranges' for quail/turtle doves, satisfying both their stomachs and their killing desire, and finally let all of us get our common countryside back.
Moreover thereafter, any thug wandering with or using a shotgun outside these 'killing ranges' would stand out like a sore thumb.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Oct 1st 2008, 16:27

Mr. RCZ, It is what YOU are writing that makes no sense, or rather you are using two weights and two measures.

It is not illegal "to want to abolish hunting", only selfish and dictatorial. Hiding your true agenda is, however, cowardice.

I assure you that I definitely do not believe that I am important. It is you who invariably give importance to my COMMENTS.

Mr. Kenneth Cassar, remember last time you tried to defend someone? Mind you slip again! Mr. Mario N. Pace's manner of writing suggests that BidLife has a hidden agenda to abolish hunting. BirdLife needs to clarify its position. If it is not in agreement with what Mr. Pace wrote, then it is expected to condemn what he wrote and expel him as he is not in line with what BirdLife believes in and works to achieve. Contrarily, if it lets its members write in this manner, then I am afraid, as I see it, BirdLife is a toy in Mr. Conlin's hands!!

deb bugeja

Oct 1st 2008, 15:02

I agree 100%. All kind of birds have right to live. Why should they be massacred because some kind of idiot thinks its a joyful pastime for him.

Richard Attard

Oct 1st 2008, 14:22

Know that we are up to this argument can you tell me what is the difference between a quail huntid doun and a quail from a farm shell we stop eating this too

Charles Sammut

Oct 1st 2008, 14:21

Can someone elucidate me as to the effects which tons of lead shot dispersed over our limited countryside have on crops and ground water.

One of the detrimental effects of excess lead in food or water is a reduction in mental capacity. Recent (2005) studies have demonstrated that even low lead levels of lead in the blood of pregnant women resulted in a lowering of the offsprings' IQ. "Lanphear et al. (2005) concluded that “lead exposure in children who have maximal BPb levels < 7.5 μg/dL is associated with intellectual deficits.”

No wonder the hunting mentality in Malta is self-perpetrating.

Anthony Formosa

Oct 1st 2008, 13:59

Thanks Mr Pace for your letter, if the Maltese are intellegent enough they will realise what's birdlife mission is, and what are capable of doing to reach their objectives.No wonder why millions and massacres of dead birds are always mentioned on this tiny island.

MARK MIFSUD BONNICI

Oct 1st 2008, 13:06

Phil Humphries

Blood lust and killing for fun is what you term hunting to be.

Have you ever considered giving your opinion on fishing. Since I see no difference.

Blood lust, massacres, slaughter, mental illness have you ever considered getting professional help. I sincerely think you need it fast.

Andrew Gatt

Oct 1st 2008, 13:06

Oh come on! This very same Mario N Pace wrote another letter shortly after the Autumn season opened. He claimed to be hearing hundreds and hundres of shots daily, when in fact the turtle dove passage this year was even more pathetic than usual and I never heard more than a couple of dozen!! I hunt in the area he lives in and he must have been dreaming!

Also, remember the CABS statement recently that they heard hundreds and hundreds of shots but didn't see EVEN 1 legal game bird shot? Again, in the same area he lives in! Yet Mario N Pace apparently saw THOUSANDS OF QUAIL "massacred" ! Caught in a web of lies, Mario? U hallina! U HALLINA! Most of the Times readers are not a guillible as you seem to think.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Oct 1st 2008, 13:05

Mr. Kenneth Cassar, I would have rather expected you to find the decency to apologise for unjustly accusing me of not saying the truth. This is reflecting very badly on your reputation!

I urge you to inform yourself better on the Court Case you have been hampering on about. You are unjustly writing half-truths about it. Not that I am surprised about this!

Readers are aware that you have persistently placed responsibility of FKNK MEMBERS who shoot illegally on protected birds on the Federation. Going round in circles will get you nowhere. Likewise, BirdLife MEMBERS who write such extremist views, should indeed be expelled.

MARK MIFSUD BONNICI

Oct 1st 2008, 12:56

Richard Cachia Zammit

So you allow extremists in your ranks, and expect hunters to get rid of theirs.

I was always under the impression that extremism is an unwanted part of society.

It seems that for Birdlife in terms of bird protection anything goes.

If poachers harm the hunter's image. Your extremists put Birdlife in a no go area for the law abiding hunter and for Government who expects consensus between the Maltese hunter and Birdlife Malta.

Thank you for being so honest. Your statement makes Birdlife even less trustworthy.

Get rid of extremists in the same way you expect us to do.

Richard Cachia Zammit

Oct 1st 2008, 12:49

@Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
Is it illegal to want to abolish hunting? NO, so how come you are comparing it to ILLEGAL HUNTING? Please please, what you are saying does not make sense. And no...I've already said this, I am writing on MY behalf.
And last but not least, do you really believe that you are so important that I would treat you differently from any other with whom I don't agree. For your information I have replied to two other persons apart from you, one of whom is the author of the letter himself.

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 1st 2008, 12:37

@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:

You're missing a very important point. Mario N. Pace neither claimed to support, nor did anything illegal. As far as I know, it is still not illegal to wish or want all hunting to be abolished, as it is equally not illegal to wish or want all hunting to be legal.

And once again, it's funny how pro-hunting people like yourself would want Birdlife to "control its members" when all they did was voice a perfectly legal opinion. What is one to say of a hunting organisation not being able to control its secretary who incites someone to trap illegally, then?

harry borda

Oct 1st 2008, 12:35

Mr.Pace, fat chance you have for getting it your way! By the way this afternoon I will go hunting and will give a thought to your suggestions!

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Oct 1st 2008, 12:25

Mr. RCZ, in under an hour you have to reply to my comments. It pleases me to see that my comments always hit home!!

Are you saying that BirdLife’s hidden agenda is to abolish hunting?! Stop going round in circles please.

You have always placed the responsibility of poachers on FKNK. Likewise, the responsibility of such extremists is to be placed on BirdLife. Incidentally, I urged BirdLife to let me have their views. Are you writing on their behalf?

Are readers to assume that similar to “the aim of Birdlife is bird protection and there is nothing wrong if members have different ideas of how to achieve that” is to be applied to FKNK where “the aim of FKNK is hunting and there is nothing wrong if members have different ideas as to what they shoot”? DEFINITELY NOT, SIR. Similar to your persistent requests, BIRDLIFE SHOULD CONTROL SUCH EXTREMIST MEMBERS.

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 1st 2008, 12:02

Cont...

3. Legal hunting would only be abolished if the hunters themselves lose interest (unlikely) or if the majority turn vegetarians or vegans (highly unlikely for the forseeable future). A ban on legal hunting, although desirable to people like myself, is unrealistic, and so I would not waste time on it.

4. Being a member of Birdlife is not the same as being a committee member of Birdlife. The suggestion to expel people just because their goals go beyond that of the organisation they are members of, is ridiculous, especially coming from someone who still has not commented on the question of whether a secretary of a hunting organisation who has been convicted of inciting others to trap illegally should resign.

Kenneth Cassar

Oct 1st 2008, 12:02

Let's be honest here:

1. Unless one is a vegetarian or vegan, one cannot point fingers at legal hunting. If a protected bird is no different from an unprotected one, so is a quail no different from a chicken (or fish or other animals). Having the animal killed for you is no different from killing the animal yourself. In actual fact, a hunter's kill is most often more "humane" than life in a factory farm for chickens or other animals.

2. People who believe that all animals should be protected do not do so because they "whinge" at the sight of blood. Eating processed meat does not involve seeing any blood at all, but vegans and vegetarians still don't eat any meat.

Cont...

Richard Cachia Zammit

Oct 1st 2008, 11:58

@The author Mario N. Pace
You asked what is the difference between spring hunting and autumn hunting. When shooting migratory birds in spring you are killing them before they even had the chance to reproduce. I myself am against hunting but just the same I don’t believe that as things are, banning hunting will make a difference. Irresponsible shooters would still continue killing birds illegally. Better law enforcement is needed as well as the law abiding hunters should start pulling their socks and take this seriously. Turning your back when you see someone breaking the law makes you an accomplice. Every good citizen is DUTY-BOUND to report illegalities, including law abiding hunters.

Richard Cachia Zammit

Oct 1st 2008, 11:56

@Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
LOL Birdlife expelling members just because some want to stop hunting. What should FKNK do then? For your information the aim of Birdlife is bird protection and there is nothing wrong if members have different ideas of how to achieve that.

@Joe Camilleri
errr…the name is Birdlife…get it…Birdlife…the aim is to protect birds and not fish otherwise it would be called Fishlife. And don’t worry there are other organisations like BICREF who targets to protect the marine environment. As for the quails last weekend….haven’t you read the posting on the FKNK web sites? Do that and you can get a good idea of how many quails were shot.

Alfred E. Zammit

Oct 1st 2008, 11:32

@ Mario Pace. With members like you, no wonder BirdLife Malta and the Hunting Federation remain at loggerheads. “We must not differentiate between the killing of protected birds and those which are not”, you say. Precisely what irresponsible pseudo-hunters do!
The ‘right’ you question of hunters to kill gamebirds is the same ‘right’ allowing man to kill and eat other animals.
You maintain that the difference between spring hunting and autumn hunting is nothing. I suggest you refrain from taking up the matter with Commissioner Stavros Dimas. You see, he approves of autumn hunting, and your argument might persuade him to drop the case against spring hunting.
You claim to have witnessed thousands of quails being ‘massacred’ last weekend. Would you please explain where this happened? Most hunters I know still have to catch a quail this autumn.
@ Chris Finch . You suggest that the hunters report illegalities and you cannot understand why they are not doing this already. Your suggestion assumes that the police are immune to corruption, that some renegade hunters do not enjoy political protection, and that the identity of the informants will remain secret. Do you think your assumptions are correct?

Phil Humphries

Oct 1st 2008, 11:11

I don't have a problem with the time-honoured tradition of hunting FOR FOOD, but killing in order to satisfy an uncontrolable bloodlust is nothing more than a sickness of the mind. People who kill for fun are not deserving of respect in modern society where food is plentiful and relatively inexpensive (compared to lead ). Bloodlust and other mental illnesses are best treated in hospitals and asylums, not public places. And the very last thing that people suffering from bloodlust should be allowed to own is a gun.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin

Oct 1st 2008, 11:09

Seeing that Mr. Mario N. Pace, and also Mr. John Dingli (who commented below) are members of BirdLife, one would expect that BirdLife either admits that it is all after the total abolition of hunting or else EXPEL THESE INDIVIDUALS FROM MEMBERS!!!!

BirdLife, actions speak louder than words! I am waiting for your reaction to such extremist views.

Martyn Attard

Oct 1st 2008, 11:04

Do vegans love animals or do they hate plants ?

MARK MIFSUD BONNICI

Oct 1st 2008, 10:20

Mr. Pace

With your mentality Birdlife has a lot to loose. Apart from being a very idiotic suggestion it also points to Birdlife allowing extremists within their ranks.

The practice of hunting is a regulated worldwide practice, recognized by all birding societies including Birdlife. As for European hunters, the right to hunt is recognized and regulated by the EU. the huntable species are differentiated from those protected since they are considered as having a global population that permits sustainable hunting.

People of your sort who whinge at the sight of blood are part of society. According to these all animals are to be protected. They consider all meat eaters as murderers. Apart from considering your opinion as totally idiotic I respect your opinion and will not try to influence you to act otherwise. However I expect your sort to respect others that might not agree with you unfortunately this is never the case.

Your intolerance to other peoples opinion and their practice has no place in a civilized society. The irony of it all is that several vegans whilst condemning the killing of an animal find no objection with aborting a fetus.

l Galea

Oct 1st 2008, 10:09

Mr Utopia, I hope that you don't eat any meat or fish.

Joe Camilleri

Oct 1st 2008, 09:59

First of all, Birdlife Malta, which is managed by non-european people, is not in any way cotrolling hunting. A better statment would have been that the ALE are doing their best to control poaching (illegal hunting).
I also wonder how Birdlife Malta, whom they project themselves as the crusaders of nature, never talk about fishing. Don't fish have rights as well?

"massacre of thousands of quails " it seems that CABS are again spoonfeeding you on what words and numbers you say. I can see that the word 'massacre' has made it to birdlife's dictionary.

Last week or so, CABS said that there was a massacre of hundreds of birds of prey in one day, then about four days ago, the same CABS, shot down their own statment and said that from when they were here, about 90 offences were made involving birds of prey.

I wish that my bank account was this generous and for every one it gives me a thousand.

G.Zammit

Oct 1st 2008, 09:53

I think Bird Life & police should go and take a closer look at whats happening on the outskirts of Dingli (Dingli cliffs). Ive seen hunting going on during non-hunting season on many occassions. Makes you wonder, if they cant catch the hunters that are on the outskirts (right beside the street) they aint doing the best they can.

Edward Farrugia

Oct 1st 2008, 09:24

And what about cows, pigs, rabbits, horses,poultry, fish!!!! Come on! Hope you are vegetarian Mr. Pace

John Dingli

Oct 1st 2008, 09:21

I wish to say PROSIT well done for your short but very interesting article and I and all my family are four square and a 100 percent agredeable with you - the creation of God should be protected. My family are also Birdlife members. John Dingli.

Andrew Gatt

Oct 1st 2008, 09:20

Well well well! Finally, the first letter by Mario Pace that is truthful.............admitting that he and his Birdlife cronies only want one thing - to ban ALL hunting in Malta. Mind you, after reading dome of his previous sensationalised and blatantly exaggerated letters, why are we not surprised?

Dream on, Mario. Ghandek xi cans! Autumn hunting is legal throughout the Eurpoe - whose Birds Directive is your bible - or was the Birds Directive only quoted when you ran to the EU like classroom sneaks to (temporarily so far!) stop Spring Hunting? Who do you think you are? U hallina trid!

Anthony Formosa

Oct 1st 2008, 09:05

What right do you have to differentiate between wild birds and chickens which are killed in thousands everyday for consumption. When all world population will turn to vegiterian then hunting may stop. And what about fishing? and other animals, should also be killed?

Chris Finch

Oct 1st 2008, 09:03

Mario,
Whilst I personally would never want to take a life (feathered or otherwise) you can differentiate between bird species. Did you never eat chicken or turkey? Maybe you never had them, but you should, they taste good.
Certain species are protected because they are in a vulnerable situation in the goegraphic region in which they are protected. If the hunting of these species continues then it could affect populations in that area.
What Malta needs is the Hunters to chang their attitudes, there are responsible ones amongst their ranks and these guys should say to the committee, "enough is enough lets help the government to enforce the rules."
They should have volunteer wardens from their own ranks who take it in turns to patrol and report any illegalities. This will have 2 benefits, 1. they will curb illegal hunting, and 2. they will improve thier image in the community at large. I cannot understand why they are not doing this already. Education and enforcement of those poaching illegally will come better from fellow hunters than from outside influences. Come on FKNK, lets see actions and not words.