Hunters' federation PRO Joe Perici Calascione says the public is unaware of the good that hunters do. He also tells Herman Grech foreigners should not interfere in Malta's hunting affairs.

How many hunters do you estimate there are in Malta?

There are some 11,000 hunters and 3,500 trappers.

How did you arrive at these figures?

We have 10,000 members but we're aware that there are some 14,000 licences issued for hunters and trappers.

Do you feel the federation is in control of its members?

Until two years ago, I would have replied 'yes' straight away. Today things have panned out differently, particularly with the EU performing a U-turn after what we had been promised by the government. Since the abrupt introduction of the 1994 regulations we embarked on a massive campaign to safeguard what is legally and traditionally ours. At the time we had 100 per cent support from the hunters. Today they feel cheated and are retaliating against the government.

Can you honestly say that the federation tried to educate its members?

We tried to do so in all possible ways. We distributed several documents to each hunter, with a code of conduct set by the Council of Europe. We had started conducting tests about the handling of weapons, but this was curtailed by the government and taken over by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority. We were trying our best to be as proactive as possible.

You seem to be exonerating the hunters. The government and the authorities always seem to blame for the hunters' shortcomings.

I've been in this federation for 33 years. Since the early days it's been about defending something, rather than giving something positive to our members and to the public. Unlike other countries, very few people can see a link between hunting and conservation in Malta. Elsewhere in Europe they understand the need to conserve the national habitat, the need to reap some interest while leaving the capital intact.

You speak of sustainable hunting - but how possible is it in a small, densely populated island with a large number of hunters, a proportion of whom are bent on breaking the rules?

I have reservations about the last part of your question, but it is a problem. We're the only country in Europe which depends solely on migratory birds. In the UK you can shoot all year round. The population density and the lack of safeguards for the national habitat are our natural enemies. Birdlife should work with the hunting lobby with the aim of eradicating illegal hunting and safeguard legal hunting in the same way as we did in the 1990s.

The vast majority of hunters are in line. If we had 9,500 wardens (hunters) of the 10,000 out there in the fields, they would be ready to contribute to curtail legal hunting. Today the situation has not developed like that because the legal hunter has been deprived of his passion. Today we can't go into the fields in spring and that has affected many of the legal hunters. They have become depressed about it.

So what you're saying is that a number of hunters are upset because they're restricted from hunting in spring.

Hunters are really hurt and people don't react in the same way when they are being deprived of something that was legally theirs. Unfortunately, there are some rumours that hunters have nothing to lose and don't care anymore.

How do you feel about that?

I disagree (with this line of reasoning), but emotionally I can understand them. Unfortunately, I have to look at reality and find the best way of believing that good will prevail.

This year, reports of illegalities seem to be especially rampant.

That's the anti-hunting lobby's biggest weapon - splashing these issues in the media.

You say those responsible for illegal hunting are few. So why do we always hear of illegal shooting whenever some protected species fly over Malta? Surely the 'few' can't always be out roaming in the countryside.

There are a few. I recall in April 2007 there was a tremendous passage of birds of prey and I couldn't hear a single shot. The place wasn't even guarded by police or the anti-hunting lobby. Knowing that they were waiting for the European Court of Justice's decision on spring hunting interim measures, the hunters refrained from committing any illegal acts. There may be the real diehards who flout everything but it's the federation's intention to clamp down in the coming months. We don't publicise matters when we cancel someone's membership.

You've often mentioned the need for self-discipline. How many licences have you cancelled because of illegal hunting offences?

I can't give you an exact figure but it's in the tens not the hundreds. We've cancelled the membership of those who we believe have committed really bad acts. Shooting at protected species is unacceptable for the federation. But I ask you: why are there only allegations of hundreds of illegal acts and yet proof of only three or four cases. If CABS (Committee Against Bird Slaughter) and Birdlife know who these people are, they should be reporting them to the police.

It is the police's job to monitor the situation.

Yes, but if I know an illegal act has been committed I'm morally obliged to report it.

Organisations such as Birdlife and CABS have provided the proof.

Like what?

They've displayed dead birds during news conferences, they issue press releases about illegalities - are you saying their claims are false?

They're highly inflated. To allege something is one thing - who can contradict you? Take the recent You Tube video of the stork being shot down as an example. I'm not saying the stork wasn't shot but we've been to the place and we have serious doubts as to whether the video was shot in the Dwejra Lines - the trees look different.

So are you saying it was cooked up simply to put the hunters in a bad light?

I'm not saying that it's not possible. We're having our dirty linen publicised across Europe.

Why should it be in their interest to give Maltese hunters a bad name?

That's the only way they can get to the European Commission, which can put pressure on our government and the European Court to curtail our practices. If there was a scientific reason for to stop us from hunting in spring, I would bow my head.

Malta has changed over the years - it's densely populated and we hardly have any countryside left. In the future we're probably going to have to make less use of our cars. Don't you think hunting traditions have to change as well?

Let's talk logistics. We have around 72 hunters per square kilometre of huntable land, which is absurd, compared with one hunter per two square kilometres in Italy. However, we have to take into consideration the fact that most of our countryside is cared for by the hunters themselves. It's conservation with a slightly selfish approach to take something from nature.

If hunting is accepted as a useful tool for conservation, even by Birdlife International, then the same should apply for Malta. So I would rather use the education principle to help the hunters understand more the impact on nature. Every bird that is shot in Malta is eaten. I don't know of anyone who throws birds away.

And you believe that?

I'm referring to legal hunting. I don't want anyone who shoots at swallows in the federation. But we never had the support of the government. Places like Miżieb, which was a rubbish dump when we took it over, are now in a healthy state. Everyone at Miżieb is under strict control, but we have no control over any trespassers. We were promised other areas, but this has never materialised.

Do you think that an increase in fines could stop the hunting abuses?

It's been proven that it doesn't. Our fines are the heftiest in Europe. We would suggest that FKNK sits on a board with the police and the ministry and identify problem areas. We had Birdlife on a similar board once, but we could talk to that Birdlife and not the one we have today. The minute Tolga Temuge came into the picture (as executive director), Birdlife's strategy changed in a negative way.

There seems to be a xenophobic attitude towards foreigners. When CABS came to Malta, you started using terms like 'invasion' and 'interference'.

It is. As long as they were coming to observe the birds it's fine. But they came to film us without our consent and on our private property. When I'm out in the fields, I'm there to enjoy my peace.

But what's wrong with foreigners commenting about our practices, when we have an impact on European birds?

You try to film a hunting shoot in Germany and England, and see what happens. In Germany, the obscenities carried out on birds of prey recently came out in the open. In England, they found 20 swans buried. We don't have problems with these organisations but they should work together with us to find the common enemy. A real hunter will never do anything to harm nature. We need more education and awareness. We've been trying to meet (Education) Minister Dolores Cristina since the new Cabinet was sworn in and we still don't have an appointment. Birdlife has been infiltrating our schools and brainwashing our children for years.

Why do you call it brainwashing when they go into schools for educational purposes?

Birdlife Malta always highlights the negatives - and that will never bear fruit. They tell children that hunting and hunters are bad whereas Birdlife International's message was simple - that FACE would not try to change the text of the EU's Birds Directive and that Birdlife International accepts that hunting is a useful tool for bird conservation. I believe Birdlife Malta's existence would be threatened if illegal hunting was eradicated.

Don't tell me that Birdlife members enjoy seeing birds blown out of the sky.

When we nearly managed to wipe out 99 per cent of illegal hunting Birdlife broke an agreement not to come out in the open to speak against the other party. But there was a time when your newspapers didn't have enough material to put on its front pages. The media are against us.

Do you really believe that Birdlife contributes to illegal hunting?

Yes. It's important for them or else they won't reach their objective of eliminating hunting. They won't admit it. We've never been proven wrong in any of the statements we made along the years.

Last week Malta once again got a spate of bad international publicity because of the hunting situation. Does the federation feel any sense of guilt?

We'd feel a sense of guilt if we did something to incite, promote or sustain anything illegal. It's the government and Birdlife that should feel guilty where the conservation and hunting issue is concerned.

Birdlife says it is simply abiding by the EU Birds Directive.

There is a paragraph (Article 9) which contemplates a derogation for spring hunting. We adhered to every single requirement in that article.

Article 9 also states it will only permit a derogation if there is no alternative to spring hunting. The Commission is saying Malta has the option of autumn hunting.

By what standards is it saying that? Is it aware that more than 80 per cent of our hunters can't take turtle dove or quail in autumn?

But these things should have been raised during the EU negotiations.

Yes, but unfortunately we were left out of discussions a good three to four months before they were concluded.

So do you think you were fooled?

Definitely.

The spring hunting issue is now in the European Court. Do you really think you will be able to hunt again during this season?

Yes.

The European Commission has already told you it's illegal.

It is the court which has to make that clear. The court gave a ruling on an interim measure. The Commission is targeting Maltese because we are tiny.

Do you think the court case will go in your favour?

I doubt it, but it won't be because of any illegalities. It will be because I believe one of the Commission's arguments is 'thou shalt not hunt in spring'. If the strict rule of law is applied, Malta will easily justify a limited spring hunting season. I believe a future government will be able to reapply the derogation.

The Office of the Prime Minister has asked the Police Commissioner to investigate a hunters' federation claim that a few hunters who commit illegal acts enjoy protection. Who are these untouchables?

That statement was slightly misinterpreted. It was a strong call from us to the authorities to sharpen their efforts to catch certain wrongdoers. We hear rumours and you can't always point fingers.

Did you provide them with names?

You hear of names. We have always collaborated with the police. However, with a bit more effort, rather than harassing the majority of hunters, most of whom are in line, you have to tackle the area where there is illegal shooting. We're prepared to sit with the police and the ministry and put forward our views about how to tackle this matter.

Recently, FKNK secretary Lino Farrugia was fined by the Appeals Court after he was found guilty of having encouraged or assisted another person to violate a police order to stop the trapping of birds. Are federation members leading by example? Many feel he should be expelled or suspended.

Lino offered his resignation which was unanimously turned down by the council. I was there with Lino. We were not trapping but we were just making a point over the legality of the bird species being trapped.

He was charged because he told the trappers to disobey the police.

The court case initially acquitted both Lino and the other person. How many cases are you aware where the police make an appeal? Rarely!

So do you think it was a witch-hunt?

Yes, there was a bit of that... I believe Lino was trying to safeguard a tradition that has been here from time immemorial. We're fighting for a just cause.

Several surveys have shown that the majority of Maltese favour a total ban on hunting. Do you fear that support for hunting is dwindling fast?

It would be a real pity if that happens - Malta would be the loser... as would the birds. Without hunting there would be fewer birds. Many efforts of the hunters go unnoticed. We give so much to biodiversity. We keep our natural habitat in its best - so that all the birds can rest. Look at the building speculation - these are all restricting birds from landing and resting.

So why, according to you, are so many calling for a complete ban on hunting?

Perhaps it's the wish of certain anti-hunting lobbies. They're brainwashing children.

Some would call it education.

You don't educate people by saying something is wrong without qualifying it. You don't qualify something like the hunting issue to a six-year old. The child will go home and think his father (a hunter) is a murderer. We have people who are well-versed in topics like conservation and hunting dogs who are themselves more than willing to give lectures to children.