BirdLife's objections to falconry centre

The news about injured raptors alleged to have been illegally kept in a legally run falconry centre raises quite a few questions.

How can a falconry centre, that is primarily an educational tool set up to help people appreciate raptors, allegedly be denied the right to treat injured birds of prey?

Is a falconry centre not the most obvious place to take an injured raptor?

Do injured birds have to be sent overseas to be treated when we have experts in our midst? Surely a local centre where the progress of these birds can be appreciated by all would have more impact on the public as would the visual awareness of the wrongdoing of such acts. It's surprising, to say the least, that Birdlife Malta should object.

This pathetic state of affairs should be clarified forthwith. The minister concerned should ensure that this centre is granted all necessary permits to operate as a rehabilitation centre for any injured raptors. Hopefully BirdLife do not have a say on who can be granted such permits and their expected objections will not influence the minister's decision. It might be worth considering that these birds were probably taken there by members of the public who are sick and tired of seeing their noble gesture turned into a publicity stunt.

As things stand, any injured birds found by the public are handed over to Birdlife Malta. Does Birdlife Malta have the necessary permits to keep these birds? Considering that they might, under what pretence does Birdlife get a permit and an expertly run raptor centre be denied one?

It is worthy to note that the owner of the falconry centre was the same person that so kindly donated a purposely built transport cage that was used to send the injured Lesser Spotted Eagle to Germany for treatment in 2007. This same eagle was given the name of Sigmar, this being the name of the German Environment Minister. Here again in true anti-hunter style, the return of an injured eagle was turned into a publicity stunt aimed at arousing the German minister's support.

The only apparent reason for this charade is that the falconry centre is denying Birdlife the opportunity to create the usual fuss whenever an injured bird is found. It's not surprising BirdLife Malta is opposing such a noble act since it lacks the publicity they are after.

Are BirdLife after rehabilitation of raptors or the usual slimy anti-hunting publicity? Judging by this case, it's definitely the publicity they're after since the rehabilitation was expertly being taken care of locally before BirdLife intervened.