Mark Mifsud Bonnici, Kaċċaturi San Ubertu, Mosta
BirdLife's credibility at stake
With the advent of the migrating season, articles against the illegal persecution of protected birds with the usual emotive pictures become the norm.
Before going any further, this persecution is far less rampant than BirdLife Malta depicts it to be and Maltese law caters suitably for its eradication.
However, BirdLife Malta's aims thrive on the persecution of protected birds.
Their anti-spring hunting campaign is based on the argument that spring hunting of turtle dove and quail is an excuse for hunters to shoot anything that flies. BirdLife Malta is on record as having agreed to Malta derogating, knowing that derogation was allowed only "under strictly controlled conditions" and could be revoked should their accentuating of illegalities prove credible. They have since made it their mission to turn molehills into mountains.
Following an incessant campaign in the local and foreign media, they now also resort to recruiting "foreigners" to visit Malta during migration from CABS, the RSPB and other birding societies sharing their same anti-hunting agenda. Hunters have been falsely accused of anarchy and mayhem, of 24-hour massacres and many other untruths. Considering that Malta has over 16,000 hunters, the few reported incidents are definitely not indicative of these accusations. These anti-hunters seeing the possibility of a hunting ban for Malta and a very obliging government scrutinise others rather than see to their own country's far worse problems.
Tolga Temuge (Protected Birds Are Being Shot, April 1) wants the government to stop seeing "the hunting issue as a dispute between two sides"; therefore, he might want to stop making the issue precisely so. Ironically, the government has a policy to involve BirdLife Malta together with the hunting association in matters relating to hunting - BirdLife's agenda makes disputes inevitable. It seems that the Prime Minister believes in BirdLife Malta's crusade, welcomes their foreign supporters with open arms and wishes things to remain that way.
If BirdLife Malta really wants to eradicate the illegal persecution of protected birds and not use it as an excuse to ban all hunting, they should work on their own credibility. BirdLife's biologist Andrè Raine signed (No. 1745) a ban on hunting in Malta originated by the CABS Malta Coordinator, David Conlin, from Proact. Can any of BirdlLife's "scientific' reports including those on illegal hunting ever be considered as credible knowing that the person responsible for such reports is totally biased against hunting?
If indeed BirdLife Malta's concerns are purely the issue of the persecution of protected species or if it expects any form of credibility, it could start by convincing all that its participation in the Maltese Ornis hunting committee has anything constructive to offer.
A public statement that it "tolerates" legal hunting would certainly help clear the general perception of BirdLife Malta being abolitionists.
Certainly, such a statement will never materialise since BirdLife Malta would rather live with dispute and rely on the obliging media and its anti-hunter friends for support. After all, what do BirdLife Malta care about legal hunting, it is a hunting ban they are after. Moreover, they will do anything to get there. Those supporting this deceit are accomplices to a grave injustice.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
32 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 11th 2009, 08:05
@ John Matthews:
"My second point is, what has abortion, particularly in the US, got to do with this blog?"
Nothing, except that I used it as an analogy. It could have been any other issue. I only wanted to show that patriotism has nothing to do with this. If you read the abortion campaigner analogy again, you'll see my point and probably agree.
"My third point is, that you , I presume, are in the group where I stated "kept quiet"? Fine, if the cap fits wear it..."
Yes, but like I said, I did comment on the banner here (see further down). I also gave the reason why I did not comment before (also further down). If you would have read all my comments here, you would not have made this remark about me. Read carefully before replying. Sometimes the answers are already there.
John Matthews
Apr 10th 2009, 17:00
@ Kenneth Cassar In some respects I agree with you. The banner was shown BEFORE the match started and was hence removed. Even FIFA cannot predict as to what banners would be unfurled DURING the match so consequently can only act as circumstances arise. However, it would have been appropriate for the Maltese official to have intervened the minute this banner was displayed not make comment AFTER the event. My second point is, what has abortion, particularly in the US, got to do with this blog? please stick to the point. My third point is, that you , I presume, are in the group where I stated "kept quiet"? Fine, if the cap fits wear it, but you've got to admit that Bird Life Malta has not done anyone, particularly the country, any favours.
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 10th 2009, 09:58
One short comment about "patriotism".
Patriotism has nothing to do with this issue. Let me explain. Suppose in America (where abortion is legal), a group of Americans make a protest against abortion and display a banner saying "stop killing babies". Are these Americans unpatriotic? I don't think so.
But just to be clear...suppose they make a banner saying "boycott America because America kills babies". Now that would be a totally different question. If it was only America that allows abortion, that banner would be justified (although some people would find no objection anyway). But considering that abortion is legal worldwide, to call for a boycott of America and not the rest of the world (except Malta and the Philippines), would make no sense at all. The same applies in the case of illegal hunting, which also happens everywhere and not just in Malta.
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 10th 2009, 09:30
@ John Matthews:
Cont...
It must also be recognised that although many might object to the message of the banner, or the location (football stadium) where it was displayed, the fact is that the message itself was not illegal and in a certain sense was factual. Of course, it was not completely factual (it did not give numbers or other facts), but this is because after all, it was only a slogan. Such political/social slogan banners appear often (though not too often) during football matches in Europe, and when these banners cause offense, usually they are removed by the officials (FIFA, for instance). This is what happened in this case. The story should have ended there.
I believe that Birdlife are seeking legal action following this story, but I don't believe they have a case.
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 10th 2009, 09:29
@ John Matthews:
I did not comment on the 5th April, but I did comment here (see my comment further down).
There are two reasons why I did not comment the first time.
One is that a banner saying "Stop killing the wild birds in Malta" is factual. Wild birds ARE killed in Malta. Of course, the banner says nothing about the numbers killed or the number of hunters who kill them.
The second and more important reason is that for me, the "news item" did not even merit the publicity it got. If it were not for the Times report, probably nobody would have known about it. This is because the banner was only displayed for a few seconds (or minutes) and was removed after the FIFA authorities ordered them to remove it. People who are anti-Birdlife should perhaps realise that by keeping on discussing it, they are keeping the story alive, and thus taking out the message of the banner from the stadium to the printed or online press.
Cont...
C Mallia
Apr 9th 2009, 00:42
@MMB
What is exactly your point? In your letter, all you seem interested in is harming Birdlife and all the causes that it stands for. Of course birdlife ideally does not want hunting. Its like saying the church is extremist because it does not wants abortion, when in reality the church can never subscribe to abortion as it is against its teachings.
What you are doing is turning an ideology and insinuating extremism!! That make you an extremist yourself.
John Matthews
Apr 8th 2009, 21:27
With regard to the article in the Sunday Times 05.04.09.
Did you notice that the USUAL people that are anti-hunting, kept quiet.
Fair credit to the anti-hunting people that did comment, all but two condemned Bird Life Malta
for their despicable act towards their own country.
"Punishment" for want of a better word, should be meted out equally to the board/committee
of Bird Life Malta whether they be foreigners or Maltese citizens, for surely a vote was taken on this act, and,if not why not or are the instigators given carte blanche?
Can the world now accept that Bird Life Malta has lost its credibility, even within its own ranks?
r sammut
Apr 8th 2009, 20:56
@ J Borg And almost forgot the dogs. They certainly never have dull days when out hunting and they show it…tail wagging!!!
r sammut
Apr 8th 2009, 20:39
@Mr J Borg At the moment there seems to be more than enough Maltese and foreigners doing just that; taking effective action you are suggesting. Should they need more help I am more than sure that you will oblige and volunteer your services; i.e. if you aren’t already in that trade? Then again I wonder, are you still up? Take it from me it is better to bed now as the early awakenings for the coming month or so, to manage your quest, will have its toll in the end! Time of posting: 8.30pm
Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
Apr 8th 2009, 18:32
If one wishes to learn about BirdLife Malta's credibility, today's documentary in Puss In Boots on TVM would surely expose their exagerrations and non-factual statements. It is about time that the Government of Malta takes the necessary actions against BirdLife and Co for inflating the problem without substantiating their arguments. Shame on them and shame on the Government if it does not stop this bad publicity on our dear Malta!
J. Borg
Apr 8th 2009, 17:01
@ r.sammut It seems that your "delizzju" "namur" etc. is NOT so crucial in your life as most hunters claim. Would have expected a more active effective action on such matter. Moreover if during Spring you have decided to close yourself indoors rather than enjoy the countryside as you did in previous years (excluding the carrying & using shotgun bit) - such decision belittles the "Konservazjonisti" & Nature-"loving" qualities that hunters' federations claim to embrace....not to mention the dull days dogs have to endure.
mark farrugia
Apr 8th 2009, 16:43
What an insult to all the Malteses people by Birdlife for trying to stage that shamefull stunt in Hungary before a football game between both countries. Our goverment, trying to promote our country as a tourist destination,would be shooting itself in the foot by sponsoring Birdlife. Birdlife use these money to insult our country and discourage tourists to visit our island. The police should monitor and prosecute as well ,these foriegn-led abolitionists when they prespass private land. All they're trying to do is to provoke law abiding hunters and using their footage on forign media and you tube ect ect.
Joe Camilleri
Apr 8th 2009, 16:22
@ J.Borg It is unbelivable how some people talk about CREDIBILITY. Who is credible MR J.Borg, to get 1million Euros just to tag 13 birds, place some rat bait stations ( bought from a German pest control company and not from Malta) , and at the end of the story one would say that the population of yelkouan increased from 500 to 700? When everybody knows that this colony existed there a long before MOS came into existance and hunting was practised all year round. As for hunters to report poachers, I think that first the govt should give us what was officially promissed. And Birdlife's socio-cultural tradition is the feeding of misinterpretation of facts to the public. And for YOUR fellow europeans who come here (for a paid holiday) they should supply us with clear video footage and not the same photos of birds smeared with red poster colour, which are stored in a freezer, which I am more than sure you know its wereabouts. That is CREDIBILITY Mr J Borg
Joe Xuereb (armchair in London)
Apr 8th 2009, 16:09
Prerogation = insultative = belly-laugh.
Mark Mifsud Bonnici. 'totally biased against hunting'. Against hunting would suffice. 'Totally biased' is too emotive and unnecessary.
'Tolerates'? as in 'a public statement that it 'tolerates' legal hunting would shore up BLM credibility....... I guess it never occurred to you that tolerance to many people is condescending, patronizing and indeed, a 'four-letter word'. To give you a crude example. If someone said to me that they tolerated my homosexuality, I would soon tell them where to get off. I hope that did not frighten the birds.
r sammut
Apr 8th 2009, 16:04
@ J Borg
All I can say is that you’re very good at hip shooting, Mr Borg. You want us to go out and catch the bad guys in our ranks? Well let me tell you many of us feel so depressed that they don’t even venture out in the country side any more, let alone be capable to police these Rambos.
But please feel free to report such rampant individuals; do not let us in anyway spoil your fun! While you’re at it you can report any rubbish dumping individuals, and other rubble walls demolishers who be picking the bebbux! If you persist in your actions, who knows in the future, you might be proposed as an MEP candidate!
Andrew Gatt
Apr 8th 2009, 14:50
No problem Kenneth! ;)
J. Borg
Apr 8th 2009, 14:08
Credibility?
what are hunters doing to effectively eradicate illegal hunting, one of the primary causes of any eventual hunting ban - hanging on the "delizzju, hobby" or hilariously "socio-cultural tradition"?
Hunters' federations have claimed that they made proposals to PM, and were not given feed-back. Yet these proposals have remain peculiarly unpublished - thus their contents and implications are a mystery.
Secondly IF such federations are to be actively against criminal hunters ('not protecting' criminal hunters is NOT good enough dear FKNK/KSU!) - they should have taken the initiative to report & identify criminal hunters ages ago. After all the alleged number of ("law-abiding") hunters and their presence in the countryside would make such identification easy. Nonetheless whilst hunters have staged public demos, made representations to government and the EU, they have inexplicably shied away from (whilst enjoying their hunting) to collect evidence or at least note vehicle number plates and names of the criminal elements amongst them.
Then they also have the cheek to get into distorted national pride mode, when fellow Europeans come here to be insulted simply because they are doing what these same hunters are unwilling or afraid to do!
A question of credibility indeed!
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 8th 2009, 13:59
@ Sylvana Zarb Darmanin:
I don't generally agree with you, but I have to say that you are correct in saying that hunters feel hard done for not being allowed to hunt in Spring, and not because they want to shoot anything that flies, as is the impression of some - an impression which, while true with regards to a minority, certainly does not apply to most hunters.
Also, hunters are understandably angry because of the false promises made before the EU referendum. This, of course, says nothing about whether Spring hunting in Malta should be permitted or not. That is a separate issue which at this stage can only be resolved at EU level, and not locally.
It is to be expected that each side of the issue holds its own opposite opinion with regards to the other side, but I hope we all agree that since the Government has decided not to open the Spring hunting season, there is no alternative for the pro-hunting side except to fight it out at the ECJ.
I've expressed myself on this issue countless times, but at this stage, I believe opinions are redundant. The matter is for the ECJ to decide.
Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
Apr 8th 2009, 13:37
Mr C Finch, it has always been your prerogation whether to comment or not on this issue. Honestly, I believe that your decision not to comment anymore on this subject will be welcomed by many!
Sir, hunters feel hard done for not being allowed to enjoy the Spring Hunting Season for Turtle-doves and Quails and not, as you state "that they cant shoot whatever they want".
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 8th 2009, 13:33
@ Andrew Gatt:
My previous reply should have been addressed to Anthony Formosa. I apologise for my mistake.
Nigel Lawrence
Apr 8th 2009, 13:02
protect a bird (Pests) but not an innocent human life---
Unfortunately, many "innocent" humans grow up to be pests of a far greater magnitude than any bird.
BTY, this observation does NOT condone abortion.
R Sammut
Apr 8th 2009, 12:48
That Birdlife Malta wants to eradicate all sorts of hunting on our over populated islands, is no secret, and their Machiavellian way of doing business is constantly being exposed. There is no limit at where they can stop. Even in bringing Malta’s name down among foreigners.
What one finds most insulting is not only they are given free reign, to insult all those who hinder their path, but BLM have a constant cash flow of Euros of EU funds to help pay all their foreign management team and meet their all other ends. They even seem to have the full Government approval in whatever they manoeuvre.
Hunters’ associations do much voluntary work for which they hardly ever get credit. More times quite the opposite, all being put in the same sack: as poachers!
MARK MIFSUD BONNICI
Apr 8th 2009, 12:44
RamonCasha
Can you assure us that banners in football matches, tourist boycotts, a planned lufthansa boycott, Malta tourist brochures being taken by Birdlfie supporters and dumped, freezing EU, campaigning at tourism fairs. funds etc. don't all form part of birdlife "credibility". if you have any problem, I will direct you to all the necessary proof.
Birdlife credibility comes form the general public and not from other anti hunting associations and certainly not the hunters
The public is steadily recognizing who to believe.
Birdlife have taken their crusade too far finally malta's government might realize who disgraces malta.
KEEP UP THE FILTH, IT CAN ONLY SPELL BIRDLIFE'S DOOM.
Illegal hunting is to be condemned but it certainly does not discredit Malta in the way Birdlfie unscrupulously have over the years.
Andrew Gatt
Apr 8th 2009, 12:40
@ Kenneth Cassar............well put. The unfortunate reality is that there are extremists on both sides of the hunting debate. On the one hand we have a minority of criminals and poachers who repeatedly break the law and who ae hardly ever brought to justice. On the other hand we have the anti-hunting organizations who sensationalise and use these incidents to further their agenda - often at the expense of Malta itself.
Caught up in between are the thousands of law-abiding hunters and the general public, of whom many have no objection to hunting game for the table, within the law and as promised. Both these sets of extremists have taken advantage of a laid-back Government that on one hand is unwilling or incapable to enforce the laws, and that, on the other hand allows these foreign-led abolitionists to lead it by the nose.
joseph lia
Apr 8th 2009, 12:39
@ Mr Casha
Indeed Mr Casha it has to be the professional and well versed pen of MMB and other
gentlemen hunters to see beyond this extremist attitude, people are starting to doubt
this incessant and intolerant doom and gloom coming from your abolitionist media machine.
Birdlife Malta seem to have ALL the answers and have the DIVINE right to critisize all and sundry!! People are certainly understanding BLM agenda, rest assured.
Chris Finch
Apr 8th 2009, 12:32
LOL.
Pot Kettle Black. Fill in the blanks and use to suit your own agenda.
Oh my god I just realised I am so bored of this. Obviously there is no reasoning with some people so I am not going to comment or even look at any hunters / anti-hunters news stories or letters any more.
People are dying and starving in the world and a few people are so blinkered because they feel hard done by that they cant shoot whatever they want in a civilised country that they waste time and energy on a childish cause.
Thankyou and goodnight.
Ray Orland
Apr 8th 2009, 12:10
I cannot understant how this manouvre exactly works! Foreigners are being served and accomodatied in our islands, just to make an exposure of our wrong-doings, nothing more, nothing less!
The question is: Why do we have to wash our dirty cloths in public? Why do we have to advertise and spread all over the world, the minute illegalities done amongst our islands? What is the real reason?? Shamefull! I don't know of any group of Maltese citizens going abroad to inspect and report the illegal hunting/trapping done in other lands....and instead, we have to stay for this foreign interference...
It is a shame on Birdlife Malta to act in this way with there brothers - the Maltese comunity....and further more, taking every opportunity to darken the Maltese' hunter!
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 8th 2009, 12:02
@ Andrew Gatt:
I don't believe that any travel agent would boycott a country. Too much loss of earnings involved. Probably it was only a threat.
Of course, this is not to say that some organisations might not have tried to. Proact, for instance, called for a boycott of Malta. While I disagree with the tactic, one must also understand that people have the right to holiday where they please, and that they also have the right to boycott anything, even if they don't have a valid reason for doing so. Of course, this does not mean that a boycott campaign is justified, as it certainly is not in this case.
As for the freezing of Malta EU funds, I also don't think this has happened.
Of course, I stand to be corrected if I am mistaken on any or both instances.
Anthony Formosa
Apr 8th 2009, 11:42
Well said MMB, foreigners are not only coming here to scrutinse us but also to provoke us in our private property, so that they upload such videos on the internet.
@ Kenneth Cassar; you're absolutely right, but then why certain travel agents in UK and Germany were forced to boycott Malta as a holiday destination in the pro-act campaign. Why certain MEPs even went further to freeze Malta funds from EU?
@ Ramon Casha; As you're one of BLM activist, can you please enlighten us why you're so in favour of abortion and against legal hunting? what exactly is your agenda? It's a totally contradiction to protect a bird (Pests) but not an innocent human life.
Kenneth Cassar
Apr 8th 2009, 10:55
@ Andrew Gatt:
I also think that the banner exhibited during that football match was in bad taste. If people were to put banners condemning illegal hunting (or any other illegality) wherever it happens, a banner would have to be displayed during every single match, throughout the whole world.
Illegal hunting is not endemic to Malta. It happens everywhere. And truth be told, I am inclined to believe that illegal hunting is done by a relative minority of hunters.
The same applies to anyone who campaigns for boycotts of Malta because of illegal hunting. If people were to boycott countries because of the illegal actions of a minority of its citizens, no one would have anywhere left to holiday.
This, of course, does not mean that foreign citizens (including ourselves with respect to other countries) have no right to criticize (or report) illegalities that happen outside their country. But we should always put things into perspective, and not generalize or inflate figures or facts. Doing so, apart from being unjust, is a sure way for one to lose one's credibility.
The same applies to anyone who believes that all anti-hunting people hold that the end justifies the means. I don't.
Ramon Casha
Apr 8th 2009, 10:35
I assure you that BirdLife's credibility does not depend on the opinions of Kaċċaturi San Ubertu or indeed of any other hunters' organisation.
Andrew Gatt
Apr 8th 2009, 10:28
If ever there was any doubt about Birdlife Malta's scheming, deceit and abolitionist agenda, one need only read the majority of comments in The Times following the article about that disgraceful banner displayed at the Malta vs Hungary match.
What do this foreign-led extremists care about the damage that their lies and misinformation are doing to our country? Not one Euro cent. MTA spend millions to promote Malta and its tourism industry, and the Government continues to accommodate Birdlife, CABS et al TO CONTINUE DAMAGING MALTA'S IMAGE ALL OVER THE WORLD. Unbelievable.