Majority of hunters respect spring hunting ban - CABS

John Matthews

May 23rd 2009, 19:09

@ Kenneth Cassar

You claim that you have answered my comments/questions satisfactorily.

That may be in your mind but it is obvious to the readers that you are very single minded.

YOU claim you will put a stop to this!! Why? have you no further sensible answers?

It's not a question of "throwing in the towel" it's a question of debate

Kenneth Cassar

May 18th 2009, 06:52

@ John Matthews:

Let me put a closure to this, since the way the discussion is proceeding, it is leading to nowhere (it seems that for every issue I satisfactorily reply to, you raise a new issue). In any case, this is seeming like a private conversation, and we both have better things to do.

So in closure (and by saying the following, please note that I am not taking back what I said previously), I am glad you agree that nobody is being falsely accused.

I slightly differ on your point where you say that the onus is on CABS to prove they were "shot at". If the case is brought before the courts (that is to say, if the police identify a suspect), the onus is on the prosecution, not CABS. CABS in that case would only be witnesses.

I also notice that CABS have not responded to "verify" their statements. This means either of the following: Either the presumed perpetrator could not be identified, or else an investigation is being conducted by the police (in which case, further comments by the primary witness would be inappropriate). But in this, your guess is as good as mine.

john Matthews

May 17th 2009, 20:54

@ Kenneth Cassar

"No one is being falsely accused" Your words
Nobody said any different.
Once again the onus is on the CABS personnel to prove that they were shot AT. Being in the vicinity means sweet nothing.
I have been in the vicinity of shooting but I CAN'T honestly say that the shots were fired at me. I would have to prove it.

Changing the subject somewhat. Have you noticed that CABS have not responed to either yours,mine or anyone elses comments to verify their statements?

Kenneth Cassar

May 17th 2009, 20:10

@ John Matthews:

I don't know how you got the impression that I know all the answers simply because I do not contradict myself and because I don't constantly shout "proof" as if I'm excited from learning a new word.

However, I will answer your question the only way any person who was not there can. If the article says that someone "fired a warning shot in their vicinity", it simply means that someone fired a shot in their vicinity. What constitutes "vicinity" is as subjective as what being "old" or "tall" or "short" or "young" or "dark" (need I go on?) is.

If you really want to know how close the shooter was, ask CABS.

John Matthews

May 17th 2009, 19:28

@ Kenneth Cassar

Read the article again. It states ??? "fired a warning shot in their vicinity." How far or how close Kenneth? You seem to know all the answers

Kenneth Cassar

May 17th 2009, 16:17

@ John Matthews:

Do you realise how silly it sounds when you shout victory thinking I am agreeing with you, when in fact all I had been doing was showing how very mistaken you are on the issue of where evidence is needed and where it is not?

Kenneth Cassar

May 17th 2009, 16:11

@ John Matthews:

Apparently you can't comprehend basic facts. Let me try to put it more simply:

1. A news item reports that a CABS member says that someone shot at or near him. He does not mention names because the identity of the person doing the shooting has not been identified (yet). People comment on the incident. Some people believe the story, some others don't. No proof is needed to condemn the shooting assuming it happened. No proof is needed to assume it happened. No one is being falsely accused.

2. I say that (insert name) shot at CABS. In this case proof is needed. If I don't provide proof, I'm liable to libel proceedings since I would have put a specified person in a bad light.

3. The prosecution in court accuse (insert name) of shooting in the direction of someone. The jury weighs the evidence. The jury should not give a guilty verdict unless there is proof that (insert same name) shot in the direction of someone.

What's so hard to understand about this? Apparently you have learned nothing, which is not surprising at all considering your only agenda is to "discredit" me or CABS.

John Matthews

May 16th 2009, 22:50

@ Kenneth Cassar

MY POINT EXACTLY "EVIDENCE"

You have just learnt something at last !!!

Kenneth Cassar

May 16th 2009, 10:02

@ John Matthews:

Cont...

"I'm afraid that you have portrayed yourself to be a person that once you have formed an opinion, you are not prepared to other peoples point of view" - I am prepared to listen to other people's point of view. That does not mean I would change my mind to every other point of view.

"DO NOT SIT ON A JURY Kenneth" - This has nothing to do with a jury. In a jury, the accused is known. The accusations have consequesnces to the accused. Whatever is said has to be backed by evidence. If you, for instance, tell me that someone robbed you yesterday, I can take your word for it. In a jury, you have to bring evidence. If you can't tell the difference, I'm wasting my time. Have a nice day.

Kenneth Cassar

May 16th 2009, 10:01

@ John Matthews:

"You do not have the right to make statements of which you only have heresay evidence" - Yes I do. We all do. When people talk about the news, they all would be making statements about hearsay evidence. If we were required direct evidence before speaking, we would spend most of our day not saying a word.

"I expect that the police follow through the accusations made by CABS personnel" - So do I. Alas, the prepetrator is not always caught.

"I expect that people that were not in the vicinity are not eligible to give evidence" - Agreed. I am not giving evidence. I'm only commenting.

"in a court of law, their (CABS) statements MUST be varified, under oath" - Of course.

"You have started to throw insults at me. The person that starts to throw insults usually loses the ARGUMENT as you so call it" - true, except that I have not thrown insults.

Cont...

John Matthews

May 15th 2009, 19:11

@ Kenneth Cassar I didn't know we were having an argument, I thought it was a debate with differences of opinion. You have the right to an opinion and express that opinion, HOWEVER, you do not have the right to make statements of which you only have heresay evidence. You asked me in previous posts what I require as PROOF. OK , I now give you my answer. The CABS personnel be interviewed by the police authorities(which I presume has been done). I expect that the police follow through the accusations made by CABS personnel. I expect that people that were not in the vicinity are not eligible to give evidence. I am NOT calling the CABS personnel liars by any means, but, in a court of law, their statements MUST be varified, under oath. You have started to throw insults at me. The person that starts to throw insults usually loses the ARGUMENT as you so call it . I'm afraid that you have portrayed yourself to be a person that once you have formed an opinion, you are not prepared to other peoples point of view. DO NOT SIT ON A JURY Kenneth.

Kenneth Cassar

May 12th 2009, 07:44

@ John Matthews:

That's a welcome change of heart. So now, I do have the right to speak, even though I was not there. I am eternally grateful.

As for speaking some sense, how about answering a simple question: What kind of proof do you expect from someone who claims that someone shot in his direction?

It is true that anyone can be mistaken that they are being shot AT and that they were not in the vicinity of the shooting that was taking place. On the otherhand, they could be perfectly right, and that it could be true that they were being shot at (or near, as a warning).

You told me that I had "no right to speak" because I was not there. Neither were you. The people who WERE there were members of CABS. This absolutely gives THEM the right to speak. Then it is up to us to choose whether to believe them or not.

It takes humility to admit one was wrong. I won't waste any more time on someone who is only interested in winning an argument, while contradicting himself in the process. You won't answer my question anyway, which shows you are unreasonable.

John Matthews

May 11th 2009, 20:51

@ Kenneth Cassar Of course you have the right to speak, but I suggest you speak some sense. If you read MY previous posts you will see that anyone can be mistaken that they are being shot AT and that they were not in the vicinity of the shooting that was taking place

Kenneth Cassar

May 11th 2009, 08:36

@ John Matthews:

After cornering you with my theft example (see below), you childishly keep repeating "proof, not assumptions...were you there?...you have no right to speak....hearsay..."

Fine...so are you expecting me to accept that unless one can identify and name a perpetrator, one cannot say he was robbed, shot at, or anything else? Would you say that if someone goes to the police and tells them he's been robbed, the police should tell him "have you got any proof that you have been robbed? If you don't, this means you have hid the money yourself and are claiming robbery to waste our time"? Would you say that if someone is shot at, and a newspaper sees it as newsworthy, the newspaper should not publish the story unless the perpetrator is identified?

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. As long as one does not identify the wrong person, everyone has the right to speak of their mishaps. Of course, everyone has the right to choose whether to believe the story or not.

Welcome to democracy. Yes, I have the right to speak. Try to stop me.

Kenneth Cassar

May 11th 2009, 08:16

@ John Matthews:

Once again I say, what kind of proof do you expect from someone who claims that someone shot in his direction? It would certainly help if you point out what kind of proof would satisfy you.

It would certainly help if you read my posts before replying.

John Matthews

May 10th 2009, 16:52

@ Kenneth Cassar

Once again I say were you there?

PROOF Kenneth not assumption

If you were not there you have no right to speak. Hearsay or newspaper articles do not count!!

Kenneth Cassar

May 9th 2009, 20:19

@ John Matthews:

This is my second (or third...I have lost count) reply (if my other reply doesn't make it). I have already answered your questions in my post preceding yours.

What kind of proof do you expect from someone who claims that someone shot in his direction? It would certainly help if you point out what kind of proof would satisfy you.

I know it is the duty of the police to follow up these incidents and obtain witness statements. But sometimes evidence is hard to come by, a hard fact I experienced as a child when my parents house was robbed. I know they weren't lying, even though the thief was never caught.

John Matthews

May 8th 2009, 17:26

@ Kenneth Cassar If you have read statements from other writers, the public are now asking for PROOF and not stupid assumptions. You openly admit that the person concerned was an unamed poacher. Were you there? Were the CABS personnel "patrolling" the area? If so why didn't they approach the person concerned or was it another CABS/Birdlife ghost. How many witnesses were there? Were the shots fired at them DELIBERATELY? or were they just in the way of someone rabbit shooting, vermin control, or, MAYBE testing a new gun. THE PUBLIC REQUIRE PROOF NOT ASSUMPTIONS BY YOU OR ANYONE ELSE. if this shooting incident was not followed up as a deliberate attempt to shoot at CABS personnel, why not? You claim you do not know if this incident is or was followed up. It is the duty of the police to follow up these incidents and obtain witness statements. I notice that we have not heard anymore about it from CABS. I admire the way you stick to what you believe to be right but construtive criticism is muc better

Kenneth Cassar

May 8th 2009, 07:10

@ John Matthews:

I did answer your question. In essence, the answer is that they tried. See my pervious reply for more details.

Tell me...how can I answer your question with a "proven statement". Did you expect CABS to approach the poacher (yes, I trust he was a poacher) and record an interrogation, or perhaps force him to sign a statement? I am sure he would have complied!

If this is not the proof you had in mind, tell me, what other proof could have been obtained? Can't you see that in your weird attempt at defending an unnamed poacher, you are demanding the impossible?

As for people having to prove they were being shot at, I have yet to see someone trying to film or take a picture while being shot at! Don't you see that this would be absurd.

Was the shooting followed up by the police? I don't know, but I guess it would be difficult unless police were close by and were on the scene in a few seconds.

Kenneth Cassar

May 8th 2009, 07:02

@ A Farrugia:

Yes, that word-count is a pain ;) In essence, I think I share your views on hunting. I only would clarify that while a total ban on hunting is unrealistic, it is not unnecessary (but might be counter-productive, in the sense that it would result only in more illegal hunting). The only workable solution is the long-term phasing out of hunting (voluntary or enforced).

Regarding the millions of animals slaughtered for our "food needs", it is not my need, so I don't eat them.

I also wish to clarify that it is not the species that matters (in hunting, fishing etc) but the individual animals. We wouldn't kill any human just because we are a numerous species after all. And yes, I do complain of recreational fishing. It is no different from hunting.

John Matthews

May 7th 2009, 16:38

@ Kenneth Cassar

You have still not answered my question. You have quoted an unproven statement read in the newspaper. If shots were fired at people, why wasn't this followed up? People must prove that they were actually being DELIBERATELY shot at.

CABS have proven that they are not backwards in coming forwards when it applies to the Unproven, Deceit and Exageration of the truth. They have now started to admit that some of their statements have been unfounded. The credibility of CABS and Birdlife Malta has gone out of the window when some of its officers have been proven to be either unknowing or unwilling to admit to the truth for example Dr Raine's statements, Migratory Routes etc. Need I say more? If an organisation wants to be trusted by members of the public, it must make sure that the facts they are presenting are ACCURATE and TRUTHFUL otherwise they become a laughing stock, particularly when their so called facts have been disproved by experts.

A. Farrugia

May 7th 2009, 15:09

Kenneth, my first comment had to leave out a lot of my reasoning process due to the word count limit.. I always end up filling the entire text-box hehe ;)

Glad you've understood my post. In brief, I know that what I wish (no more hunting) is unrealistic, and maybe, I dare say - unnecessary. For this reason, I would personally resort for something that is the best compromise for all involved - politicians, hunters, birdlife & the rest of the community at large.

Of course, some birds would still get shot at, but regardless of hunting, aren't millions of animals slaughtered for our FOOD needs? Legitimate hunters would still be killing animals, but to satisfy a different need (entertainment maybe, even though I find it hard to see how this could be so, but people differ no?). Whilst the need being satisfied is different, the end result is the same for the animal. Sometimes, in our efforts to ban hunting, we forget this point. It's poaching that we must attack - not legitimate hunting that does not harm the sustainability of the species. The latter is like recreational fishing after all. No one complains of that!

Kenneth Cassar

May 7th 2009, 11:00

@ John Matthews:

You ask: Did anyone go up to these so called shooters and actually ASK them what they were doing in the countryside with guns?

I think this answers your question: "Last week a poacher fleeing from a CABS team fired a warning shot in their vicinity". This is taken from the article above.

Kenneth Cassar

May 7th 2009, 06:53

@ A. Farrugia:

Thanks for your clarification in your last comment. A reasonable post. I only found strange your claim that "Not all hunting is illegal, and that should continue". If one is on principle against hunting, one would not believe that any hunting should continue (on principle). But of course, the law is the law, and as long as legal hunting remains legal, there is little one can do about that.

So yes, I think that probably you have not explained yourself well the first time. So once again, thanks for the clarification.

John Matthews

May 6th 2009, 18:57

@ Kenneth Cassar
Hi Kenneth it's me again. Tried to explain Matthew & Luke in a former post but it was edited.

You quite rightly quoted what was in the text of these two Books.

What I am trying to say is that the answers are there if people ASK, SEEK AND KNOCK.

Did anyone go up to these so called shooters and actually ASK them what they were doing in the countryside with guns? The answers might possibly be not what was expected by the bird guards. Probability is one thing Proof is another

A. Farrugia

May 6th 2009, 09:11

@ Kenneth Cassar, Franco Farrugia

I acknowledge the argument sounds contradicting, but allow me to explain myself better.
1) I am against hunting, I reiterate that. But I'm also NOT a vegeterian, so I cannot pretend to be another St. Francis-like animal lover..
2) I do not make the laws in this country, and I understand that some things are legal even though I totally abhor them, like smoking, for instance. I would ban that outright if I could, but I cannot realistically call for that as I'm a realist and I acknowlege that you can only REGULATE such matters - abolishing things generally drives the activity underground and the end result is worse.
3) My suggestion builds on the two points above. I'm against hunting, but I cannot realistically expect any government to ban it outright. What I can expect, however, is that the activity is regulated, with a view to ensure that at least it doesn't harm the survival of the species hunted.
4) Ideally, all hunting ends, but hands up those who truly believe this to be POSSIBLE!

@ Joe Camilleri
I don't see any way forward for the hunting lobby unless you co-operate in good faith.

Ramon Casha

May 6th 2009, 06:35

@David Borg Cardona: Where is the contradiction? Unless you can point out somewhere where BLM stated that the majority of hunters break the law, there is no contradiction here.

MARK MIFSUD BONNICI

May 5th 2009, 21:29

Mr. Schwarze.

Just as an after thought. David Conlin has seemed rather silent after his informing us of how vulnerable he felt.

I understand he is your official English translator apart from your Malta operations concocter. What does he have to say about the hunters proper behavior. HE is after all trying to ban our dear hunting.

He definitely has nothing to fear, it's only bird poop that should bother him and birds seem to have a knack at hitting the right target.

Kenneth Cassar

May 5th 2009, 21:28

@ John Matthews:

What do you mean by "so what" if persons armed with shotguns were "patrolling the countryside". Don't you know that in the closed season, to carry shotguns in the countryside is illegal? Yes, they were breaking the law, so it does matter.

And what have Matthew and Luke got to do with any of this? Are they hunters by any chance?

carmel james

May 5th 2009, 20:40

To all hunters: have you forgotten what birds used to be shot before the spring season was closed two years ago? Dont tell me you never saw a flock of bee-eaters being shot? honey buzzards, marsh harriers, kestrels, hoopoes, golden orioles etc. All these birds used to be stuffed and most are in collections or to decorate houses. Deep in your heart you all know that this happened regularly and quite widespread. And the shooting of swallows and swifts for target shooting in the valleys?

And dont tell me it was just by the few. It was quite normal for hunters to shoot on most species. You might tell me that they werent protected twenty years ago but 5 years ago they were. You cant hide these facts.

its also true that a fairly good number of hunters never used to bother about other species except turtle doves. And its also true that the hunters attitude towards illegality has improved especially now that they need to show their best behaviour.

I am sure all the hunters who comment here are law-abiding but can they really speak for others?

J.Azzopardi

May 5th 2009, 20:27

@ Franco Farrugia
In various blog topics associated with hunting I have asked you several times about your dietary habbits but you have always purposefully ignored replying. In short are you a vegitarian? Depending on your reply we will determine your love for animal life.

Franco Farrugia

May 5th 2009, 18:03

@ N Xuereb - Is even one day fair on the birds?

David Borg Cardona

May 5th 2009, 17:41

@ Ramon Casha..

Ramon, are you sure you are convinced of what are you saying ??? All we hear from BLM is the usual ad nauseam chants that illegal hunting is rife from one end of the island to the other and that birds are being taken in their millions. Their conservation manager Andre Raine is continually implying so. To quote " He insisted that both the number of reports of illegal hunting and the number of birds taken to the BirdLife offices will only represent a fraction of what is occurring in the countryside"..

He has repeatedly said that "this is the tip of the iceberg".. but now surprise surprise he has even been contradicted by his own bosom buddies CABS out of all people.

So finally the truth is coming to light... All the usual anti hunting lobby's of the likes of CABS , BLM, Proact and IAR are in one big tangled web of contradiction as evidenced by the above press release. All of hunters knew that their deceitful campaign would one day backfire. The harm they have done to Malta with their sensationalism and twisting of the truth is irreperable to say the least !!

John Matthews

May 5th 2009, 16:36

"The bird guards claim that persons armed with shotguns were patroling the countryside. SO WHAT!! does that PROVE that they either WERE or ABOUT to shoot birds of any kind? ANY organisation must prove or disprove that these people were breaking any laws.

Sorry Kenneth, got to quote Matthew Ch 7 Vs 7 OR Luke Ch 11 Vs (

Kenneth Cassar

May 5th 2009, 15:44

@ A. Farrugia:

"I am totally against the CONCEPT of shooting a bird out of the sky...Not all hunting is illegal, and that should continue".

Can't you see the glaring contradiction?

n xuereb

May 5th 2009, 15:10

@ Franco Farrugia - FYI trapping has been abolished already and Hunting has been kept for 5 months only; of which 2 months are usless. So having only 3 months of hunting is more than fair on the hunters... altough I think even the Autumn season will be abolished.

r sammut

May 5th 2009, 14:52

Hurray straight from the horse’s mouth, not regurgitated by Bridlife; without added doom and gloom!

Why CABS are so humble as to comment that part of the success was due to low migration numbers? No millions then? Some more sour medicine for BLM to swallow!

Unwittingly, did CABS’s comments blow BLM’s inflated balloon?

Another thing that surfaced is that while these groups make it their business to spy others, they themselves hate it when at the receiving end!

Kenneth Cassar

May 5th 2009, 14:11

So now, CABS are not that bad after all, are they?

Ramon Casha

May 5th 2009, 13:58

BirdLife has never said that the majority of hunters hunt illegally, so this also confirms what BirdLife have been saying all along. How wonderful - FKNK and BirdLife agree on something after all.

Unfortunately it does not mean the problem did not exist. In any law, it's always a small minority who break it, yet that small percentage are responsible for 100% of all crimes.

Andrew Gatt

May 5th 2009, 13:26

This article raises many very, very serious questions about the never-ending negative, anti-hunting and anti-Malta propaganda fed to the media and splashed around by Birdlife, CABS & Co. For example:

Where are the millions of migratory birds?
Where are the "massacres"??
Where are the breeding birds?
What "Central Mediterranean Flyway" over Malta??
What "mayhem and anarchy" in the countryside???

Answers please!

Joe Aquilina

May 5th 2009, 12:54

What we have heard from CABS is what we know already. The numbers that we have always heared from BLM were incorrect and just made up for their own propaganda. Most hunters and trappers are responsible in their sport and do not shoot at anything. In Malta, BLM do more harm than these unwelcome foreigners.
I just hope that this statement from CABS is not just another trick of theirs, so that when they come to Malta the next time, they then multiply their figures and say that the hunting is again out of control.
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD GIVE US BACK WHAT WAS PROMISED TO US BEFORE THE REFERENDUM.

I have no problem with any poacher being apprehended as he is not a hunter for me.

Joe Camilleri

May 5th 2009, 12:53

@ A Farrugia

Dropping the 'K' from FKNK doesn't have to do with the co-operation between FKNK - BirdLife. It is good to point out that what we do for the conservation of the environment is poured out from our own pockets, and not with some donation from the government or the EU. Speaking on my behalf, I will never co-operate with birdlife before they give me back the 2 years of spring hunting, which I lost, because of their deceitful propaganda.

@ Mr Schwarze
talking about stalking, as far as i know, you go around with your powerful cameras sneaking on every person walking in OUR country side.

Alfred Bugeja

May 5th 2009, 12:48

Right...

So this confirms that the earlier call for the setting up of a dedicated wildlife unit within the police force was a storm in a teacup which was not firmly based on the facts - the ALE was keeping up with its duties.

This should give us all an clear idea about how credible CABS's statements will be in the future.

Franco Farrugia

May 5th 2009, 12:47

@ Mr A Farrugia - I think you are contradicting yourself.
It's all very simple: if you are against the killing of animals - and animals include birds - and if you are against the keeping of animals in very confined spaces; and if you are against the immortalising of this wickedness by means of stuffing of birds as used to be the case, then, you have to be in favour of abolishing hunting.
That is my opinion - certainly, not everyone will be in favour of it, but once again, if you don't want animal cruelty around you ... you have to abolish hunting and trapping.

angelo muscat

May 5th 2009, 12:47

THE cabs should go and see what their own people are slaying in their country in germany they must se e HTTP://KOMITEE.DE/EN/INDEX.PHP?GERMANY not come to malta and interfere in our country.

n xuereb

May 5th 2009, 12:22

So the hunters are right after all. What CABS just confimed FKNK and KStU have been saying it for ages. With over 15,000 hunters, and CABS registering only 354 shots and catching 8 poachers, that IS significantly low. Let's see what BLM have to say.

A. Farrugia

May 5th 2009, 12:02

If there is one thing I loathe more than hunting, it's those that try to abolish it at all costs, even at the cost of defaming Malta through 'statistics' that are as good as those issued prior to an election locally...

I am totally against the CONCEPT of shooting a bird out of the sky, but I would never go as far as abolish hunting under these circumstances. Not all hunting is illegal, and that should continue, as long as such activities do not impinge on the sustainability of the hunted species.

More should be done in terms of co-operation, rather than conflict. Birdlife/CABS should stop this tough campaign riddled with misinformation and embark on a 'sustainable hunting' campaign in collaboration with FKNK. I'm confident the latter would be glad to co-operate if its members truly care about Conservation. Otherwise I suggest they drop a 'K' from the FKNK acronym accordingly...

What Malta needs is better (whistleblower) safeguards for the legitimate hunters, and a much tougher stance on poachers. We also need dedicated areas were hunted birds can be bred locally and released into the wild, to compensate for those shot down...

Let's stop bickering and start proposing feasible IDEAS.

Antoine Grima

May 5th 2009, 12:01

So , the CABS are out in the country side day and night and over a period of 9 days , in peak season , they came to the conclusion that most hunters are respecting the law .They heard 354 shots fired and saw 4 protected birds being shot . Altogether a very quite season they said.
We all know that this time of year , millions of birds migrate from Africa to Europe , and BLM keeps telling us that Malta is directly in the middle of the birds fly way . So where exactly are all the birds gone ? Where are the massacres happening ?
CABS will eventually stop coming here this time of year because there is nothing to see . The only time that is interesting is the last week of September when raptors migrate back to Africa and some fly past Malta . BLM SHOULD APOLOGISE FOR ALL THE DAMAGE DONE TO MALTA . Even their own friends disagree with them .All those people who love writing articles about how all Maltese hunters shot at anything that moves , please take note

MGrech

May 5th 2009, 11:43

Well done CABS, thank you and come again. It seems that we do not have manpower (or guts) to carry out such observation / action ourselves. What about similar international action on our driving and 'festa' fireworks control? We're completely lost in these areas too. Our own authorities do want to take any action - maybe for not so obvious reasons?! We need external/foreign help to enforce our own laws/regulation in this country. In most cases our laws themselves are inadequate especially when it comes to fireworks.

stephen grech

May 5th 2009, 11:42

WHAT?!! I cannot believe this article. Just the other week BLM said that this year the shooting of protected species was on a large scale and now CABS are saying that the majority of hunters respect the spring hunting ban. So who was saying the truth from the beginning; FKNK or BLM? BLM and those who usually are the first to write in this paper against all hunters and trappers should make a public apology. It is the minimum they can make! It seems that finally the truth is coming out.

David Borg Cardona

May 5th 2009, 11:36

CABS..

So first its.. "we must assume that breaches of the law are widespread" by your omnipresent David Conlin.. then its "This is a significant decrease. It shows that the majority of hunters clearly respect the hunting ban"....
Then eureka.. you finally admit that Malta is not the ornithological eden you always brag on about - "a reduced passage of migrant birds" after on your own website you declare that "the islands represent the only refuge for countless migrant birds" and "estimate that between half a million and one million migrant birds are killed".

Once again, your contradictory statements haven proven us right.. It is only a handful of poachers who flout the law and the "millions" are nothing but fairytales.
@ David Conlin...

David, now is the time for you to stand up and be counted.. the least you can do is to take back all untrue statements about Maltese hunters...

steve busuttil

May 5th 2009, 11:26

This is RICH!!!!!!!!!!!!

The FKNK and its members have been saying this all along, does Malta need foreign people to confirm the obvious?

Now Dr Gonzi, are you going to admit that Birdlife has been pulling your leg for over 3 years?

Does Malta deserve all the bad publicity it has been receiving over the years?

Are Birdlife going to come clean and admit that they have been feeding false information to the general public and causing harm to the country in general for absolutely nothing?

Is the government going to take steps against these people?

The only honourable thing to do is to announce that the traditional hunting season will be opened again and that the Government is going to enforce the Laws that Already exist and stop these few poachers from damaging the country