Hunters seek derogation on finch trapping

Johnny Xerri

May 20th 2009, 13:10

@ Joe Galea

Wakeup dudes? Still dreaming of derogations and other crap like this?

Are you aware that the birds directive has derogations which member states may apply at will just like most do. Are you aware that Belgium, france and spain hunt and trap even in spring and so do the UK.

Of course misleading is more important for the antis than the truth.

@Kevin Zammit
Quote 'Obviously trappers are trying to burrow into another loop hole with this diversity excuse since there would be no way to monitor if they are actually trapping finches only or not. Not to mention that most of their catch is finches anyway'

Since trapped birds are not enough to fill an aviary due to the limited harvest, Trappers engage in breeding of the wild birds. If breeding of birds in captivity is done without introducing new wild birds the genetic diversity would be close to zero and all birds would be born too weak to resist infecions and die. Thus trapping to boost the captive population is essential for a healthy population. But then again what can be expected form an anti, firing arguements and judging in a totally biased manner.

Joe Galea

May 20th 2009, 08:54

Hunters and trappers got what they deserved. They voted PN repeatedly while they were being taken for a ride. They are still dreaming of derogations and other crap like this. Just wake up dudes, hunting and trapping is something of the past, thanks to yourselves and your beloved Partit Nazzjonalista.

laurence schembri

May 20th 2009, 08:44

@ J Oatmon
Still waiting the reform report on MEPA. When? Don`t ask me. Even though my name is Laurence I do not run the country.

Johnny Xerri

May 20th 2009, 08:04

@ J Oatmon,

Moreover, were was the anti hunting fraternity when collosial buildings were eracted. Not to publically name any, say fro example the tower in St. Julians, the recently developed hotel at Golden Bay, the hotels on our coasts.

I mean every knowledgable person is aware on the impact of light and noise pollution, yet nobody batted an eyelid at these.

Would you consider a hotel or tower less of an eyesore, then say a 1.9m hide?

Lets be serious, all the public is doing is grabbing every arguement, to abolish hunting/trapping, instead of finding solutions as other countries have, the public is more concerned at grabing everything at hand to totaly ban hunting/trapping.

Hunting/trapping hides are present all over europe, they are simply better organised, so instead of banning, one could better organise.

The only issue in the hunting/trapping debate should be the sustainability to the bird species. If the activity is sutainable (scientifical studies should be conducted, not public opinion from anti or pro hunting), then let the trapper/hunter, engage in the activity. Regularise it, set stanards, and be consistant, and not leave the trapper/hunter in the dark as to whether he will hunt tomorrow.

Johnny Xerri

May 20th 2009, 07:51

@J Oatmon,

Of course this trapping hide is an eyesore.

That is why trapping and mepa should go hand-in-hand.

I am not a trapper, However, I am a hunter.

What is white for me should be clasified as white and what is black should be classified as black.

Hunting & trapping hides should be constructed in traditional rubble, without using uncomplimentary materials. This apart from preserving the skill of rubble construction would also blend into the environment, just like a normal rubble wall.

Mepa should act as a regulator so that trapping and hunting sites are regularised so that no eyesore is created.

Through outright banning and confrontation, what do you expect? A hunter/trapper to dedicate maneffort, apart from monetary costs, to build a hide, in a proper manner, just to have the season banned next yr.

I mean realisically would you invest in something that will be banned year after.

What do you percieve that trappers don't know or are blind to whether their hide is blending to the environment?

The public & govt have to first and foremost remove the mentality of a total ban and then criticise constructively. Then yes I believe that hunters/trappers will coperate.

Kevin Zammit

May 19th 2009, 16:06

@J Oatmon

There is a loop hole in the law that trappers can use. A field is allowed a 'tool shed'. Obviously trappers are trying to burrow into another loop hole with this diversity excuse since there would be no way to monitor if they are actually trapping finches only or not. Not to mention that most of their catch is finches anyway.

I say that is fine as long as it is heavily regulated and only a systematic and decreasing number of permits are released. This way we could accomodate the old timers and slowly wean the young ones off this 'tradition'. Let's face it, Canada bashes seals on the head and Japan and Iceland over fish whales with the excuse they are needed for experimental reasons.

J Oatmon

May 19th 2009, 13:40

How come this 'structure' (and others like it) which are absolute eyesores are allowed by MEPA and not ordered to be dismantled?

Surely hunters are subject to planning and building regulations like everyone else in Malta - or are the bird trappers and bird shooters, above the law, like the 'mega builders' appear to be?

Franco Farrugia

May 19th 2009, 13:23

No. Why should trapping go on? What right do we have to trap birds for the sheer pleasure of having them in small cages? What does 'capturing wild birds for the promotion of genetic biodiversity and educational purposes' have to do with Maltese hunters and trappers?

J Farrugia

May 19th 2009, 11:41

May I humbly suggest that no one replies to the FKNK or any other NGO before the coming elections. Let no one promise anything to any one before the elections and if any authority wants to conclude something with NGOs let them do it AFTER THE ELECTIONS HAVE GONE. Dont sell yourselves and us to anyone just for a vote, which after all will never come your way. They are what they are, Things will remain what they have been. So ... no promises.

Ramon Casha

May 19th 2009, 10:35

Would "forget it" be sufficiently clear and unequivocal?