Birdlife Malta have an interesting way of approaching the "breeding birds" subject. Reading between the lines of their recent press releases, one may deduce that if Malta does not have the number of breeding birds BLM thinks it should have, or if a pair of turtle doves fails to breed, then the hunting lobby is to blame. If a nest is disturbed or a bird has not been seen, then someone is accused of shooting it.

This form of justice is all very well from a PR perspective but then there are comparisons we might make with their reserves. Reading their "2009 Breeding Birds" report, one immediately notes that only a very small percentage of the few breeding pairs of birds have bred on BLM's reserves.

Thus, their illogical blanket allegations against every hunter are counter-productive. How can anyone be expected to work constructively with an organisation that is calling them criminal and when the whole argument looks like an exercise designed to help BLM's finances and not the nation's bird population? Applying this logic to their arguments and reports puts them under scrutiny and strongly suggests that their scientific methodology is of the "pick a number and double it" variety.

The saddest part of this whole story is that Birdlife and the shooting lobby have similar aims. It is recognised worldwide that shooting creates and conserves habitats for a vast range of species, most of which are not even shot.

Even sadder is that this whole wasteful debate is based on false assumptions about public attitudes. Birdlife for example are adamant that the Park Tal-Majjistral should be totally free from any hunting activity and are constantly dismissive of any suggestions that Natura 2000 and other sites can be managed at a level that would permit sustainable hunting.

We sometimes do not give the public the credit they deserve. They understand the need for balance even if Birdlife doesn't.