BirdLife and unfounded allegations

In the letter Unfounded Allegations About BirdLife (November 4), Joseph Mangion, in his attempt to "set the record straight" regarding unfounded allegations, rambled on as to whether the fact that BirdLife agreed to the government's derogating for spring hunting is fact or fiction. In reality, whether BirdLife Malta did, does not or ever will agree, is of no importance and certainly has no bearing on whether Malta could derogate or not.

The right of a member state to derogate is evaluated by the European Commission based on the state's specific circumstances and is judged on a case by case basis.

In the case of Malta, where the use of derogation was made perfectly clear before accession, the four years where government exercised this right were considered illegal by the European Commission and subsequently Malta ended up before the European Courts of Justice.

The court found fault with the way Malta had applied the derogation in the years 2004 to 2007, however - more importantly - the ECJ ruling established that autumn was not a satisfactory alternative to hunting in spring. Clause 63 declares: "Having regard to those very specific circumstances, hunting for quails and turtle doves during the autumn hunting season cannot be regarded as constituting, in Malta, another satisfactory solution, so that the condition that there be no other satisfactory solution, laid down in Article 9(1) of the Directive, should, in principle, be considered met". This is now a confirmed fact, which neither the Commission nor BirdLife can appeal against.

Contrary to the repetitive allegations by BirdLife Malta that spring hunting was illegal throughout the EU and to its worthless "repeated warnings" again referred to in Mr Mangion's letter, "that Malta could end up at the ECJ for allowing spring hunting" the Maltese government may in future years apply derogations for hunting in spring provided it complies with the conditions stipulated in the Birds Directive. The ECJ was very clear in sorting out fact from BirdLife fiction.

With regard to another repetitive BirdLife's fallacy that the turtle dove and quail are endangered species, the ECJ here again confirms who is unashamedly responsible for "unfounded allegations". Clause 62 says: "It is not apparent from the documents in the case that the population of the two species of bird hunted is below a satisfactory level. It is apparent, in particular, from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species that the species in question are listed in the 'least concern' category." It is here worth noting that the data on which this IUCN category is attested is compiled by no other then BirdLife International of which BirdLife Malta is a partner.

BirdLife International signed an agreement with the EU Hunters Federation (FACE) to respect the ECJ judgment. BirdLife International and BirdLife Malta have already jointly submitted a complaint to the European Commission. BirdLife Malta persists in threatening the Maltese government by resorting to scare-mongering tactics and unfounded allegations about another court case as well as imaginary expenses for the Maltese taxpayers.

BirdLife Malta, its partners and all the foreign abolitionists that annually flock to Malta in support of Birdlife Malta all concur in preventing Malta's government from exercising its acknowledged right to derogate in accordance with the ECJ ruling. It is blatantly obvious that they show no scruples in trying to achieve this.

Contrary to Mr Mangion's conclusion, the European Court of Justice ruling vindicates the position taken up by the hunters' representatives "who have the ability to understand what they read and stick to the facts".

Legitimate birdwatchers in this country could do with leaders of that calibre, instead of having to make do with sworn abolitionists who thrive on unfounded allegations, misinformation and manipulation of fact.