BirdLife's disproportionate publicity

I do not blame my friend Nicky Bianchi (January 12) for thinking that BirdLife publicity is proportional to the illegalities, because his perception is a consequence of their deceitful strategy.

The "sensational scale of poaching in Malta" refers no doubt to the find of dead birds at the Miżieb hunting reserve, currently under police investigation. That isolated incident, however, has the hallmarks of a frame-up. The "search" seems to have been pre-planned; the hunting federation officials in charge of Miżieb were never informed; and the police were informed with delay. Several timesofmalta.com commentators have cast serious doubts on the "discovery", and it is known that the police investigators smell a rat and probably will not take court action.

BLM succeeded in getting the incident on the BBC news and the international birding websites in an attempt to counter their debacle at the European Court of Justice on September 10, 2009, when the ECJ demolished the main pillars of their creed: that spring hunting is illegal, that autumn hunting is a satisfactory alternative, that the hunted species (turtle-doves and quails) are endangered. BLM's credibility had reached a new low, and they chose that moment to try to tarnish the hunters' federation and wrest from them the coveted Miżieb woodland.

Regarding what happens in the hunting season, nobody is in a better position to relate than my fellow hunters and myself who are up in the field before dawn. I can vouch for the fact that in the area where I hunt I see nothing I could describe as "sensational" by any standard. It is only BLM that report about some illegality, calling it "sensational" and magnifying it by using suggestive wording (e.g. tip of the iceberg) without any basis in reality, let alone proof. Without anyone bothering to check their objectivity, reports get published of alleged atrocities for whom nobody in particular ever gets blamed, as long as mud is thrown in the direction of all hunters, not to mention Malta's name.

This tactic brings BLM many advantages: it is easy to carry out, costs nothing, takes up little time, and attracts public sympathy and resultant money donations. Above all BLM is left free to report whatever it deems fit, none of what it states is ever officially verified apart from its own foreign invited birders all sharing similar sentiments about hunting. Birding societies abroad work quite differently. They routinely mobilise their members. In Scotland, birders guard nesting ospreys round the clock, apart from watching over their wetlands and reserves. The police do not do the job for them, nor does the government pay them to guard their own reserves. That happens "only in Malta"!

The police have done much to enforce the law, but illegalities will always take place, as in all spheres of public life. Acknowledging this reality, the hunters' representatives themselves want marshals to be appointed as an added deterrent, the hunting licence fees making good for any payment involved. There is nothing unreasonable or biased in this proposal.

To date only BLM objects. It is unbelievable that the people who see "sensational" illegalities everywhere are the same people against the marshal scheme, which incidentally is not restricted to hunters. While BLM insist that illegalities are still "rampant", they oppose a practical solution of real benefit to birds. I cannot but conclude that BLM's stance is unrelated to the protection of birds.

Satisfied that the police are doing a good job, and as expected, receiving BLM's scorn, Lawrence Gonzi is right to maintain that "illegal hunting" has been contained. With both the hunting federation (FKNK) and the Kaċċaturi San Ubertu (KSU) declaring "zero tolerance" and co-operation with the police, there should be no further obstacles to a spring hunting derogation. The ECJ decision must be acted upon.