In his letter condemning spring hunting, David Conlin (February 2), former British Army officer and diplomat, called the Brussels officials "toothless and naive" on this issue because, in his view, despite having been provided with the evidence, they made the wrong decision.

Briefly and in general, the evidence consisted of: (i) countless letters in the papers by local birding fanatics and allies, some not even knowing where Malta is, let alone having ever visited it; (ii) petitions with thousands of signatories of the same mould; (iii) exaggerated one-sided reports about "rare" protected birds shot, and (iv) personal letters to EU commissioners and MEPs by self-styled "experts" on Maltese bird migration.

For lack of space, we give in detail just one example of the "evidence".

On September 20, 2008 this newspaper reported that CABS members had witnessed the shooting of a number of protected birds. The amount totalled from 31 to 41 birds. Yet, Mr Conlin, the operations officer of CABS, as quoted in the same news item and referring to the same illegalities, said that "hundreds of birds of prey were shot by Maltese hunters".

This was the kind of evidence presented to the "naïve" officials in Brussels.

Now, if Mr Conlin is happy to think that these facts, plus his description of Brussels officials, do not in any way conflict with his "honour as a former British Army officer and diplomat", we certainly have no interest in making him think differently.

The latest "evidence" following hot on the heels of the September 2009 verdict of the European Court of Justice was the discovery of bird carcasses at Miżieb, which Mr Conlin called "the mass bird graves", stirring up visions of genocide in people's minds.

Regarding the find, the expert on hunting appointed by the government on the Ornis committee has commented that "birds mutilated in pieces were counted by the pieces instead of by the bird". Assuming that statement, responsibly made, is correct, then the multiplication of carcasses provides a further example of the type of evidence presented to Brussels. On our part, we await the publication of the official report of the police investigation.

Mr Conlin argues that spring hunting should not be allowed because it will provide cover for illegal shooting of protected birds. His argument is specious, because, by the same logic, autumn hunting will provide the same effect and be banned.

Mr Conlin laments he could do "without a 'holiday' consisting of a strenuous 18 to 20 hours a day in the Maltese countryside attempting to prevent European and Maltese law being contravened and bringing the criminals to justice". His statement is an indictment of the laissez faire attitude of BirdLife, who are very good at criticising the Maltese government, MEPs and hunters while letting Mr Conlin et al do the dirty work for them. They maintain that illegalities are "widespread" and "rampant" and they fight these alleged illegalities by putting in the field just about two per cent of their 3,000 members, normally their employees, and for only 15 per cent of the time (50 to 60 birders during Spring Watch and Autumn Raptor camp).

The fact that Mr Conlin was free to spend all those hours daily in the Maltese countryside during the hunting season rubbishes BirdLife's campaign about the Maltese countryside being off limits to all but the hunters.

Mr Conlin may rest assured that we condemn any criminal elements that tarnish hunting and we are on record as urging the authorities to take drastic steps against abusers unreservedly without fear or favour. We also condemn brute force and violent actions just as, if not more than, we condemn intellectual malice. But let there be no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that hunting is here to stay and we and our colleagues will see to that. Anyone who still harbours the idea of making Malta a hunting-free zone is seriously underestimating our resolve, our energy and our resources.