In the letter Realistic Approach To Illegal Hunting (November 30), Stefan Azzopardi, a BirdLife Malta council member, in the usual manner, accuses anyone criticising BLM of inconsistencies and misinterpretations. Before attempting to “put the record straight” with futile arguments, it might be opportune for Mr Azzopardi to first put his own house in order considering BLM’s campaign in favour of bird conservation is riddled with nothing but such characteristics and downright manipulation of fact.

Clearly, scientifically sound reports are not in BLM’s interest. They rubbished the government’s independent two-year comparative study on bird migration and failed to provide any scientific data to this effect. The carnet de chasse data, valid evidence at the European Court of Justice, is discredited and criticised by BLM, yet the hunters’ suggestion of police spot checks as further proof of the data’s scientific value and veracity is termed as a contradiction by BLM.

The setting up of a purposely dedicated Wildlife Crime Unit, though a suggestion common to both parties, has been negated by the government. Consequently, the hunting associations, that, as opposed to BLM, are “truly” against poaching, published public applications for the appointing of hunting marshals, which BLM promptly ridiculed. Another hunters’ initiative refused by BLM was the proposal to have police accompanying spring and autumn Raptor camp participants. This initiative paid for by the hunting associations would have ensured prompt police action and the official verification of any reports.

Misinterpretation of fact and blatant exaggeration are the rule of the day for who covertly wants hunting banned. Apart from openly teaming up with known abolitionists that consider bird hunting as “bird slaughter” (CABS), they conveniently fail to mention facts published in a report by reputable Swedish ornithologists who in collaboration with BLM participated in a two-month bird observation camp meant to establish the extent of illegal hunting in Malta. The conclusion of this extensive report carried out in the best areas for bird observation, probably the only comprehensive and honest one ever published, recorded 55 raptors killed and unequivocally confirms BLM’s blatant exaggerations. “Far more than 55 raptors have most probably been killed on Malta this autumn but the number does probably not reach BirdLife Malta’s estimations of several thousand killed raptors in a normal autumn season.”

As for inconsistencies, this is where BLM excel. There is no denying that under certain conditions, the Bird Directive permits hunting in spring under derogation where no other “satisfactory solution” exists. Yet even before the pronouncement of the ECJ court sentence confirming that Malta’s “specific circumstances” qualify for such derogation, BLM were parading Maltese “personalities” with a message to stop illegal spring hunting. BLM persist with such misinformation even following the Commission’s acceptance of the ludicrous 2010 six half- day derogatory period. What they originally termed as “illegal” according to Mr Azzopardi now becomes a “possibility” that he, and supposedly myself, know is “diminishing”.

BLM informing us as to whether spring hunting under derogation is “illegal” or a “possibility” might help the public come to terms with their inconsistencies. Knowing Malta’s peculiarities in terms of bird migration, BirdLife Malta originally acknowledged that Malta’s “specific circumstances” warrant spring derogation, on condition that hunting was limited to the turtle dove and quail. Such a rare truthful admission of fact met the scorn of bird conservationists worldwide which in short could have spelt disaster for BLM. “Initially BirdLife Malta backed up a few of these demands for exceptions, which might seem extraordinary... After massive criticism from BirdLife in the rest of Europe, BirdLife Malta now has joined the common European standpoint.” Nowadays BLM conveniently deny such fact and unfortunately what was once a Maltese birdwatching society run by knowledgeable locals has become a foreign-led non-entity in terms of local bird observation and bird migratory peculiarities.

BLM’s backing of a few “demands for exceptions” and their “estimations of several thousand killed raptors” are BLM inconsistencies and misinterpretations referred to on birding websites that anyone can verify. For the sake of credibility how does BLM intend putting their own record straight? Clearly the “massive criticism” overrules any possibility of their ever admitting the truth. There is far too much to lose for BLM to be honest. Consequently, their stand against hunters with all its related nonsense should be carefully scrutinised by all who wish to establish the truth.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.