Spring hunting derogation

Spring hunting is only practised on two species, the turtle dove and common quail, following an irrevocable European Court decision that recognises the “insufficient hunting opportunities” on both species during autumn. This decision was taken following, among other sound evidence, the presentation of migration records from several reputable ornithologists including those of BirdLife Malta members. All such records concur that the autumn migration of these two species is of no comparison to that of spring and in the Court’s own words, based upon all the evidence presented to it, “the condition that there be no other satisfactory solution, laid down in article 9(1) of the Directive, should, in principle, be considered met”.

The Court decision was also based upon the hunters’ carnet de chasse records, so often criticised by BirdLife as being unreliable and false. It was not influenced by the claim that both species are endangered neither by the claim that hunters have five months in which to hunt these species in autumn since both were obviously false. As a matter of fact all arguments presented by BirdLife International and its Maltese partner through the European Commission were unceremoniously dismissed by the Court as being unacceptable.

The turtle dove and quail are two of the 32 species that can legally be hunted in Malta. As such, the conditions applicable to hunting according to the EU Birds Directive apply to all these species. One of the cardinal principles that justify the use of derogation, an exception to the rules of this directive, is that of there being “no satisfactory solution” during the autumn hunting season to hunt any of these huntable species. The two species concerned according to the Court unquestionably qualify for the use of derogation.

Derogation for spring hunting as in the case of Malta is indeed an exception to the rule and having recognised Malta’s “specific circumstances” the European Court conceded the right to Malta’s government to apply such derogation. It is certainly not illegal neither a matter of appeasing hunters for votes as repeatedly stated by BirdLife Malta and Alternattiva Demokratika, both of which have sworn to put an end to a perfectly legal concession.

The fact that BirdLife Malta, following an agreement to respect the Court’s ruling, persist in discrediting Malta’s government and tarnishing Malta’s hunters clearly shows their total disrespect for any form of agreement and towards the rights of legal hunters to exercise a European directive. As for Alternattiva Demokratika supporting BirdLife Malta, one wonders who indeed has a thirst for votes. One thing’s for certain, they both strive for recognition and will stoop to any level to achieve this.