Birdlife is not interested in a referendum on spring hunting, even though it contends that the Maltese would support a ban.
“There are about 10,000 registered hunters in Malta among a population of about 400,000. The hunting federation’s reaction to the proposed referendum clearly indicates that they recognise they are in a minority and a referendum would result in the abolition of spring hunting,” a Birdlife spokesman said.
The referendum issue was sparked during a debate organised by The Times when the two political leaders were asked whether they would accept a referendum to be held on spring hunting.
Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said “yes”, sparking outrage among hunters who accused his party of wanting to abolish hunting.
Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat said “no”.
Contacted by The Times, Birdlife said a referendum was not necessary because EU directives already made it amply clear that such a practice should not be permitted.
“When Malta joined the EU it agreed to abide by EU directives. The people of Malta voted to join the EU, so a referendum that covers this issue has already been held,” a spokesman said.
He added that EU guidance on sustainable hunting explicitly said that no derogations should be allowed for hunting species of “unfavourable conservation status”, like turtle dove and quail.
“While debate on this issue is welcome and a referendum would certainly stimulate debate and discussion, EU legislation is already clear on this matter: spring hunting should not take place.”
Asked about the statements made by the two leaders, Birdlife said Dr Gonzi should know that Malta’s EU membership required a commitment to apply European directives properly. “If he had done this properly, spring hunting would have ended on Malta some years ago,” the spokesman said, adding that if Dr Muscat were serious about applying EU directives as they should be, he would end spring hunting derogations immediately on becoming Prime Minister.
“However, we suspect that not agreeing to a referendum demonstrates that he has allowed himself to be bullied by the hunting lobby into maintaining and expanding the privileges that successive governments have given to them.”
Birdlife added that it had not moved closer to either party following the debate.
“We are disappointed that the PN has not dealt with this issue while in government and are concerned at the PL’s statements that appear to be offering hunters more concessions, not less,” the spokesman concluded. Meanwhile, the Nationalist Party yesterday said it was in favour of sustainable hunting and trapping within the parameters of the law. The party denied the “false allegation” by the hunters’ federation and St Hubert Hunters that it wanted to abolish hunting and trapping through a referendum.
If at least 10 per cent of voters requested an abrogative referendum, this would have to be held, the PN noted, pointing out that this was a fact that would remain so unless the law was changed.