Alternattiva Demokratika’s letter (July 2) in reply to mine of June 25 is a classic example of someone ‘beating about the bush’.

This newspaper reported (March 5 “Although spring hunting is not permitted by EU directives, apart from exceptional cases, hunters in Malta won the right to have a controlled spring hunting season for quails and turtle doves at the European Court of Justice.”

It is AD that misrepresents the judgment of the European Court of Justice. AD secretary Ralph Cassar apparently does not know that legal experts appointed by the Maltese Government, the Federation of Hunting Associations of the European Union and the Maltese Hunting Federation independently scrutinised the ECJ judgment.

Presumably, the European Commission’s legal experts did likewise.

All these legal minds reached the conclusion that the ECJ ruling gave the green light to limited spring-hunting through derogation. If it had been otherwise, the Commission would have put a stop to spring hunting already in early 2010.

Cassar again is unaware that derogation for limited spring hunting is actually based on scientific facts and data. Before applying a derogation, the Maltese Government had commissioned a British bird biologist of international repute, N.J. Aebischer. His scientifically-based recommendations form the backbone of derogation. Cassar should name the source of AD’s “scientifically-based stance on (spring) hunting”.

Writing that wildlife and the countryside is not for my “exclusive enjoyment” again proves Cassar ignorant of the facts. Only turtle doves and quails may be hunted in spring. Both species are game birds, are listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive and are hunted legally within several EU member states.

Exclusivity is only in Cassar’s imagination since Birdlife Malta members enjoy all Malta’s wildlife, to judge from their website.

Besides, as a countryside landowner, I am entitled to use my land for recreation, without having anyone trespass or bother me, and since hunting forms an integral part of my recreational requirements, I have a right to enjoy my part of the countryside my way.

Furthermore, some years back I remember having a discussion with one of AD’s members, who is a good friend of mine, while on my land as a guest, where he could not understand and accept that, as a Maltese citizen, he still cannot go anywhere he pleases.

I tried to explain that he could not just come into my garden (which, incidentally, is in the countryside) and, likewise, he could not enter my private land. But he insisted that it was not acceptable for part of the countryside to be inaccessible to others who cannot afford it. I remember I almost fainted.

It seems this egoism is inbred in AD and Cassar not only knows nothing about owners’ rights but is also unaware of what the Birds Directive itself and the other EU legislation say on recreational rights.

To conclude, AD’s secretary failed to counter my main point that in a true democracy the rights of minorities are not subject to the emotional whim of the majority. Clearly, AD’s proposed referendum is just a political gimmick based purely on superficiality and emotion, without a basis in true democracy.