In its editorial entitled Spring Hunting Referendum, that appear on July 3, Times of Malta claimed that “The practice of hunting in spring is banned across the EU, one reason being that birds are breeding and on their migratory passages”.
There is a series of derogations from the Birds Directive applied by other EU states, “renowned for upholding environmental standards”, during the period when, allegedly, such activities are banned. These can be verified in the 2011 EU report listing derogations applied in 2008 (ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/rep_birds/docs/derogation_report_2008.pdf).
This information disproves all the deceitful information given by those proposing or supporting a referendum to ban a European Court of Justice endorsed derogation for spring hunting on the false premise that such practices are “banned across the EU”.
Derogation, as in the case of spring hunting in Malta and all those in the other states listed below, is a legally applied exception from EU law where certain activities that are usually banned are perfectly legalised.
The cardinal principle that legalises such banned practices is where no “satisfactory solution” is considered possible.
This principle can be approved by the European Commission or, as in the case of Malta, where it was disputed by the Commission, endorsed by means of a European Court judgment.
Such derogation, apart from legalising the hunting of birds in spring as an alternative to unsatisfactory autumn hunting, legally permits the destruction of thousands of birds, their nests and their eggs. Several of these derogation applications, as opposed to the one in Malta for spring hunting of huntable birds, are applied to destroy, capture, shoot or control even protected bird species during spring.
Austria: “spring hunting with weapons of 732 individuals of scolopax rusticola, 324 of tetrao urogallus and 1,255 of tetrao tetrix.”
Bulgaria/the Czech Republic/Germany/the Netherlands/Poland/Portugal/Slovakia: “deliberate disturbance of birds, at times together with the destruction of nests”.
Cyprus: “3,000 licences to hunters for shooting across the whole country the two species for a total of six days during their nesting period. The hunting of pica pica and corvus corone cornix during the whole month of July”.
Denmark: “January 1 to December 31 in all Danish regions. The activity allowed is always killing with firearms, in particular the so-called pest species. The most affected species is corvus frugilegus with 66,522 individuals killed”.
Finland: “the hunting of 3,235 individuals of clangula hyemalis during the spring season (between April and May)”, “deliberate disturbance during the period of breeding or rearing” and “the destruction, damage to and removal of nests”.
Hungary: “capture and destruction of nests of passer domesticus, hirundo rustica and delichon urbica”; “killing of the three crow species, pica pica, garrulus glandarius and corvus corone cornix, during the spring season”.
Ireland: “general licence issued every four months including spring to capture or kill ‘pest species’ by shooting with firearms, poisoned or anaesthetic bait or cages”.
Latvia: recreational hunting of capercaillies (tetrao urogallus). The permissions are issued from April 20 to May 10 during the spring breeding season”.
The Netherlands: “damaging/removal of nests”.
Spain: 18 derogations for the capture by hunting with nets, the capture for keeping in captivity and the marketing of the eight species of songbirds. At least five of these derogations allow the capture of the birds during thebreeding season.
Sweden: derogations involving the shooting of pest-species are granted for the whole year.
United Kingdom: derogation under general licence allowing the eradication of pest species 365 days a year, the taking of eggs and destruction of nests ( the number of birds/eggs/nests affected, a total of 114,884 eggs); 104,924 eggs of the larus ridibundus were taken from the wild for human consumption. Morus bassana (a protected species 1,995 individuals were killed, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis for human consumption.
Each derogation is ‘investigated’ by the Commission and it is totally alarmist to pick upon the ‘news’ of a particular Malta investigation.
The Commission reports on the derogations mentioned confirm what is advisable with regard to ‘investigating’ derogations granted annually and also state that none of the derogations are banned or in conflict with European directives: “none of these derogations granted seem to be in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.
However, considering that most of the derogations are granted annually for the same species and the same purposes, it is advisable to monitor the correct use of derogations, which are meant to be an exception, not the rule.”
The editorial mentioned above also refers to “flawed arguments (and figures)”, yet, other than parroting Birdlife Malta claims and promoting their barrage of bad publicity, it similarly fails to provide proof to the contrary.
Clearly, with a string of editorials criticising successive governments on the issue of hunting it purports to be doing a service to the “majority of Maltese”, which, according to its surveys, are “anti-hunting”.
Other than the hogwash on what is banned or what, in its opinion, is flawed, Times of Malta is naive enough to believe that the results of its hunting surveys are a true depiction of fact.
Perhaps the newspaper might wish to verify exactly how many of those who responded to the online surveys on hunting are actually Maltese nationals.
If that is a problem, may I refer to countless appeals made to the international birding community by Birdlife Malta on the lines: “Times of Malta poll asks the public whether they think the spring hunting season should be closed early. So far, 75 per cent of respondents say “Yes”. Cast your vote on the Times of Malta homepage.”
Indeed, several arguments and initiatives against the legal practice of hunters might ‘backfire’ and leave the ignorant even more ignorant about the rights of a minority to apply a derogation in accordance with European directives.
The presumed majority of those objecting to these legal practices are already “causing more embarrassment for Malta” by adding to the animosity their past actions have created.
Will the presumed majority be prepared to accept responsibility for devastating the work of successive governments to reconcile the hunter and the conservationists?
Perhaps Times of Malta might wish to conduct another survey to give us the answer.
Until then, we will, like all other rational people, continue to defend legal hunting and work towards the eradication of abuse wherever it originates from.
Mark Mifsud Bonnici is president of Kaċċaturi San Ubertu.