Last week I was asked by Times of Malta for my opinion on spring hunting. I said I would vote against spring hunting if a referendum were held. That was my honest answer. This is my reasoning.

Years ago, the Nationalist Party convinced the EU to grant Malta an exception and allow spring hunting under what is called a “derogation”. This gave us strict parameters in which spring hunting could be continued. The PN, as promoters of Malta’s EU membership, had succeeded in striking a balance between EU rules and the expectations of a large lobby group.

As someone who has always been against the shooting of birds, especially during the migratory spring period, I didn’t see this as a major victory. However, I understood that the Nationalist government had to work hard to make EU membership a positive experience for everyone, hunters included. After all, many hunters had voted for EU membership when the country found itself at that crucial juncture.

In applying this derogation, the PN government also tried to strike a balance: pushing to accommodate hunters as much as possible while sticking to the parameters allowed. For instance, hunters were made responsible for reporting the number of birds they shot, even though they had a direct interest in keeping the figures low so the season would not be closed when the quotas are reached. Again, this was not something with which I agreed but something I understood.

However, instead of appreciating the efforts of the Nationalist government, the hunters kept pushing for more.

They struck a pre-election backroom deal with the Labour Party, promising votes in return for an even more lenient interpretation of the spring hunting derogation. This deal helped Joseph Muscat sail to victory at the last election but it also meant he had to deliver on his promises rather quickly.

In many ways, he stuck to his promises. What was already criticised as a lax application of the spring hunting derogation now became a flagrant mockery of it.

Hunters no longer need to pay a license fee so their numbers soared. They are no longer forced to wear an armband, making it more difficult for the authorities to identify non-registered hunters.

Shooting is now allowed on public holidays and Sundays. The season became marginally longer than previous seasons. And now we hear even trapping is being considered.

The PN, which had fought for hunters to be allowed to shoot a limited number of birds, had long faced criticism about the credibility of hunters reporting their catch. Now, instead of perfecting an arguably flawed system, the Labour government turned the situation into a downright farce.

What was already criticised as a lax application of the spring hunting derogation now became a flagrant mockery of it

The result? Everyone is a loser. The non-hunting public must now deal with more unchecked shooting in the countryside, even on Sundays and public holidays. Birds, even protected ones, are being shot down without any true capping. And hunters are paying the price for all this in public opinion.

In fact, it took less than a year of Labour in government for the public to rise up with a petition against spring hunting. And now, 45,000 people are calling for a referendum to banish the spring hunting once and for all. This never happened under the PN, when the government showed genuine intentions to strike a balance on the issue.

People feel they are being taken for a ride and they have decided to fight back. When the government shows it has no intention of applying an EU derogation properly, taxpayers who understand the consequences involved have no choice but to rise up and remove the derogation altogether.

It is the attitude displayed by Labour this year that has galvanised my opinion against spring hunting once and for all.

Although I was always against the shooting of birds, I never felt I should impose my opinion because I understood that sometimes there is more to the hunting pastime than meets the eyes.

But the hunters shot themselves in the foot through their excessive demands and greed. They did not understand the consequences of their actions. If you are allowed an exception, you cannot expect to turn it into the rule.

I understand that my position on this matter is perhaps stronger than the official opinion of my party which has deliberately chosen not to politicise the ongoing signature collections from both sides.

I respect my party’s stand. Why should the PN get involved and let Labour capitalise even more on this issue?

However, I also feel I must be honest and transparent about my own personal intentions before people get the chance to elect me as an MEP. You won’t see me collecting signatures either way because this is not a stunt to win votes. But now you know how I intend to use my signature if this ever comes to a vote. Agree or disagree, at least you know where I stand.

https://www.facebook.com/VoteJonathanShaw?ref=hl

Jonathan Shaw is a Nationalist MEP candidate.

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.