Personally, I prefer birds to be flying in the air and roosting in trees, but then, of course, not everyone agrees with me. Nor do I expect that.
The issue of bird shooting – I prefer using this expression rather than ‘hunting’ – has been with us ever since guns became more efficient and available while birds became scarcer. Some even consider the practice as an ingrained part of Maltese culture.
When the Maltese government negotiated the conditions for Malta’s accession to the European Union, it eked out a compromise of sorts in the light of the EU’s Birds Directive. It was no easy process and the result is what it is.
The PN managed to alienate the unsatisfied shooters and trappers as well as those who think the Birds Directive was etched in stone on Mount Sinai and any derogation from it is sacrilege. Labour had the ‘luck’ of being in Opposition and managed to pick some unmerited benefits.
From the word ‘go’, the bird-shooting lobby complained it was not enough and the environmentalist lobby refused to accept the compromise. No surprise here: for environmentalists all over the world, compromise is an alien concept.
Although I am no bird-shooting fan, the tactics adopted by the local environmentalist lobby together with their overseas colleagues irk me no end.
They irk me as it is obvious that they have picked on Malta because the small size of our country makes the ‘problem’ more manageable. Imagine how many volunteers the Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS) would need to patrol the territory of, say, all Spain. Malta is far easier.
Their tactics also irk me because they do not flinch at exaggerations or misleading information, so long as it is in their cause. I suspect that their campaign against bird shooting and trapping in spring is not a goal in itself but just a first step: once they achieve it, they will then proceed to demand a permanent abolition all year round.
This does not mean that the others – the bird shooters – do not irk me as well. They include too many undisciplined fanatics who shoot birds indiscriminately, whether in season or not or whether birds are protected or not. This is a minority of the bird-shooting fraternity, but a minority doing untold harm to the cause of shooters and trappers.
There is a part of the bird-shooting lobby that replies to scientifically-based claims made by environmentalists by quoting scientifically-based counter-claims. Unfortunately, truth has become a casualty in the war between environmentalists and bird shooters.
What is the percentage of birds migrating from Europe that actually pass over Malta? Are turtle doves and quails in need of total protection as otherwise they will become endangered species? I wish I knew the true, objective answers to these and other such questions.
Some time ago, the environmentalists launched a campaign to get signatures for a petition asking for a referendum with people voting in favour or against the abolition of all bird hunting in spring. It is their right, and if the majority of voters approve this abolition in line with established rules, so be it. Otherwise, the law giving Maltese citizens the right to petition for abrogative referenda would not be worth the paper it is written on.
As a reaction, the bird-shooting lobby has made an astounding faux pas: they promoted the argument that bird shooting is enjoyed by a minority and therefore it is a minority right. I am perplexed because this is nothing short of nonsense – the type of nonsense that makes democracy nonsensical. Shooting birds is not a basic human right and the State has a right to regulate this activity or abolish it, if such a course of action is justified.
With this argument, one can expect others claiming their minority ‘right’ to organise dog – or cock – fighting
The hunting lobby should have put forward arguments that show that there is no such justification in the case of particular kinds of migratory birds. Instead, it has short-sightedly chosen to push the argument that this abolition would negatively impinge on some imagined rights of the minority.
What about the minority within the minority? The minority, for example, that thinks it has a right to shoot flamingos or birds of prey? These minorities can use the same argument claiming that their ‘right’ prevails over the need to protect threatened birds. One cannot argue that the larger minority has a right that the smaller minority does not have.
With this argument, one can expect others claiming their minority ‘right’ to organise dog – or cock – fighting. Blood ‘sports’ that involve animal cruelty are ingrained in the cultures of diverse ethnic groups all over the planet. So do governments have an obligation to recognise some imaginary ‘right’ of the minorities who practise them?
This is reducing the hunting lobby’s absurd stance to its logical absurd conclusion, of course.
But then, in this issue it seems to be impossible to avoid absurdity – what with the reckless exaggerations of the environmentalist lobby or the shortsighted attempt to turn the issue into one of minority ‘rights’.
micfal@maltanet.net