Those advocating a resumption of finch trapping might feel gratified in the short term that their schemes are bearing fruit. The long term, however, is a different kettle of fish, since 10 or 20 years down the line, our children will wonder why such an inhumane and destructive practice was allowed to make a comeback five years after it was consigned to history.
Sometimes those who are completely estranged from the natural environment think trapping is less objectionable than hunting since the trapped birds are not actually killed. The short-sightedness of this argument is amazing as the truth is the diametric opposite in terms of the broad impact on the natural environment.
Bird trapping scars the landscape as trappers obliterate whole swathes of garigue to spread their clapnets. In fact, the places where bird trapping used to conducted in previous years can clearly be spotted as the areas cleared of garigue have not recovered but have simply been overrun by weedy plants and other similar opportunistic species found in urban environments like roadsides.
Those sanctioning the resumption of bird trapping (the fact that these are Wild Birds Regulations Unit and the Parliamentary Secretariat for Animal Welfare represent the mother of all contradictions) would have us believe that this time, finch trapping will be very different. They are putting blind faith in a system that has failed over and over again – auto-regulation, whereby trappers are called upon to abide by a very specific total quota for the two-month season (26,850 birds).
Several legitimate questions spring to mind – what if 26,851 or more birds are trapped? Will the trapping season be closed overnight?
And are we to rely solely on trappers to accurately report the actual number of birds they are trapping?
An assurance is being given that trapping at new sites will not be allowed – here again, NGOs had to fight tooth and nail to have illegal trapping activities banished from protected areas, such as the garigue at Pembroke and the Majjistral Park. Does all trapping take place on privately-owned land, as is repeatedly claimed, or does a substantial chunk of this practice take place on government-owned land that is leased strictly for agricultural purposes?
The momentum of the animal rights lobby, as expressed in the highly vociferous and visible (and highly laudable) campaigns to abolish animal circuses from the islands and to furnish cabby horses with a modicum of shade seems to fizzle out when the welfare of trapped birds is at stake.
These birds are basically condemned to spend the rest of their lives in a cage smaller than a shoebox, and they express their frustration at being so cooped through constant repetitive movements characteristic of big cats and primates in circuses who suffer a similar fate.
Since the Ornis Committee has been relegated to a mere rubber-stamping, gate-keeping entity due to its highly unbalanced composition, it should be disbanded as its decisions have become a formality. Its existence only serves to give a semblance of legitimacy to the proposals of the government of the day, which simply twists the arm of the committee whose majority government-appointed members have no choice but to comply.
The Nationalist Party’s recent drubbing at the polls has nudged Opposition leader Simon Busuttil to say that his party needs to win back the electorate’s respect and credibility. One way the PN can do this is climbing down from the gilded fence it is sitting on and to take a bold decision about issues like trapping. It will cost the PN votes and it will mean the PN may spend more time on the Opposition benches.
But it will also mean that the purge of the party will be ever more complete such that the public might one day no longer take any pro-environment stunts embarked upon by the PN with a dash of cynicism. It ultimately all depends on which of the two – the return to power or regaining the moral high ground where the environment is concerned – is most important to the PN at this stage.
alan.deidun@gmail.com
www.alandeidun.eu