Hunting fines will increase to €100,000 and include a two-year mandatory prison sentence if government proposals are implemented, Times of Malta has learnt.
The proposals were drafted by the government’s Wild Birds Regulation Unit and are being discussed by the Ornis committee, the government’s consultative body on hunting regulations.
If adopted, the amendments to the hunting penalties would mean fines issued for shots fired at strictly protected birds would increase twentyfold.
The maximum fine for such offences is currently capped at €5,000, with most offenders receiving fines in the region of €2,000 to €4,000.
The proposed reform, however, would not stop there.
The government is also proposing that offenders serve a “non-suspended” two-year prison sentence, with no distinction made between first-time and repeat offenders.
Those found guilty would also have their hunting licence permanently revoked.
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said the government would introduce harsher penalties for hunting illegalities after some 200 hunters held an illegal protest in Valletta.
The protest, which was staged after the government had suspended the hunting season, culminated in a number of irate hunters going on to assault a group of birdwatchers.
Dr Muscat said then that the violent events paved the way for the introduction of a stronger deterrent for hunters.
The hunting lobby yesterday fired warning shots over the proposed amendments, with the hunters’ federation, FKNK, saying it was “unreservedly against the astronomical fines being proposed”.
Birdlife executive director Steve Micklewright, on the other hand, felt an increase was necessary for the serial offenders but expressed doubts over the effectiveness of raising fines without bolstering enforcement.
The government is probably testing the waters to see what the committee’s initial reaction is
“This is all about [the government] trying to look good, whereas the key thing here should be making sure that the deterrents work. Having fines that will probably never be implemented is not ideal.
“The more effective way of improving the system would be to have a fine that is still a good deterrent and also strengthening enforcement,” he said, adding that no mention of improving the enforcement system was made in the proposals.
Mr Micklewright believes the amendments will be immediately implemented once the Ornis committee votes in favour of the proposals, describing it as a “rubber stamping” exercise.
Meanwhile, an Ornis Committee source contacted by this newspaper described the review as a “non-starter”.
Expressing disapproval of the amendments, the source described the proposals as a gesture similar to fielding a low initial offer when attempting to purchase property.
“The government is probably testing the waters to see what the committee’s initial reaction to the notion of harsher penalties would be. These fines are ridiculous.”
Would the government push for the implementation of mandatory prison sentences?
The source referred to a case earlier this year in which the government had backed a police appeal to have a hunter’s suspended sentence transformed into a custodial one.
Twenty-six-year-old tile-layer Gilian Tanti was fined €5,000 and given a three-month suspended jail term after he shot a protected white stork.
After the sentencing, the government issued a statement welcoming the police decision to appeal the sentence.
The case is ongoing.