It is not just birds that suffer when hunting is allowed in spring but the sound of shooting also discourages other creatures from breeding, according to a science student.

“Although shooting birds is not the primary reason for their decline, because pesticide used in fields is also killing them, hunting is adding salt to the wound.

Killing one bird in autumn is not the same as killing one in spring because, in spring, you’re not only killing that bird but also its potential offspring.

“Meanwhile, sound pollution also disturbs other animal species that breed in spring and this was especially evident when spring hunting was stopped for a while.

The population of other animals – not just birds – went up,” Lucia Farrugia said yesterday, during a discussion organised on campus by the University Students’ Council (KSU), which last year expressed itself in favour of the spring hunting referendum.

All eight students who participated in the assembly took a stand against spring hunting.

Once the voting date was set for April 11, the KSU called on students and university associations to give a short speech and present arguments in favour or against spring hunting to help students make an informed decision when they go to the polling booths. Later this month, the members of the council’s social policy commission will vote to take a stand on the issue.

The common argument brought up yesterday against spring hunting was that killing birds in spring, at a time when they are on their way to breed, was not sustainable.

Sound pollution also disturbs other animal species that breed in spring

Ms Farrugia said that from the 20 per cent of university science students who had answered a survey conducted by the Science Students’ Society, more than 80 per cent said they were against spring hunting.

Alexander Hili said that 10,000 people – the number of registered hunters – seemed to be controlling a Parliament elected to represent 423,000 people.

“The hunters’ lobby group is bullying everyone into submission,” he said, asking why some politicians were sitting on the fence. As a student, Mr Hili said he carried out his own research and concluded that most arguments brought up by the pro-hunting side were contradictory.

One of these was the statement by hunters that if their hobby was banned, they would fall victim to some form of addiction.

That meant that hunting was not a hobby but an addiction and addictions had to be stopped, he argued. He urged hunters to debate and promote their arguments without bullying and intimidating others.

Birdwatcher Steve Zammit Lupi insisted that the abolition of spring hunting would be a victory for all birds because it not only gave them a chance to migrate and breed but they could also choose Malta as their breeding ground.

“Too many birds have fallen from the sky in the name of sports. Let’s give birds a chance,” he said.

Reiterating that the referendum was not about stopping all hunting or hobbies but about sustainability, Julia Farrugia, from Youth for the Environment, noted that the population of turtle doves had plunged by 74 per cent in 35 years.

Since most students could not picture this as they were not around in 1980, she compared the decline to the student population dropping in 35 years to 2,860 from the present 12,000.