One of the arguments used by the SHout campaign intended to ban spring hunting is that hunters have five months in autumn within which to shoot 41 species of bird and therefore spring hunting is not necessary.
Clearly the intention is to discredit hunters’ arguments for legal limited hunting in spring on two species with baseless arguments.
For anyone not conversant with hunting and bird migration in Malta, this argument may seem logical.
But in reality, in autumn turtle dove and quail are only present sporadically for two weeks of the open season in “inconsiderable numbers” and the European Court of Justice confirms it.
Derogation from the Birds Directive can be applied on any specific bird provided insufficient hunting opportunities in autumn are proven.
In Malta, out of 41 species, eight are nonexistent and only five are relatively common, two of which only in spring, the turtle dove and quail.
It should be stressed that with regard to any European Directive, including the Birds Directive, it “rests with the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) to provide definitive interpretation of a Directive”. Its ruling, apart from being unquestionable, leaves no doubt that the arguments promulgated by the SHout campaign or any other entity are false, unfounded and deceitful.
The Birds directive states: “The One condition which must be met for the Member States to apply derogation as in Article 9(1) of the Directive, is the requirement that there be no other satisfactory solution.”
The European Commission, when contesting spring hunting at the ECJ, maintained: “Article 9(1) of the Directive permits derogation from the prohibition in Article 7 of hunting migratory species during their return to their rearing grounds only ‘if there is no other satisfactory solution’. The Commission asserts that that requirement is not satisfied in the present case.”
In its conclusion the ECJ dismissed the Commission’s arguments and ruled: “Having regard to those very specific circumstances, hunting for quails and turtle doves during the autumn hunting season cannot be regarded as constituting, in Malta, another satisfactory solution, so that the condition that there be no other satisfactory solution, laid down in Article 9(1) of the Directive, should, in principle, be considered met.”
This important part of the court ruling which confirms the Malta government’s right to derogate in spring is infallibly ignored by those opposing spring hunting to suit their own purposes.
Furthermore, with regard to hunting these two birds in autumn the ECJ observed: “It is not disputed by the Commission that, during that period, only a restricted part of the territory of that Member State is visited by the two bird species in question and that they migrate mainly at the end of August and during September.” Also, that “an inconsiderable number of the two species at issue are present in autumn and for a very limited period” and most importantly that “hunters were able to capture only an inconsiderable number of birds”.
The ECJ in its judgment compensated hunters for the lack of hunting opportunities
With all these factors the ECJ highlights the inadequate five-month season for turtle dove and quail. Yet the anti-spring hunting lobby insist hunters should not shoot in spring, notwithstanding that they have a right or privilege to do so given the “specific circumstances”.
The Community legislature seeks to “attain a balance between the protection of species and certain leisure activities”.
The ECJ in its judgment sought to attain such balance. It compensated Maltese hunters for the lack of shooting opportunities of two birds in autumn by endorsing the Maltese government’s right to derogate in spring.
This balance, an integral part of a European Directive, is attained by means of the framework legislation that permits spring hunting.
It is now being threatened by a sector of society that expects hunters to hunt turtle dove and quail during a season termed as inadequate by the ECJ.
Being so keen to interpret other aspects of law, should their anti-hunting bias permit it, our learned Judge Giovanni Bonello and his team of supportive lawyers might wish to publicly explain the essence of the ECJ verdict permitting spring hunting to the crowd they support.
Other minorities might not be at risk, according to them, but they seem to have no problem with quashing the hunting minority by condoning blatant misinterpretation of a European Court ruling by those they support.
Mark Mifsud Bonnici is president of Kaċċaturi San Ubertu.