The hunting season was costing the tax payer big money SHout spokeswoman Moira Delia said this evening during a televised debate organised by the Broadcasting Authority.

Ms Delia said that the several studies on crime and bird migration held each season, not to mention the cost of policing and prosecuting law breakers were all being paid from tax payers’ pockets,” she said.

Mark Sultana, also from the spring hunting out camp, who argued that hunting was a privilege and not a right.

Mr Sultana, who was also representing the SHout campaign, said the pro hunting lobby often used the word right when discussing spring hunting.

But the derogation allowing spring hunting was meant as an exception to the rule and was not to be abused, he said.

“In our case it is being used to appease 10,000 hunters,” he said.

Reacting to this, pro-hunting lobby spokeswoman Kathleen Grima insisted the derogation was also used to allow a sustainable hunting option.

“The point of EU legislation here is not to do away with hunting altogether. On the contrary it is to allow it to flourish in a sustainable way,” she said.

The two sides of the debate offered their own interpretation of sustainability. While that of the pro hunting lobby was based on the EU legislation that set strict controls on hunting, the anti spring hunting lobby argued that spring hunting could not be carried out sustainably.

“This is when birds are on their way to mate and we are killing them before they have had a chance. This goes against the concept of sustainability,” Mr Sultana said.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.