Are you perplexed by the debate on spring hunting? Are you unsure how to vote next Saturday? Your questions are answered by the Yes and No camps.

The European Court of Justice in 2009 allowed Malta a window of opportunity to open a limited spring hunting season for turtle doves and quails because autumn was not a satisfactory alternative.

Shouldn’t this have closed the debate once and for all?

Shout (No campaign): No. The fact is that the European Court of Justice found Malta guilty of illegally allowing the killing of birds in spring. Hunting of birds during the breeding or spring migration season, when they are returning north to breed and replenish their numbers, is forbidden by the Birds Directive.

Voting No is a votefor a brighter and more positive Malta- No

However, this judgment has been misused by the hunting community, and both the current and previous governments, to continue spring hunting. The European Commission has issued a further official warning to Malta on this issue since 2009, and the case remains open.

Since Malta’s politicians have been blackmailed by hunters for hunting privileges in exchange for votes in elections, it is now the choice of the people, through a referendum, to decide whether the killing of birds that are returning to mainland Europe to breed should continue in Malta. The Spring Hunting Out (SHout) campaign is confident they will make the right decision and vote No.

Iva (Yes campaign): Absolutely. As an EU member state, and as any other member state, Malta has every right to derogate – apply an exception to the Birds Directive. This right will not be removed whatever the outcome of the referendum. In 2009, the ECJ verdict reconfirmed Malta’s right to derogate by application of article 9.1(c) of the Birds Directive.

Furthermore, paragraph 21 of the ECJ verdict clearly demonstrates that the European Commission never had any intention to prevent Malta from applying derogation to permit spring hunting, nor to remove Malta’s right of derogation, then or at any time: “The Commission is requesting the Court not to prohibit, in general, authorisation by... Malta of spring hunting of quails and turtle doves and therefore definitively to prohibit use of the derogation in Article 9.”

The mechanism and strict control measures of the derogation as applied domestically ensures all checks of proportionality are in place to have a sustainable opening of a limited spring season. If figures do not tally subsequent spring season does not open in any case.

Prior to the ECJ verdict, Birdlife had given an assurance in writing that it would respect the outcome of the ECJ verdict.

Hunters self-report the number of birds they shoot via SMS and the carnet de chasse. Is this system good enough?

Shout: No, hunters do not honestly self-report the birds they shoot because it is not in their interest to do so. This is because if they reach their total quota of 16,000 birds in spring, the hunting season will be closed instantly, giving them less days of shooting.

Statistics constantly show a huge discrepancy between the number of shots fired and SMSs sent. On days when lots of birds are seen flying over Malta, there is never a similar increase in the number of SMSs sent by hunters to report the birds shot. Instead, we see a huge spike in SMSs sent at the end of the season, when reaching the quota would not shorten their hunting time.

Iva: This is the best available system, which supplies the best available data acceptable at EU level.

Hunters are also subjected to continuous checks and have to supply the physical evidence recorded on their carnet de chasse, whereas a bird-watcher can never supply such physical evidence if so requested. Consequently, the carnet de chasse records and relative SMS system, physical spot-checks and verification and other controls constitute the best available data.

Physical evidence does not lie.

Is hunting of turtle doves and quails in spring sustainable?

Shout: No. European law forbids the hunting of birds in spring when they are flying north to breed, lay eggs and raise young. This is simply because these are the strong birds that have survived the winter and will replenish the population.

While there are some law-abiding hunters, many of them routinely break the law- No

The impact of spring hunting on bird numbers is more significant than it would be in autumn or winter, resulting in a mortality rate some three times higher for quails and eight times higher for turtle doves than in autumn.

It has been estimated that spring hunting in Malta results in at least 190,000 eggs never being laid, a huge impact on the next generation. It is not sustainable to shoot birds before they breed, especially when their numbers are already in serious decline, such as for both turtle dove and quail. If you think that turtle doves have declined by nearly 80 per cent in the last 30 years, shooting birds in spring just does not make sense.

Iva: Yes. The local national bag limit is 16,000 birds and official records since 2010 have never exceeded one-third of this figure. In other member states over 7,500,000 are harvested every year. Were this total not sustainable, the European Commission would stop all taking.

An official local scientific report states that in those EU countries from where the birds that migrate over Malta originate, the populations are stable even slightly increasing.

The Commission’s Guide to Sustainable Hunting Document states that: “the taking must have a negligible effect on the population dynamics of the species concerned. A figure of one per cent or less meets this condition... and bird taking amounting to less than one per cent can be ignored.”

Malta’s limit of 16,000 represents 0.02 per cent of European populations (76m) and 0.009 per cent of global populations (179m – Birdlife International, 2004).

Over the years there have been numerous incidents of protected birds being shot in spring. Can hunters be trusted to observe the law?

Shout: No. While there are some law-abiding hunters, many of them routinely break the law. The most serious incidents have been shooting at rare and protected birds such as flamingos, marsh harriers or even swallows, and shooting in protected areas such as Għadira. Other hunters do not report the birds they have shot by SMS, carry modified shotguns or use bird calling devices to attract birds closer so that they can shoot at them.

Routine law breaking is far too common among the hunting community, and is condoned by the FKNK. Even when hunters rioted in Valletta in September 2014 before attacking birdwatchers in Buskett, resulting in one birdwatcher sustaining a broken jaw, the FKNK could not bring itself to totally condemn this violence.

Iva: The improvement in the field, insofar as targeting of protected birds by criminals, is obvious. The fact that SHout could only show films taken nearly 10 years ago is proof of this. No evidence of any illegal targeting during the spring season has been aired.

Yes, hunters can be trusted.

If hunters have a right to shoot, don’t ordinary people also have a right to enjoy the countryside in spring without the fear of coming face-to-face with gun-toting individuals?

Shout: Hunting is not a right, but a privilege allowed by the rest of society. This is demonstrated by the fact that hunters must have a licence to hunt; it is not something anyone can just go out and do.

Ordinary people, on the other hand, do have a right to enjoy publicly owned land in peace and quiet.

This is impossible in spring because 80 per cent of the Maltese countryside can be hunted over, making it a no-go area for everyone else. Even publicly owned land is occupied by hunters with their famous RTO and Privat signs. Harassment and intimidation by hunters mean that most people are fearful of entering the countryside in spring.

Iva: ‘Gun-toting individuals’ are normal human beings who pay hefty licences and fees to legally carry a gun for hunting purposes. Whatever the outcome of the referendum private land will still be private; leased-out land, also agricultural, will stay as such, therefore private; and the general public will still have the same access to the identical public land that they enjoy today.

Yes, hunters can be trusted- Yes

Nothing will change and no land will be “given back to the public” if hunting is banned on 16 half-days out of 90 full-days of this spring.

Co-existence is a must on these islands and has worked well so far.

If the Yes vote wins will hunters be trigger-happy?

Shout: Some hunters are already trigger happy, shooting at protected birds and firing over people’s heads to try to intimidate them, but a Yes vote is likely to make them more confident that any criminal behaviour on their part will not be punished.

It is very important for people to vote No, to send a very clear message to the hunting community that their years of bullying, intimidation and routine law-breaking must stop. Wider Maltese society considers this behaviour to be unacceptable in a modern and progressive democracy.

Iva: We believe the opposite to be true. We will treasure even more, our traditional socio-cultural passion (namra), in the know of how close we had come to have it abolished by a few radicals. Plus we will have to show our respect to those who supported our cause.

If the No vote wins will the hunting lobby lose its influence on political parties?

Shout: The referendum was called because 10 per cent of Maltese voters signed a petition to demand it. This is the first time that this type of referendum has been called in Malta and reflects the amount of popular opposition that exists to the behaviour of the hunting community. A successful No vote will demonstrate to the political establishment that ordinary Maltese want to see an end to the blackmailing of political parties by the hunting community for their votes.

If spring hunting... is ever permanently or even temporarily abolished, that would be collective punishment on law-abiding hunters- Yes

Iva: Nothing will change insofar as the principle of the hunting lobby is concerned. The hunting lobby will remain strong to regain Malta’s right to apply derogation.

Will a No victory encourage others to use the abrogative referendum as a tool to get rid of other hobbies and pastimes?

Shout: No, former European Court of Human Rights judge Giovanni Bonello has very clearly demonstrated that an abrogative referendum cannot be used to get rid of other hobbies and pasttimes. This is because spring hunting is the only activity which has a law allowing it, therefore an abrogative referendum can be used to remove that law and so abolish it. Hobbies and pasttimes such as fishing, fireworks and festas have laws which control and regulate them. An abrogative referendum for these activities would only make them easier because it would remove the regulations that currently control them.

Iva: Definitely. This is not a hunting issue but a dangerous precedent. No one believes that the Referenda Act was written solely to abolish a spring hunting derogation. This is to deplete tolerance and living together in harmony and the right to enjoy a legal recreational activity or passion.

Is the abolition of spring hunting collective punishment on law-abiding hunters?

Shout: No, the abolition of spring hunting has nothing to do with punishing hunters. It is being proposed to protect the birds that are returning to mainland Europe to breed, and to allow ordinary Maltese to enjoy the countryside without fear of intimidation and harassment at the best time of year.

Hunters have five full months to go out hunting between September and January. During this time they can shoot unlimited numbers of 41 different type of birds. They have autumn; the birds and the people of Malta deserve to have spring.

Iva: It is an official established fact that hunters’ presence in the field serves as the best deterrent for would-be law-breakers – it is no secret that these few criminals would prefer the season to stay closed.

Yes, if spring hunting, or any other hunting season for what matters, is ever permanently or even temporarily abolished, that would be collective punishment on law-abiding hunters. Such measures do not apply just for hunters, but for any other member of society.

Why should people disinterested in hunting vote Yes or No?

Shout: While the referendum is primarily about protecting birds and opening up the countryside for everyone to enjoy at a very special time of year, it also has a deeper significance.

Governments of both political parties have consistently failed to control hunting because of the power of the hunting lobby. They have been blackmailed into providing concessions in exchange for votes, despite general opposition among the majority of Maltese to hunters’ excesses.

The abolition of spring hunting through a referendum will send a clear signal to politicians that ordinary Maltese want to see their politicians act in the best interests of wider Maltese society, the environment, and not small lobby groups.

The abolition of spring hunting is also about creating a better future for the next generation. Research shows that being able to get out in the countryside to enjoy nature helps to make people, especially children, healthier and happier. Voting No is a vote for a brighter and more positive Malta.

Iva: Because no one should ever be put through what hunters have experienced. Other abrogative referendums against other minority groups are very possible; no matter what anyone tries to make others believe and as publicly confirmed by No spokesman Mark Sultana. Disinterested persons should cautiously seek to find where the elements of tolerance, sustainability, balance and respect really lie and decide how they would feel if it were them facing this referendum rather than the hunters. Their turn could be next.