With reference to the letter by Maurice Mizzi (The Sunday Times of Malta, June 21), in which he replied to my letter the week before, I endorse the claim that a chairman has to be impartial during Ornis committee meetings, but this does not preclude him from airing his and committee members’ views in public.

I strongly believe that the chairman is duty bound to inform the public with decisions taken by the committee as long as these are not confidential.

Mizzi opted to misquote me by stating that I compared the shooting of protected birds with car accidents. This is incorrect because everyone knows that I am totally against the shooting of protected birds. All my contributions in Times of Malta have always been in favour of clamping down on offenders.

My claim is that such incidents are negligible when compared with everyday car accidents all the year round. Moreover, Mizzi associates cancer and water table contamination with lead pellets. What about the insecticides used for irrigation, which he likes so much?

As regards the spring hunting referendum, the people have spoken and that has to be respected. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice, although knowing quite well that birds breed in spring, gave Malta the right to a derogation.

Finally, I must stress the point that spring hunting is there to stay because the people have decided so. Any government toying with this issue may be jeopardising its term of office because it is no longer a matter of 15,000 hunters, but the majority of the electorate.

We hunters have a duty to minimise infringements so that no government may take an advantage and close the season prematurely. Indeed, our worst enemy is the illegal hunter. I have been trying over the years to get everyone on board to fight illegalities but individuals like Mizzi want to use such illegalities to stop hunting altogether so that he can enjoy his sleep.

Mizzi urged all hunters to interact like he did with what he called a turtle dove perched on his finger.

What a joke, he didn’t even know that the dove in his possession is a protected collared dove and he is risking incriminating himself unless this dove has been ringed and brought up in captivity.