For the likes of Andrew Borg Cardona, pain that is inflicted on birds, as long as it vilifies hunters, is no problem.

His article ‘A bit of perspective’ (September 26) proves he has no intention of seeing things in their right perspective where injured birds are concerned.

Any bird whether legally or illegally shot should not be made to suffer. Those shot for the table, which is what hunting is all about, are immediately dispatched humanely, no less than any other animal meant for human consumption. Any bird illegally shot should in the first place have never been shot or even worse left to suffer.

People with far less intelligence than Borg Cardona recognise that those hunters “without even an inkling of a tongue in their plump middle-class cheeks” and thousands others have lobbied for harsh penalties to address abuse and achieved remarkable success.

Yet, it seems that one requires more than plump cheeks and a large girth to differentiate between legal hunting and illegal behaviour attributed to hunters. As is to be expected from a person who cannot even differentiate between agricultural bird scarers and gunshots.

According to Borg Cardona, injured birds do not suffer pain when paraded during a protest through Valletta onto Castille stairs just to prove a point.

Neither is it cruel to birds with fractured bones to be handled and made to pose for publicity photographs.

Apart from the fact that the competent authorities confirmed such handling of birds as being illegal, such practice also goes against the recommendation of any veterinary surgeon.

Vets in fact recommend warm, quiet darkness, immediate veterinary attention, the least handling possible and, above all, oppose manifest exploitation for whatever purpose.

The last three cases of a collard dove, heron and a harrier got none of that, neither did all other illegally shot birds used for propaganda over the years. It was always the case of first exploiting such birds for publicity and seeking treatment after.