Steve Micklewright (January 11) still insists that the shooting of turtle dove in spring is not acceptable to Birdlife Malta. Repeating that this species is of “conservation concern”, contrary to Birdlife International’s classification and the European Court’s endorsement of “least concern”, he again still fails to substantiate his statement and, yet, expects to be credible.
“We take the position that it is not prudent for them to be hunted, especially in spring”. So what Birdlife incessantly termed as being illegal and strives to disrupt is now a matter of hunters’ prudence and what is a totally clear message in the ECJ ruling, namely, “The condition that there be no other satisfactory solution, laid down in article 9 (1) of the directive, should, in principle, be considered met” is now a “complex judgment.”
It might be hard for Micklewright and Birdlife Malta to fathom that the European Court does not share their biased opinion. Having been provided with substantiated evidence, the Court rightly ruled that the autumn migration of turtle dove does not constitute a “satisfactory solution” for the hunting of this bird in Malta.
Birdlife should be the first to recognise the paucity of this bird during autumn. It might also interest Micklewright to know that a previous Birdlife director, who was unceremoniously dismissed, at the time of pre-accession, accepted derogation, provided it was exercised only on the two hunted species.
Micklewright expects hunters to exercise prudence “especially in spring”. Apart from the fact that the national seasonal bag of 11,000 turtle doves is nothing but prudent in comparison to the two-three million hunted in seven other EU states, Micklewright hails from a country where the hunting of birds in spring is equally popular.
Under derogation by general licence in the UK, the shooting, trapping and the destruction of nests and eggs of 13 species of birds is perfectly legal 365 days a year for reasons that are as equally valid as Malta’s.
Should he wish to use his credentials to secure hunting in the UK for all Maltese hunters we would all willingly allow him to enjoy the sunshine. Until then, he might wish to review the Court’s sentence to discover that the Court case costs were “awarded against Malta” since the Court found Malta guilty of failing to comply ”with the conditions laid down in article 9 for the years 2004-2006”.
Yet, for any future years, as part of the Court’s findings, it upheld Malta’s argument considering that in autumn “hunters were able to capture only an inconsiderable number of birds”. To him, this might not be a “ringing endorsement” and it proves too complex to understand. However, to us hunters and to “Malta’s political elite” it is crystal clear.