[attach id=289659 size="medium"]Photo: Christopher Cachia Zammit[/attach]

I was pleased to read Maurice Mizzi’s wish (October 29) to see hunters becoming more responsible and inform him that hunting licence tests have been the norm for a number of years.

However, if one had to conduct an exercise on the age of those convicted of bird crime, the majority are young men who qualified for a licence at 18 under the Nationalist administration.

The ease with which one could obtain a hunting licence, by sitting for a pathetic oral examination, which is now rightly being addressed by the Labour administration, made it possible even for kindergarten children to qualify.

The need to implement a change to licensing procedure was brought to the attention of the previous administration on several occasions by St Hubert Hunters, to no avail.

Suffice to say that among other basics, the safe handling of a weapon and the thorough understanding of regulations were never a requisite.

The PN had been instrumental in lowering the age for those qualifying for a hunting licence to 18 from 21. In doing so without heeding our advice, it not only considerably increased the number of licensed hunters but did so ignoring the possibility to make new applicants accountable for their actions.

Clearly no stringent test can guarantee hunting laws are not abused. This explains why the Labour administration addressed this issue by increasing penalties for defaulters.

Hopefully, Mr Mizzi appreciates the fact that the Administration, though accused of favouring hunters, is committed to implement changes that make hunters more accountable. It clearly does not believe in collective punishment or hunting curfews that castigate law -abiding citizens.

Why the PN should term such a deterrent “an exercise in hypocrisy” or blame the recent illegal incident on the Government “for easing controls and restrictions on hunting” beggars belief considering the root of the problem is mostly of their own making.