The start of the hunting season on September 1, the subsequent clashes and the reported slaughter of protected species again brought to the fore a controversy that reached its peak at the turn of the century with Malta’s application and subsequent accession to the European Union. In the early 1960s, it was mainly dominated by two players: The Malta Ornithological Society, today’s BirdLife Malta, and the Għaqda Kaċċaturi u Nassaba Konservazzjonisti, now known as the Federation of Hunters and Conservationists (FKNK). The government joined the fray throughout the campaign for EU membership and the public became more forcefully engaged in the mêlée as awareness of environmental matters grew.

BirdLife did a lot to raise public conscience and awareness on the need for bird protection, at times even appearing to be somewhat too militant. FKNK also made positive advances both by disassociating itself from illegal hunting and publicly declaring it is prepared to pay policemen to accompany conservationists to monitor illegalities, though, at times, it may seem to be rather apologetic. The St Hubert Association of Hunters recently issued a strong worded statement on the illegal hunting of protected birds and in protected areas. The public statement by the FKNK president regarding the shooting down of an osprey at Salini is also another step forward. These can be regarded as a milestone in the hunting arena.

The government committed itself with a number of promises on hunting and trapping, some of which are unlikely to materialise.

The public looks on and observes the excesses of one side or the other and notes the weak stand often adopted by the authorities seemingly wanting to please everybody while appearing to be guardians of the environment.

However, over these past few years, all players got a watchdog: the EU, which has to ensure its legislation, especially the Birds Directive, is implemented and enforced.

Looking back, one cannot but conclude that there has been some progress in the hunting and trapping situation despite the fact that not everything is nice and rosy and a lot has still to be done. But the solution cannot be achieved by regulations alone, especially if these are not properly or mildly enforced.

Hunting and trapping is ingrained in those who pursue them and it stands to reason that this cannot be corrected by just telling them they have to change their habits overnight. It is true the government was given a grace period to help with this. How this was used and what happened is not very clear but there is no doubt it did not have the desired results.

Hunters and trappers need help and alternatives to enable them to put their house in order, especially in view of the fact that this delicate issue has in the past been and is still being exploited by certain quarters for their own interests.

All players involved in the issue have their contacts, even on the international plane, which they can put to good use towards such a workable solution. As things stand, they are still divided, each guarding their own patch and often tending to overreact. This is no help at all.

The government can and has an obligation to take the leading role and ensure that the necessary help and input is there so that this hunting and trapping confrontation saga can be put to rest once and for all and bird protection, appreciation and harvesting can be carried out on the lines of the Birds Directive.