The anti-spring hunting lobby has accused hunters of basing their campaign on “blatant lies”.
Addressing the media in Ħamrun yesterday, SHout spokesman Saviour Balzan said that, among other falsehoods, the Yes camp’s argument that Malta should be equal to Europe was incorrect as no spring hunting takes place elsewhere in Europe.
“There is no other derogation for spring hunting in Europe. The majority of derogations are due to unrelated issues like airport activity,” he said.
He added that no derogation was ever negotiated for Malta, and that the country’s EU accession treaty specifically stated that Malta should adhere to the Birds Directive.
Mr Balzan also countered claims that spring hunting had not been restricted before 2008, pointing to the fact the government had imposed restrictions on hunting and banned trapping in spring in 1993 and 1994. “The result was protests in the street, damage, abuse, and even vandalism at the Megalithic temples. But the positive outcome was that more birds started nesting in Malta.”
He dismissed suggestions that the referendum was aimed at oppressing any minority, insisting that referendums gave a voice to the voiceless, and questioned why the argument had not been raised for similar votes in the past.
“It is also not true that the referendum is being financed by hunting licences. Licences for hunting in spring are free, but above all one cannot put a price on democracy.”
Meanwhile, the Yes campaign yesterday published extracts from the minutes of a meeting on the Birds Directive on July 20, 2001, in connection with Malta’s EU Membership application.
It said the minutes revealed that Mr Balzan had proposed that the Spanish sparrow (Passer hispaniensis) be added to the list of huntable species.
“However, in Malta, campaigns are in force which encourage people to appreciate the presence of this bird in our countryside. While the No campaign is trying to eliminate the best period of hunting in Malta, as confirmed by Balzan himself during the negotiations, the truth is that the No main spokesperson had worked for the complete opposite to prevail.”
Responding to the claims, Mr Balzan told Times of Malta that the Spanish sparrow was already a huntable species when the discussions took place, and as such had to be included in an annex to the Birds Directive.
This, he said, was a technicality he undertook as a government employee working to a government brief.
“Already then, it was difficult for us to include turtle dove and quail as huntable species because of the low population numbers,” he added.
Mr Balzan also claimed that the minutes of the discussion could only have been leaked to Yes campaigners “from the office of [parliamentary secretary for animal rights] Roderick Galdes”.
He pointed out that one of Mr Galdes’s consultants was active in the Yes campaign, and challenged the Yes campaign to release the full minutes of the meeting.
Replying to questions sent by this newspaper, a spokesman for the Parliamentary Secretariat for Animal Rights categorically denied Mr Balzan’s claims.