Joe Aquilina St John, in his letter Hunters 'Shoot' Down Arguments (April 9) states that Mark Mifsud Bonnici's letter was a personal attack on Brian Simmons. Could it have been anything less?
Mr Simmons wrote the letter on his own behalf calling all Maltese landowners "activists", also criticising Malta's government for what he considered a lack of concern for public safety. He criticised hunters when they were in no way to blame for his accusations. Mr Simmons did not even have the decency to verify his allegations before sending a warning to all visiting Malta to keep their heads down while in the countryside. I believe a personal reprimand was more than he deserved, especially when his false warning could scare away tourists who enjoy roaming our countryside.
As for Mr Aqulina St John being an "expert" on anything related to hunting after "42 years of living in England"... Well! He still insists that 500 pheasant days are not possible in a year of 365 days. This was fully explained in my letter of March 24.
At the expense of doing some more spoon-feeding, a 500-pheasant day is a day when the paying guests/guns, usually eight in number, are guaranteed to bag (kill) 500 pheasants on the day. Such days are offered by several syndicates or estates throughout the UK game season. As an example he might want to browse http://kiltarlity.com/pheasantscotland.htm .
"A team of guns is usually eight-strong but teams of six to 10 are possible in some places. Daily bags range from 100 to 500 birds". Is this now so difficult to understand?
Mr Aquilina St John referred to "hunting" shotguns used in crime in Malta to commit murder. Is he not aware of the thousands that own shotguns for clay pigeon shooting? So, in his own words, "nowhere in my letter did I state or imply that anyone possessing a shotgun could be a possible murderer". He in fact specifies "hunting shotguns" as meaning those shotguns owned by hunters. Could he have been more specific in his accusation against hunters?
Mr Aquilina St John said that he does not "advocate the abolition of (legal) hunting" nor, however, did he ever state his approval of it. He asserts that hunters do not report the illegal element. Is he aware of the number of hunters who have been expelled from the hunting federation only to join another? He seems unaware that there are two other associations that are given the legal right to endorse hunting licences. The onus of rescinding hunting licences ultimately lies with the judiciary who, in turn, should cooperate with the police at least by administering suitable penalties.
The hunters have been insisting for proper enforcement through a hunting warden system that they even offer to part-subsidise out of their hunting licence fees. Contrary to what he states, hunters have always observed the law. Malta has 16,000 registered hunters. Can he justify the illegalities being reported as being anything but a minimal proportion.
Indeed, even one illegality is one too many. But this does not justify tarring all the hunters with one brush.
"Bad apples" exist in every fraternity, institution or stratum of society and he well knows that bad apples will always exist. Surely, after two seasons of spring hunting being suspended and two months of afternoon bans (September) during peak raptor migration, the sight of honey buzzards, which are "raptors", and "other protected birds" should have increased dramatically. Yet, he still complains about not being able to enjoy their flight.