Birdlife could take the government to court over “illegal” changes to the law that have given the Wild Birds Regulations Unit an enforcement role.
The legal notice, published on Friday, is unlawful as it was issued without the public consultation required by law, said the NGO’s executive director Steve Micklewright.
Speaking outside the unit’s offices in Santa Venera, Mr Micklewright insisted that enforcement should remain in the hands of the police and the planning authority.
Through this legal notice, WBRU can now designate officers to assist police and court authorities under provisions of the environment and planning act. This means these officers have the power to enter private property and issue enforcement notices.
The same legal notice, he said, introduced other measures of concern, such as the taxidermy allowance of up to 30 birds per hunter.
In the past, a licence was needed to practise taxidermy and this carried no fee. Now, a €300 fee will be charged for a three-year taxidermy permit but there is no longer the need of a licence to stuff up to 30 birds a year for personal collections.
By amending the law through a legal notice, WBRU had granted themselves unprecedented powers of enforcement, Mr Micklewright said.
Birdlife is therefore calling for the resignation of the head of the unit, Sergei Golovkin, and is urging Environment Minister Leo Brincat to revoke the legal notice.
This latest change confirmed the NGO’s concern that the unit was becoming a deregulation unit, Birdlife said.
“Since its inception two years ago, WBRU has been easing legislation in favour of hunters and trappers, such as when it decriminalised the use of bird callers, when it re-opened a finch trapping season or eased hunting and trapping licence examinations.
Unit has been easing legislation in favour of hunters and trappers
“It is ridiculous that a government department that appears to have a mandate to give hunters and trappers more and more privileges now has a hand in enforcing the laws that allow those privileges.”
A recent case reflecting the unit’s “incompetence at enforcement” was that in which its officers inspected an illegal consignment of wild finches in Gozo earlier this month.
The Times of Malta reported that 52 illegally imported juvenile songbirds were confiscated, but hundreds more were believed to be on the market because of the lack of rigorous checks.
Mr Micklewright noted that finches bearing fake rings were not confiscated and were allowed to remain on sale.
However, in its reaction, the Secretariat for Animal Rights said that the amendments strengthened the Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations.
Under the amended legal regime, controls over importation, transportation, sale, taxidermy and possession of wild birds deterred any possible abuse, it said.
Through the amendments, the WBRU inspectorate was being given the same legal tools as those granted to environmental inspectors under the Environment and Development Planning Act.
The secretariat insisted that all legal procedures were followed in the issuing of the legal notice.
The amendments were discussed within the Ornis Committee for three months and the published changes were a direct result of this discussion, it said.
Meanwhile, Kaċċaturi San Ubertu lashed into Birdlife for its criticism over the new regulations, saying that since WBRU was set up enforcement of hunting laws has never been as stringent or hunting regulations so rational.