Lies, damned lies and bird statistics (2)

BirdLife Malta's actions and campaigns over the years have ended up in a downward spiral of tragic-comical proportions. Their fixation on total bird-protection, meaning a total hunting/trapping-ban, has brought them to the lowest level of credibility.

Years of exaggerated figure-spouting and fact-contorting made BirdLife seem credible in the eyes of many people who blindly believed all they said. They named the tiny island of Malta Europe's worst offender where the shooting of protected species is concerned.

But now their castle is crumbling. BirdLife's claim that "thousands" of protected birds are shot annually is a bogus claim. The proof is in their own records which show not more than 100 shot birds in any given year. One hundred too many, some might say, and rightfully so. But can this be termed as "rampant illegalities" by 16,000 hunters? Comparing like with like, Malta does not fare worse than other countries, as far as illegalities, both recorded and verified, go.

BirdLife's claim that Malta is of great importance to bird migration is contradicted by the records of past ornithologists and by the facts showing that birds migrating over the entire breadth of the Mediterranean definitely do not converge on tiny Malta. The meagre presence of migratory birds is mainly due to Malta's geographical position vis-à-vis bird migration, not to hunting. In spite of total police cooperation during the "Raptor" and "Spring Watch" camps covering practically all hunting areas, the sum total of arrests made was negligible. BirdLife blame this on an insufficient number of environment police but in reality every hunter will tell you that police presence in the countryside is very conspicuous.

In such a small island, it should be easy to catch such offenders, and yet the arrests made are a far cry from BirdLife's claim of rampant abuse. A truer picture of reality is the Prime Minister's declaration that the policing of hunting regulations is adequate.

An anti-hunting ringleader and BirdLife member, David Conlin, boasted on his organisation's website that they purposely magnified illegalities on Malta. Unfortunately, BirdLife's dishonest tactics generally remain hidden from the public. Let us quote an example we uncovered recently. In their press release of January 5, 2010, they state that in the years 2007 to 2009, 285 shot protected birds were received by the organisation, and in their report on "illegal hunting" they state that in those years a total of 267 shot protected birds were brought in to BirdLife Malta. Which is the correct figure: 267 or 285? Those extra 18 birds are easily convertible into some phenomenal statistic that can be used to show some alarming increase. This is but one instance confirming that BirdLife Malta's figures cannot be trusted.

On our part, besides other measures, we have called for the appointment of hunting marshals because, as in other spheres of life, there will be abusers, and there is always room for improvement. However, the real problem is not insufficient police enforcement. As long as BirdLife Malta and their collaborators keep up their deceitful publicity campaign of exaggerating illegalities committed, they are the real problem. One has to be extremely biased to deny the great improvement in enforcement these last years. BirdLife Malta need to accept and admit that fact, stop dragging Malta's name in the mud unnecessarily, and confront the reality of sustainable hunting, including spring hunting, endorsed legally by the EU. Additionally, BirdLife should stop trying to intimidate the Prime Minister, hindering the talks between the government and the hunters' representatives, and vetoing the hunters' proposals in the Malta Ornis Committee. These consultations are aimed, among other things, at reducing the remaining illegalities, and resistance from genuine bird-lovers is misguidedly counter-productive.