Joe Sultana's opinion-piece entitled Illegal Killing Of Birds Is Evil (December 24) leaves a jarring impression of the Bern Convention's November meeting, held to celebrate its 30th anniversary.
We are told that the Maltese government was "unfortunately" absent, despite being a contracting party and despite the fact that cooperation between states is essential to achieve the convention's aim. Mr Sultana's emphasis on Malta's absence is an indictment of the Maltese government. If physical presence at such an important meeting is a sine qua non of the required cooperation between states, then the non-participation of the Maltese government at the Bern meeting is an embarrassment to the nation.
Mr Sultana attended as an ornithologist and consultant to the convention. Nevertheless, we would have thought that, as the (presumably) only Maltese national attending, he was embarrassed himself. Apparently, however, he was not. On the contrary, in his presentation, he "highlighted" the fact that illegal killing of birds is still prevalent in Europe, particularly in southern countries, the inference to Malta being no doubt understood by the delegates present.
It does not appear that Mr Sultana spoke of the great improvement in the successful enforcement of regulations by the Malta police. What is certain is that Mr Sultana is of the view that "illegal killing of birds is not endemic to Malta but Malta, without any doubt, is considered to be one of the worst offenders in the region". We, therefore, have a Maltese (Gozitan) national who, at an international conference, was not averse to propagating Malta's "black sheep" image against the backdrop of the alleged incompetence of the Maltese law-enforcers.
Ironically, describing the local breeding populations of shearwaters, the same Mr Sultana had chosen to write glowingly about Malta in the EU booklet Celebrating The Birds Directive some years ago.
At the meeting, the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE) urged the competent authorities to put into place proper enforcement with appropriate penalties at all levels. That is exactly what our hunting associations - the FKNK and KSU - have been doing for some time now. Informing the convention delegates of this fact would have dispelled any wrong impressions.
Mr Sultana is vague on certain points and we do not know whom the FACE delegate was referring to when he denounced the "non-sustainable taking of wild species... even if it is for so-called socio-cultural motives". As both FACE and Mr Sultana know, the Maltese hunting associations are all for sustainable hunting, which explains their calls for "zero tolerance" of illegal killing of birds. As responsible hunters, we keep urging the authorities to enforce the law precisely because we see the illegal killing of birds as going against our code of practice and the principle of sustainable hunting.
Mr Sultana is correct to state that, in spring, wild birds are either breeding or heading to their breeding quarters. In normal circumstances we would agree that "spring hunting is unethical".
However, the crucial point is that in Malta's case we are not dealing with normal circumstances.
This hard fact was highlighted by the European Court of Justice whose verdict of September 10, 2009 underlined the reality of Malta's exceptional and unique circumstances regarding the spring hunting of turtle-doves and quails.
To say that spring hunting is unethical and stop at that is to interpret the Birds' Directive in an extremely radical way. This fundamentalist attitude, as expressed by Mr Sultana, was refuted in no uncertain terms by the European Court of Justice in its verdict.
The contracting parties of the Bern Convention strongly condemned the illegal killing of wild birds. So do all the law-abiding hunters of Malta and all decent citizens. But for Mr Sultana to blame Malta's bad name on some of the hunters and "certain politicians" is simplistic.
In the first place, it was BirdLife Malta's leaders who, blinded by their intransigent non-acceptance of the right to hunt, preferred smear campaigns to reasoned dialogue. Attempting to bring the hunters to their knees, they launched misleading campaigns in the media and on the internet at the expense of Malta's reputation.
Secondly, if Malta's politicians recognise and abide by democratic principles, they do not need to "appease the hunting lobby". The right to hunt is accepted and effectively endorsed by the European Union and Maltese politicians should keep that in mind. Far from "appeasement", the hunting associations expect politicians to treat them fairly, respect their rights, consult them before implementing changes and basically give them their due. No more, no less.
In the case of spring hunting there is a decision by the European Court of Justice, which both FACE and BirdLife International (BLI) agreed a priori to respect and from which neither the European Commission nor the Maltese government nor anybody can appeal. On that basis, all arguments to the contrary by the local foreign-led birding society are nothing but hot air intended to confuse the issue.
Without a doubt, the ECJ verdict opens the way for spring hunting in Malta under certain conditions.
Having submitted their proposals to the competent authority, the hunting associations now expect the government to collaborate by transposing the ECJ decision, applying a derogation and abiding by its conditions.
This is certainly not appeasement but a duty of the Maltese government towards its EU citizen-hunters.