Many are the positions and considerations being bandied around in these first days of the long campaign we have ahead of us. The two main political parties have so far stayed in the wings (no pun intended), cautiously avoiding a formal position and treading very carefully around the issue. Animal lovers decry the cruelty of bird slaughter, while those for spring bird-shooting (I refuse to call it hunting) talk about rights and traditions and minorities. Conservation of the species, the real issue, is not one of the most discussed elements, although a number of sensible and informed opinion formers are pressing hard for that to be the yardstick upon which people come to a decision. It is after all the rationale behind the European Union legislation known as the Birds Directive.
There are two points that I would here like to present for your minds to chew upon. The first relates to the interests of the shooters themselves. Has it crossed anybody’s mind that the killing of birds on their way to breed using Malta’s migratory route means that the route itself is being endangered? The more birds killed on this route, the less birds will return from here, and at this rate, it is no wonder that the shooters themselves are complaining that there is less and less game for them from year to year. What this means effectively is that spring bird-shooting is not in the interest of the so-called hunters, in the same way that overfishing is not in the interests of fishermen. Should spring bird-shooting not be allowed any longer, the bird populations using the Malta migratory route will grow, and the undisputed autumn killing season will then become not only more fruitful for shooters, but also more sustainable.
The second point is one that I find to be a very strong one. The shooting of birds in Malta during spring has been the subject of some strong and widespread criticism and even calls for tourist boycotts for a very long time. To-date, bird-shooting has always been the domain of the minority, and has never been associated with the Maltese people as a whole. This has, to some extent, warded off the brunt of the attacks from being levelled against the country, and us, all of us, the Maltese people. Should however the referendum decide that spring bird-shooting is to be kept on the books, a decision that would have been taken by the Maltese people in a free vote, that would mean that in the world’s eyes, we, the people, want to kill birds in spring. No more would we have the comfort of washing our hands of the responsibility of the atrocities and the damage being done to the natural balance by saying that it is only a few who do it, or some such other lame excuse. If the YES to Spring Bird-Shooting wins the day, it will automatically have become a collective decision, and with that comes collective responsibility.
Shakespeare has Melancholy Jaques saying that hunters “are mere usurpers, tyrants and what’s worse, to fright the animals and to kill them up in their assign’d and native dwelling-place”. Should we decide to give spring bird-shooting our collective stamp of approval, we will all have accepted Jaques’s description for hunters as our national brand far better than the MTA could do it. Only thing is, it would be a negative one….
Footnote –
Some factual background regarding the historical and legal elements of the issue are worth putting as a footnote to this opinion piece..
To start with please note that the Directive does not refer to conservation just in its official name (DIRECTIVE […..]on the conservation of wild birds), but also uses the word no less than 8 times in its preamble.
Article 5 prohibits the “deliberate disturbance of these birds particularly during the period of breeding and rearing”. I would consider shooting to kill to be a deliberate disturbance, even, in this case if the shots are ‘in the air’.
Article 7 makes it even clearer… “In the case of migratory species, they shall see in particular that the species to which hunting regulations apply are not hunted during their period of reproduction or during their return to their rearing grounds.” The breeding periods and the return to their rearing grounds are what spring is all about.
The Directive however has provision for derogation from these prohibitions, but this derogation comes with a long list of requirements for control and reporting should it be applied.
In the past, the Maltese Government had applied this derogation, and when challenged in the European Court of Justice by the European Commission, Malta showed the levels of control and reporting it was implementing, and won the right to continue to allow a limited, controlled and reported-upon spring bird-shooting season for quail and turtle doves.
It is the application of this derogation that those who proposed the referendum want removed from our law books.
