After a recent extension of the national spring hunting season and the collection of a sufficient amount of signatures calling for the government to hold a public referendum on spring hunting, the future of this season has been subject to controversy. We have been able to follow such a controversy via news, articles, T.V. programs and other media of the sort. However, today, the University students had the opportunity to get the whole picture at the Spring Hunting debate hosted by KSU at the University Quad.
The panel, chaired by Dr. Andrew Azzopardi, consisted of representatives who exemplified all sides to the story, including Hon. Roderick Galdes, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal Rights, Mr Mark Mifsud Bonnici, a member of ’Kaccaturi San Ubertu’, Professor Arnold Cassola, from Alternattiva Demokratika, Mr Mark Sultana from Birdlife and Hon. Matthew Agius from the PN.
Prof. Cassola kicked off the debate by stating that it is all a question of principle and diversity. Birds that regularly attempt to breed in Malta are to be preserved and not killed by the shot of a gun. He argued that all hunters must recognise the legal protection of our public land, which land should be preserved and enjoyed by the public. Cassola here emphasised the reference to ’public’ land, saying that it is to be savoured by the general public. Mr Sultana, representing the ’Birdlife’ NGO, agreed with Cassola and added that natural conservation is a value that is not to be tampered with. He also described the strength that nature provides certain those birds with, which are able to travel from Hungary, fly over Malta, head to Senegal and travel back. Any hunting of such a bird must be condemned. He stated that currently, hunters have the five-month period of hunting. Hence, it is not rightful to say that hunting will be banned for good. However, Mr Mifsud Bonnici from the ’Kaccaturi San Ubertu’, soon counter argued that this is no excuse. He reminded Mr Sultana that the presence of two specific species of birds is unsatisfactory as they do not come to Malta in Spring. Yet, Mr Sultana expressed that the aim of the referendum is not to ban hunting in its totality and as a hobby, but to protect certain species.
The referendum was addressed by Hon. Matthew Agius, representing the PN, who expressed his repugnance towards the questioning of whether a referendum should be held once so many signatures were collected. He stated that one of the Nationalist party’s principles is to fight any illegality and disapproved the government’s apathy towards the current spring hinting situation. Giving the example of the extension of the local hunting curfew from 3 p.m. to the present 7 p.m. curfew, Hon. Agius added that the government is only worsening the chances of abuse. On the defense, Mr Mifsud Bonnici reminded the public that hunting in Malta is regulated by EU Directives which are followed by many hunters.
As the government’s Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal Rights, the Honorable Galdes provided a legal perspective, stating that his position has always been clear and consistent. What is permissible under the current hunting directives is not to be questioned. He highlighted that the true issue is that there are a great amount of hunters who follow the directives, yet there are various others who can be considered as criminals as they hunt with a criminal intention. The aim of the government is primarily legal enforcement. Hon. Galdes compared the illegal hunters who have been caught red-handed since 2007 to those caught before, while stating that the illegalities have decreased significantly.
A recent case of the illegal hunting of a protected swan rose to discussion as Mr Sultana argued the licenses of hunters. Mr Sultana also attacked the ’Kaccaturi San Ubertu’ union for the inconsistency in its principle of zero tolerance towards illegalities and appealed for enforcement of laws. Hon. Galdes answered the Birdlife representative by emphasising the government’s drastic measures and actions taken that send an instant message to those who truly hunt with no violent intention and might hesitate to report any illegal hunting they know of. He insisted on enforcement and penalties as he pointed out that our country has the harshest of laws in Europe. On the other hand, Mr Mifsud Bonnici suggested that the government must protect better the hunters who follow the law and argued that these people are at a disadvantage since they are in a minority. Mr Bonnici addressed organisations such as Birdlife, stating that they have great support from foreign bird-watchers who visit our islands not for the sake of bird-watching, but to keep a watchful eye on hunters. On this point, Mr Cassola debated that we are a state capable of realising our own hunting situation which is worsening, with no aid from foreigners. Taking a patriotic stand, Mr Cassola argued that the upcoming referendum is a referendum of the people and for the people. Addressing the students present, he encouraged youth involvement in voting for the conservation of our environment and to avoid disturbance of birds that are breeding.
Hon. Agius, representing the PN, defended the minority of hunters who solely aim to exercise their hobby by stating that such hunters must be well-protected and not looked down on. He insisted that our surrounding environment must not unbalance the principle of balance.
Concluding the debate, Mr Bonnici appealed to the public to choose wisely in the upcoming referendum and to consider the fact that every human being is entitled to exercise their hobby, a hobby which must not come to a halt just by a couple of signatures. Hon. Galdes ended the debate by suggesting one action that should be considered for a stable future; compromise.
