Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1428470
9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 14 NOVEMBER 2021 INTERVIEW scientist: not a trapper wrong with the system of law-en- forcement in Malta. As things stand today: if we, or our colleagues at Birdlife Malta, report a case… they will come, yes; they will do their job – because they know they're being watched – and they get everything from us, including all the video evidence, on a silver platter. But as I told you: it's not so difficult for the police to do this work pro-actively, on their own accord… Everything you're saying points towards a reluctance, on the authorities' part, to take action. Meanwhile, CABS has accused the Maltese government of 'complicity' in illegal trapping. Is this what you meant by com- plicity: that the authorities are colluding with criminals? Let me put it this way: three weeks ago, one of the most sen- ior officers of the EPU was trans- ferred, against his will, to another department. In our view, he was the most successful EPU officer, too: in fact, I have been informed that he was transferred precisely because he caught too many cas- es of illegal trapping… and cer- tain people 'complained'. And this sends out a warning message to all the other officers: 'if you catch too many trappers, you will be transferred'. Another problem is the lack of nightshifts for the EPU. Right now, for instance, it is the sea- son for Golden Plover trapping: which takes place at night. But if we report illegalities during the night-time… there is no EPU available to report it to. They sim- ply don't have night-shifts. And if you call the district police, they will tell you to 'call the EPU'… With a little bit of political will, it would be no problem at all to enforce the situation better, and produce better results. But obvi- ously, this is not wanted… Back to the 'research pro- gramme'. When I interviewed FKNK president Lukas Micallef, he told me that: "It was the Eu- ropean Commission itself which declared that the Maltese gov- ernment could not apply a der- ogation for finch-trapping when there was no scientific data to base that decision upon. So […] we are collecting the necessary scientific data – which, after all, the European Commission demanded itself…" How do you respond to that? First of all, the European Com- mission never asked the FKNK to conduct this study. They may have said 'we need more scien- tific data'; but they certainly did not say to FKNK: "Send out your army of 2,200 trappers, and let them do 'research'." I don't think they meant it like that at all: oth- erwise, they would not be taking Malta to the European Court of Justice… But apart from all the smoke- screen arguments, the simple re- ality is this: if you need bread, you go to the baker. And if you need science… you go to a scientist. These people are NOT scien- tists. They are only using science as an excuse. Besides: there are other, less invasive methods, to get the same results. For example: in France, a study was published recently by an international con- sortium of scientists, with regard to the Ortolan bunting [a bird similar in size to a Greenfinch]. They used stable isotope analysis, and small [data] loggers, to come to the same results. These meth- ods only require a couple of trap- pers, catching around 100 birds in total. But of course, that is not an op- tion for the Maltese stakehold- ers, because their primary goal is not to 'obtain scientific results'; it is simply to justify over 2,000 live-capture trapping stations. So even the methodology they are using, only betrays what they are really after. If their intention was really to conduct a scientific study, they would be using the latest meth- odology – which also means they would be no need whatsoever, to handle such a large number of captured birds. So very clearly, 'science' is not their intention at all… In your statement, you also called on FKNK itself to regulate its own members, and do its bit to combat illegality. I have occa- sionally heard this line of criti- cism coming even from hunters in other European countries. Do you see a difference between the role played by FKNK in Mal- ta, and the role generally played by its European counterparts? In all countries in which CABS operates, we observe that hunt- ing associations are always very reluctant to officially report il- legalities. However, in other European countries – such as Germany, or the UK – hunting organisations are pretty much aware that poaching is giving a very name to the responsible part of the hunting community. And in those countries, the re- sponsible part is so powerful, that it manages to convince the other stakeholders, and the councils of these federations, to take a stand against illegal hunting. In Malta, this is obviously not the case. The FKNK does not dare to speak out loudly against these things. In fact, they do the opposite. They attack those [ac- tivists] who are out in the field, actually protecting the reputation of responsible hunters. Naturally, this is not our primary goal… but they should at least see that. They should realise, that it is their own reputation that is at stake… On the subject of 'attacks': over the years, there have been nu- merous reports of verbal (and even physical) assaults on CABS volunteers. Is this – like the 'Wild West' you mentioned earli- er – something that has also im- proved? Or is it still dangerous to monitor the countryside for ille- gal hunting/trapping activities? Let's say that, yes, we still re- ceive verbal abuse, and threats, on a regular basis; but it used to be much worse. In the past, we had members who were beaten up, punched in the face – even during a press conference in Mi- zieb – and so on… but recently, we've had no more physical as- saults on our members in Malta. Verbal abuse and threats, yes… but direct physical violence, no. To be fair, this is a situation we face in other countries, too. Like Cyprus, for instance. All things considered, today I feel a lot less 'unsafe' to operate in Malta, than elsewhere… Lastly, the FKNK has accused CABS of "arrogant persecution, through espionage, provoca- tion, violation of private prop- erty and arbitrary exercise of alleged rights to the serious det- riment of trappers taking part in the research". How do you re- spond to that? These are just words, really. But if you ask me, even the fact that someone could regard 'combat- ting wildlife crime' as 'arrogant' and 'provocative'… this says a lot about that person's stand on this kind of activity. And if, by 'detriment', it means they are complaining because their illegal nets are being taken away from them – or the birds that they have caught illegally – I would tell them: "Stop whining, and see the positive side. You are getting rid of all these morons, who are destroying the reputation you want to build up, as a hunting or- ganisation…" For let's face it: they're the ones who want us to see them as 'sci- entists'… as 'responsible, sustain- able hunters'. But this will never happen, as long as they continue with this line of communication. Poachers are only giving a bad name to hunters; and even to those trappers who do, in fact, want to be 'scientists'. That is why I can't understand why the responsible hunters and trappers of Malta, insist on op- posing us. They should really be coming out in the field, to help us…