Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1496177
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 2 APRIL 2023 10 OPINION Damned if you're 'endangered'; damned if you're not... OK, let me get this straight. Last Monday, this newspaper carried a story under the head- line, 'Flamingo poacher spared jail on appeal because bird not at risk of extinction'. We were told that: "The Court of Criminal Appeal revoked a prison sentence handed down to a 24-year-old hunter, in 2021, for killing four Greater Flamingos in the St Paul's Bay area" [because] "this incident would have had a low impact on the ecological balance in the area"; and "a court-appointed expert and the International Union for Conservation of Na- ture, had both listed the migra- tory birds in the 'least concern' category." This led the judge to conclude that "the flamingo was not a species at risk of extinction, and therefore the impact of the crime on the species was low." So he reduced the hunter's sentence, from 'one year of ef- fective jail-time', to 'imprison- ment for one year, suspended for two years.' Right, I'll stop there for now; because already, there is quite a lot to chew over. But let me get one small disclaimer out of the way first. Personally, I don't really care that much whether Miguel Zammit – the 24-year- old who shot those four fla- mingos, at Qawra Point – ends up actually going to jail for his crime, or not. Partly because I've never been a big fan of 'punitive justice', to begin with – in the sense that I've always view the criminal justice system more as a 'nec- essary deterrent', than an out- right 'vehicle for revenge'... ... but also because, as far as I'm concerned, the truly im- portant part of the original sentence was that Zammit had been handed down an effective 'lifetime ban on hunting'. And that was upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal. So from my end, at least: there are no real complaints, about how the course of justice actually panned out in this par- ticular case. With that out of the way, how- ever: we are still left to ponder a court ruling that – as Birdlife CEO Mark Sultana very aptly put it – is rather 'baffling', to say the least. If nothing else, because it seems to imply that the 'sever- ity' of any hunting infringe- ment, in this country, depends entirely on whether the target- ed species happens to be 'at risk of extinction', or not. Once again, Sultana's reac- tion hit the nail on the head: "a protected bird is protected, irrespective of its status; and just because it is 'not at risk of being extinct', does not mean that its protection, or the con- sequences of illegally killing it, should be less." But his subsequent analogy – "it's like saying that stealing from a rich person carries a lesser punishment than if you steal from a poor person" – is... well, 'apt', perhaps; but it still falls somewhat short, of cap- turing the sheer scale of the logical fallacy that's actually at work here. So let's try and break it down a little further, shall we? Start- ing with the judge's observa- tion that: "the flamingo [is] not a species at risk of extinction." This is, of course, perfect- ly true. As earlier stated, the IUCN classifies the Great- er Flamingo as 'of least con- cern' – the highest notch, on a scale that goes down to 'Near Threatened'... to 'Vulnerable'... to 'Critically Endangered'... and finally, to 'EXTINCT'. But there are a few small problems, with using that as a 'mitigating circumstance' for a crime that was committed here in Malta. The first is that: there is a rea- son, you know, why the Great- er Flamingo – and not, say, the Turtle Dove (which I shall come to in a sec) – is classified as 'not in any danger of extinc- tion'. And it happens to be precise- ly because of laws such as the 'Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations'... not to mention the European Wild Birds Direc- tive, from which all local wild- life laws are derived... which offer those species 'protection', from being rendered 'threat- ened' – then 'vulnerable', 'en- dangered', etc. – by practices including, among other things, 'illegal hunting'. In other words: laws like the one that that hunter broke, when he took aim at – and shot – a flock of supposedly 'protected' birds. So, um... do I really need to go on? If the law-courts are going to send out the message that: "Hey, you know what? It's not such a big deal to break Malta's wildlife conservation laws, after all: at least, not so long as you don't go around killing any 'critically endangered birds'..." I mean: it's almost like firing the starter-pistol for a 'race to- wards extinction', isn't it? And not just for the 'Greater Fla- mingo', mind you. No, this rul- ing sends out the message that 'it's not a big deal' to kill ANY bird that just happens 'not to be on the IUCN Red List'.... ... overlooking, it seems, the teenie-weenie little detail that: well, it it is precisely BECAUSE of decisions like this, that birds actually end up getting them- selves ON that dratted 'Red List' list, to begin with! Honestly, though: then they wonder why people's faith in the judiciary keeps hitting new lows... Meanwhile, another problem – slightly more 'technical', this