Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/396532
12 YESTERDAY, the autumn hunt- ing season resumed after a 20-day moratorium imposed by the gov- ernment following reports of illegal hunting. Associations such as FKNK and St Hubert's Hunters have cried foul over what they term 'collective punishment' over the infringements of only a handful of people. But what this argument overlooks is that those infringements occurred after hunters had been given repeated warnings (not least, by their own associations) to get their own act in order. Earlier this year, the penalties for illegal hunting were significantly increased, in order to justify the re- moval of a 3pm curfew (which was originally aimed to offer protection for migratory birds of prey). So it's not as though the hunters hadn't been given fair warning. And be- sides: if all these measures failed to stop an annual barrage of illegal hunting incidents... what other op- tions are even left to get the message across that this sort of behaviour can no longer be tolerated? It is armed with questions such as these that I make my way to the resi- dence of Mark Mifsud Bonnici: pres- ident of St Hubert's Hunters, and a staunch critic of both the moratori- um and the proposed spring hunting abrogative referendum. "When the season was closed, there had only been around four or five reported incidents in the press," he begins as I ask him to outline the 'collective punishment' argument. "Why should 10,000 people be pun- ished for the actions of four people? That's the question people should be asking. And why punish everyone collectively? Why weren't the people responsible for those incidents taken to court individually and fined under the new regime?" He refers me to the recent case where a man was charged with kill- ing a protected stork. "He got a €5,000 fine and a suspended sen- tence, which the police are now ap- pealing. If you ask me, that is proof enough that the law is actually work- ing. The police appealed because they want harsher penalties to be ap- plied properly… not at the discretion of a magistrate. They want to prove the point that they are after proper enforcement…" Perhaps, but at the same time we have seen that it is impossible to po- lice the hunting situation in practice. Couldn't it be argued, then, that the government closed the season be- cause there was no other way to con- trol the illegalities? Mifsud Bonnici denies that the hunting situation is out of control. "When one compares what hap- pened 10, 15 years ago to what is happening today, you'll find it's to- tally different. Up to accession in 2004 there was no enforcement at all. But from accession onwards, I think the improvement has been amazing, to be quite honest. Where before you had everyone shooting at everything, you now have only four or five who still consider themselves above the law. I think we've learnt our lesson quite well…" All the same, some would say the hunters brought the situation on themselves by refusing to self-regu- late. Why has self-regulation proved so difficult for hunters? "Well, I'll give you just one exam- ple. There are only certain parts of the island where illegalities are still rampant. Now: how am I meant to know what happens in Marsascala, Birzebbugia or Bugibba? I would be willing to cooperate and report any illegal hunting I see, if the law was giving me protection. But obviously people in these areas are not willing to do what I would do…." That answer works well enough on an individual level, but I was actu- ally asking him in the capacity of the president of a hunting association. St Hubert's Hunters is admittedly among the smallest such organisa- tion – with only 200 members – but to be eligible for a hunting licence one has to be a member of an associ- ation… so collectively, these groups have a responsibility to control their members. Mifsud Bonnici freely admits that he is less than happy with the disci- plinary standards in other groups. "I can only speak for KSU. We've never had any problem with any of our members, or chucked anyone out. But these things happen elsewhere. Around 3,000 licensed hunters are members of associations apart from us and FKNK, and some of these would have been chucked out from other groups. How are we to guaran- tee that half the cases of illegal hunt- ing aren't coming from these other associations, who don't even pro- fess zero tolerance? Who don't even say they would expel members who break laws? Unless these things are arranged, you can't blame the FKNK or us…" Could it also be that 10,000 hunters is too high a figure for such a small country? One of the arguments con- sistently brought forward (also in the European Court) in defence of spring hunting was that the autumn season is not a 'satisfactory solution' to spring because there are too few birds to shoot. Isn't that another way of saying that we are licensing too many people to shoot a pool of birds that is too small? "I wouldn't say so. We're only talk- ing about turtle dove and quail be- ing a problem: there is no problem with all the other species we shoot in autumn. In fact we never asked for a derogation for the other birds, because they do pass in autumn. But when it comes to turtle dove and quail the European court has rec- ognised that autumn migration is 'inconsiderate'. This is what makes Malta a perfect case where the dero- gation can be applied. This is what the court said…" This pre-empts a number of ques- tions I wanted to ask. Mifsud Bon- nici claims that the European Court judgment has 'confirmed' Malta's right to allow hunting in spring. But this claim doesn't stand up to scru- tiny. Hunters have seized on half a sentence in that ruling – which ac- tually found Malta guilty of violating the Birds Directive between 2004 and 2008 – and blown it out of all proportion. Even here, the half-sentence only observed that one of the conditions for a derogation – i.e., the issue of 'satisfactory solution' – is in place. But there are other conditions, in- cluding satisfactory law enforcement. In a nutshell, the European Court did not give carte blanche to the govern- ment to allow spring hunting… "No. You are wrong. I will argue this point till I die. The court found Malta guilty of derogating incorrect- ly for four years, from 2004 to 2008: reason being that the way Malta ap- plied the derogation in those years was done wrongly. And I won't go into the merits of who advised the government on how to apply a der- ogation, because you know better than I that it was Saviour Balzan. But the court ruling gives us the window on how to use derogations, because in Clause 63 it says that the principle of no satisfactory solution has been met. So the court confirmed that we have a right to derogate…." And yet nobody has ever ques- tioned the right to derogate. It's there in Birds Directive, under article 9. What remains contested is whether this right applies to the issue of hunt- ing in spring. The court did not rule on this point. So how can this ruling be taken to mean we can now allow spring hunting indefinitely? "Because after the Commission had complained about the flawed deroga- tions, the court approved our future derogations, stating that we have sat- isfied the conditions…" I point out that he is deliberately reading too much into that sentence. "Do remember also that we got into Europe by means of a referendum, where it was stated in black on white that if once Malta joined it would ap- ply a derogation for spring hunting. Everyone who went to vote knew exactly what he was voting for. If he didn't like it, he had his chance then to oppose the derogation…" That's hardly a convincing argu- ment, I reply. For one thing, when you vote in a referendum on accession, you vote on a whole raft of issues. So the result cannot be interpreted as a verdict on spring hunting alone. Secondly, the alternative at the time was not to join Europe, which would have meant spring hunting anyway. So there wasn't even a choice. But to stick to the European court ruling for a moment. The derogation for a spring hunting season concerns two species, turtle dove and quail. These are both classified as 'vulner- able' and 'in decline' in Europe. Yet the government representatives who argued the case in the Euro- pean Court cited the IUCN Red List - which refers to global populations, including Asia, Africa, the Americas, etc. - where turtle dove and quail are considered 'of least concern'. Isn't this a dishonest strategy? At the end of the day, the specimens shot by Maltese hunters would be on their way to nest in Europe. So surely it is the European status that counts, not the global one… Mifsud Bonnici however disputes the European conservation status. "You get countries like the UK push- ing forward the point that turtle dove is on the brink of extinction. What they don't specify is that it is only happening in the UK, because of their agricultural practices. If you look at the management plan for Europe, you will note that in France, which is just below England, turtle dove populations are increasing. Also, the central Mediterranean population of turtle dove is on the increase, believe it or not. And there are seven coun- tries shooting turtle dove in that area: including Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta. Yet the populations are sta- ble, and not decreasing. As a general trend, the decreases in Europe are only attributable to northern coun- tries where the bird is being replaced by another species known to shift any dove that breeds in its area: the collared dove. The management plan even says that all the data needs to be revised, because nothing is known for certain. This is all supposition, that it is declining in Europe..." It seems to me that Mifsud Bon- nici trusts statistics and official documents only when these help strengthen the hunters' case… yet disputes any statistics which argue the opposite point of view. His own earlier argument regarding the ac- cession referendum is a case in point. He now refers to the 2003 referen- dum to justify spring hunting, while his own hunting association has just filed objections to the holding of an- other referendum specifically on this issue. Isn't this a contradiction? "But there's a reason why we are objecting. Basically we don't think a referendum should be held on that Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 12 OCTOBER 2014 Open season on democracy? MEDIA SPIN It was all exaggerated, built on media spin and exaggerations… on people like Chris Packham, who comes here and depicts Malta as a kind of hell on earth, but then doesn't manage to film a single bird getting shot ENFORCEMENT Up to accession in 2004 there was no enforcement at all. But from accession onwards, I think the improvement has been amazing, to be quite honest