Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/661117
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 3 APRIL 2016 15 and we plot a graph for the 21 days of the season. You see a correla- tion. When there are large numbers of birds, you hear many shots, and when there are few you hardly hear any. The correlation is clear…" It becomes less clear, he adds, when you factor in the hunters' dec- larations. "If you look at the official data submitted to the government, you will notice that their peaks do not usually coincide with the peak migrations we recorded. There will be some correlation, yes… but most of the season the kills will remain low, then suddenly spike in the last two days. It's too conspicuous not to notice. Come on, let's not pull any- one's leg any longer. Let's just admit that the system is failing…" This, however, only takes us back full circle. We can all agree that the system is failing, but we are no nearer a solution for pointing it out. Where does all this leave the cam- paign for the abolition of spring hunting? Does Mark Sultana see scope for reviving the issue now? "The reality is that spring hunt- ing in Malta has an expiry date. It's going to stop, one way or another. Whether because the birds them- selves – mainly, the turtle dove – will no longer pass over Malta, or will have become extinct in Eu- rope… that's one possibility…" But could it really come to that? Hunters argue that the numbers they shoot – even when not based on their own declarations – remain small by any international stand- ard… "The trends are there. IUCN does not put a species on the Red List for no reason. Of course, the impact does not only come from hunters… there are pesticides, loss of habitat due to development, and so on. I am the first to admit this. But hunting still has an effect, and if you weigh the pressures on birdlife, you will find that the pressures that come from hunting exist only for man's enjoyment. You can question agri- cultural methods, certainly… but people no longer hunt to survive. There is no excuse to carry on hunt- ing a vulnerable bird in spring, just for the enjoyment of a few." Sultana returns to the list of op- tions. "There is also the possibil- ity that the Commission will once again take Malta to the European Court. There is much more weight to this issue, now that the conserva- tion status of turtle dove has been certified as endangered. The EU is certainly going to ask questions. And let us not forget also that the European Court had based its rul- ing on the view that turtle dove was 'of least concern'. Now, its status has changed… and the government must be careful, because there is a difference between infringing a Di- rective – in which case, you're given a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again – and breaking a ruling by the ECJ…" There is also the aforementioned possibility of taking the issue once more to the people, and hold a second referendum on whether to allow the government to carry on derogating. On the basis of last year's experience, however… isn't that a little risky? Last April's referendum also gave an indication of where the public actually stands on these issues. The same scientific concerns were raised during the campaign, and the refer- endum was still lost (not without considerable political manoeuvring by the party in government). Why should a second referendum be any different? "I agree with what you're saying, but a referendum is a snapshot in time. If the same referendum were held five years before, or 10, or 20… the defeat would have been almost certain. I'd say that we've improved a lot. Remember also that the peo- ple who voted no, did so out of one single conviction: they don't want spring hunting in this country. It is highly unlikely they will ever change that opinion. I won't take it for granted, but it's very difficult for an opinion like that to change. The people who voted yes, on the other hand, were more varied... They were certainly many more of them than the number of actual hunters on the island… "Some will have been family members, and people sympathetic towards them. But there were also people who voted for political rea- sons: because they felt that losing the referendum would have been a blow to the government. This had an effect. There were others who thought they would be affected be- cause they had other hobbies, even if they had nothing to do with hunt- ing. Even the hunting fraternity itself is declining… because hunt- ing is unsustainable, particularly in spring. All things considered: no, we should not be afraid of calling another referendum. I am not say- ing we're going there, or not going there… but there is the possibility of going back to the people to decide." All along, however, there is yet an- other possibility. "This, to me, is the one that would require more cour- age, but which would definitely earn the most respect… because it's the right thing to do. That is, if the pre- sent government had the courage to say: 'You know what? We should not be killing this bird in spring. It doesn't make sense. We are shoot- ing ourselves in the foot, literally. Because it you shoot these birds in spring, they won't come back again in autumn.'" That also looks like the very least likely possibility, at least for the time being… "All the more reason to keep all options open." Interview Following last year's referendum defeat, the Campaign to Abolish Spring Hunting seems to have reached a dead end. But BirdLife Malta chief executive MARK SULTANA argues that the case against spring hunting is very far from closed PHOTOGRAPHY BY RAY ATTARD