Il-valuri tal-Maltin: jaqq, x'misthija
So much for Malta as a world beacon of positive values – this is frigging horrible.
Better to have divorce legislation and to put on a couple of performances of Stitching than to export antediluvian bastards like these to strip the protected species from other countries’ nature reserves.
Hunters? Let’s start using the precise word. They’re poachers.
Great – Maltese poachers are now travelling the world in search of rare species to poach in areas where enforcement is weak because the country is poor.
I’d like to see them try a spot of poaching in Germany. Perhaps they’ll end up with a jackboot up their butt.
What can I say? Thank heavens Malta is too minuscule to have had its own colonies. Just imagine the raiding, plunder and exploitation that would have gone on. The activities of the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and English would have paled by comparison.
X’mentalita bazwija.
The Times, today
Maltese poachers singled out in Egyptian survey
An Egyptian survey is singling out Maltese poachers for the destructive impact on wildlife in a protected area, BirdLife said.
It said in a statement that the illicit acquisition of firearms and the killing of protected species were linked with Maltese hunting trips to Egypt in a survey on the Gebel Elba National Park cites park rangers from the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA).
It referred to Maltese poachers targeting protected birds.
“Maltese poachers were seen and caught with two lappet-faced vultures and other birds at Bir Shalatin,” according to an EEAA ranger.
Gebel Elba is the most important area for flora and fauna in Egypt, and can also be classed as one of the least explored corners of the world. Forty species of birds are reported to breed in Gebel Elba but some of them have become very rare or even extinct since.
Access to the protected area is controlled, and the survey questions how Maltese poachers managed to hunt there illegally.
The survey states: “The Maltese killers were caught on Egyptian Territory at Bir Shalatin which is a restricted area but bribery was probably the method they used to get through the endless checkpoints… there is also the question of how the poachers get guns and ammunition into the area.”
Rangers at the Gebel Elba National Park in Egypt say that insufficient funding enabled poachers to bypass the law: “The Maltese and other poachers also get a thrill out of decimating the wildlife of Lake Nasser, if is moves kill it whether a pelican or crocodile, the latter at one time being hunted nearly to extinction.”
The data in the survey is supported by birds confiscated by the authorities and sent to the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH).
Among the hundreds of locally shot protected birds confiscated by the police and customs and passed over by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority to the museum over the last 18 months were 193 birds protected by law that were confiscated from hunters who had been hunting in northern Africa.
The 193 birds are only a portion of protected species passed over to the museum in this period, as other birds from northern Africa confiscated by the police during the last 18 months were still part of on-going cases.
The northern African birds come from 35 species, of which 41 per cent are raptors. There are 18 different species of raptors in the collection, including eagles, vultures, falcons, kites and buzzards. While raptors seem to be the preferred target, other birds in the collection show Maltese poachers are also after colourful birds, such as bee-eaters and kingfishers.
The birds confiscated from Maltese poachers also included three chicks of the Pharaoh’s Eagle Owl. The chicks were too young to fly, so it was likely the poachers stole them from the nest and killed them for their collections.
BirdLife said that the confiscated birds received by the NMNH confirmed that Maltese hunters travelling to northern Africa were having an impact on globally threatened species including those listed under the Global IUCN Red List as ‘endangered’, such as the Saker Falcon, or ‘vulnerable’ species – there are nine lappet-faced vultures, four imperial eagles and two marbled teal in the most recent carcasses passed over to the museum.
“Poachers are persistently exploiting poor law enforcement; they are doing it in Malta and in other countries where there isn’t sufficient control on this criminal activity.
“They must be made to face the harshest penalties possible or their pursuit of prized wildlife, including birds, will not stop until there is nothing left,” Birdlife Malta executive director Tolga Temuge said.
http://birdinginegypt.com/documents/gebel-elba-ornithological-survey.pdf
81 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I’m a bird shootin, God-fearin’, foul mouthed, son of a bitch, I hate Blacks, Arabs and Jews. I love the Inglixx (but they have Blacks on their team – traitors!
Divorce is a sin there is no doubt and I want my woman at home . I am the man and I am the head. If my wife or daughter needs to remember this, a little fist won’t hurt.
What I really hate are those Liberal “smart” people who think they know everything and want to change things so we can become like “Europe.” I hate the UE. It wants to control us! Even hunting they want no more! Next divorce, abortion!!!
I am Maltese and proud, I have values
Nispera li qed ticcajta!!
Am. I?
Your Q is worth a thesis. A very short question indeed. But so full of meaning. Think about that folks.
Monkey, so true. Tongue in cheek, but however still upsetting. Home truths always are.
I feel sick! Name and shame! Front page of The Times the ‘hunters’ faces and the birds they have killed!
For some reason the article seems to have been removed from the Times – here is the link http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100727/local/maltese-poachers-singled-out-in-egyptian-survey .
Nauseating! However, experience tells me that these “above the law” people can get away with murder; and when brought to court; they are told, do not be naughty! Next time you will be reprimanded – HOPELESS.
They think that they can do whatever they like in a foreign country. It’s part of their holiday package.
I knew someone who visited Egypt regularly for hunting. They hire a 4×4 and a driver for a very cheap price. The driver seems to know all the good areas for hunting. The name for this person is “kelb” cause he is the one who collects for them the killed bird. I don’t know if the word kelb is something invented by the Maltese or purely Arabic for this kind of job.
[Daphne – Kelb is the Arabic word for dog. It is an Arabic word, not a ‘Maltese’ word. No Muslim would ever call another person a kelb unless he wished to insult him in one of the worst ways possible. Dogs are considered to be profoundly dirty and untouchable in Muslim culture.]
Nature belongs to all Mankind and nobody has the right to make his what belongs to all. On the contrary, hunters, not only poachers, seem to think that nature belongs to no one and hence can be appropriated by anyone. They stake their claim by mentioning that horrendous word that sends cold shivers down my spine — it is used to justify anything from the shooting of any creature that flies, walks or swims to ear-splitting detonations throughout the Maltese summer – tradition. No word in the Maltese vocabulary has been used so often to justify the unjustifiable and to oppress the helpless as the terrible word “tradizzjoni”. Denying the right to divorce to protect “traditional values” is another case in point.
The assertion that hunting has always existed because it was a source of food to humans is totally false in the case of hunters. They do not hunt to eat but to collect trophies as testimony to their machismo. That is why some say that they suffered from depression or nervous breakdowns when not allowed to hunt. It is what a man who has been rendered impotent or castrated would feel. Take away their gun — a phallic symbol — and you have emasculated them. This is the primitve mind of the hunter. This is why reason is beyond their reach. Hunting belongs to the primordial regions of their psyche and is impervious to rational thought. Paradoxically, while life is associated with eros, their instincts are more within the concept of thanatos. Perhaps a professional psychologist could either amplify or shoot down my thoughts.
Hypatia, your first sentence in the comment weakens your entire argument: “Nature belongs to all Mankind and nobody has the right to make his what belongs to all.” Go and tell that to the crocodile, the imperial eagle or the falcon of Gebel Elba.
According to science, nature is a food chain, and according to Darwin, it is all based on the survival of the fittest. Hunting and preying is a natural process, and has been observed in all forms of life on earth, from fish to mammals, to birds. And the first humans, were they in Africa, the Mediterranean rim, or in Aboriginal Australia, lived off hunting.
Now this does not mean that I condone excesses, but a balanced society is one where everyone is entitled to live and enjoy his freedom, so long as this does not exceed beyond the borders of others’. After all, hunting in Malta is subject to laws and regulations. It is up to the society that makes those laws to enforce those laws – bit-tajba, jew bil-hazina, as we say.
So in my view, the approach to hunting, like any other divisive subject in Malta, is fairly simple: think of the rights of others. Then, take a balanced approach. Taking one extreme position will always result in the exclusion of the other extreme, so a way in between is needed to ensure social inclusion and a fair society.
Hunting for survival OK – but hunting just for the sake of killing and perhaps stuff it for a showcase – well then that is in my opinion just killing
Some more values. See comment by Jimmy Magro under article about long term foreigners being required to complete a course about Malta:
“This is not enough !
People from outside the EU who apply for long-term resident status in Malta must:
1. have permament employment or stable income
2. pay a higher rate of taxation (55% minimum) since they are making use of our scarce resources most notably land and water
3. their permit must be reviewed every six months
4. submit a police record sheet
5. permit be terminated in case of any prosecution
6. must prove that they are net contributors to our political, economic and social infrastructure
If we open the doors to everyone, we end up with more houses, cars, electrciity shortages, water crises, criminality and social explosions”
The question is, is this failed Stalinist economic policy masked as xenophobia? Vice versa? Both?
Is this “Jimmy Magro” the former General Secretary of the MLP/PL ?
These are the people LAWRENCE GONZI signed an agreement with and panders to before each and every election…. obviously joined by the very progressive and forward looking Labour Party. Gowzeff included…
Please get your facts straight, James. This Government GUARANTEED Spring Hunting repeatedly and in writing, as one of 77 Special Arrangements pre-EU Accession. This Government further stated that hunting would be better off in the EU.
If the lack of co-operation, the collective punishments, the lack of effective enforcement, the giving of free rein to foreigners (yeah, remember the “bicis” who hail from the worst offender in Europe), restrictions left right and centre EVEN in Autumn…..if that’s pandering, then you must be living in a different country. Or a different galaxy.
Sometimes I am ashamed to say I am Maltese. We are certainly getting a really bad reputation. Basta pajjiz tal-valuri sodi, my foot! Hypocrites.
U le, Etil. Nothing to be ashamed you are Maltese about this one. We have never used our arms (weapons) to invade other people’s lands and territory and kill innocent civilian human beings, children, working fathers and so forth. It seems that some of us have used firearms to hunt down some animals lower in the food chain (assuming we are at the top…)
Sometimes, it is good to get some publicity – at least these people get to know that we exist. There is no such thing as bad publicity (except your own obituary – Brendan Behan 1923-1964).
The trips to Egypt by these paragons of virtue have been going on for at least 20 years – a generation of bribery and butchery. The killing fields of Egypt smeared in blood by the Maltese ‘hunters and conservationists’.
In Egypt a foreigner gets hounded by people, some of them officials, offering “deals” that amount to plain overcharging at best, and people of all ages asking for “baksheesh” – which could be anything from a generous tip to outright bribery.
“Access to the protected area is controlled, and the survey questions how Maltese poachers managed to hunt there illegally.” Controlled by whom? Not the EEAA itself I hope. “ …bribery was probably the method they used to get through the endless checkpoints… there is also the question of how the poachers get guns and ammunition into the area.” And who is manning the checkpoints, and at the receiving end of the bribes?
The EEAA focuses on the crimes of the Maltese poachers and only makes passing reference to poor law enforcement by the Egyptian authorities and the widespread bribery. It should be the other way round. As things stand, if the Maltese poachers won’t do it, others will.
Oh come on! This is a mega-overreaction to 1 paragraph in 1 report prepared by 4 bosom buddies of Birdlife Malta, which promptly went into overdrive since they have apparently run out of crap to sling in Malta.
The usual tactics of making mountains out of molehills, splashed all over it’s network of friendly media. Sure. Why don’t they organise their Raptor Camps and Spring watches in Egypt then? Dump petitions in front of the Pyramids? Slag off the Egyptian police, the Egyptian game wardens, the Egyptian president and the Egyptian hunters? Print some provocative t-shirts and trespass and harass and film where they please? Harm Egypt’s tourist industry?
Yeah right. They’d last about an hour before they’re deported, arrested for espionage or publicly flogged in Cairo. These extremists are as despicable as the worst poachers. They’ve got free rein in Malta. Why bother.
“They’d last about an hour before they’re deported, arrested for espionage or publicly flogged in Cairo. ”
Sure, that’s why Egypt isn’t considered a true democracy. So is that your idea of how things should be done?
So much for your comment further down:
“Hunter of game birds. Avid reader. Jesuit education. 5 A levels. 14 O levels. Good grades. Like music. Speak 4 languages. Appreciate culture. Obey the law. Like to think I live a good life. Got some land in which plenty of creatures live undisturbed. And so on. Howzat for the standard Neanderthal?”
Looks like Neanderthals can pass their A levels after all…….
So go there and show’em how it’s done, Mike Homo Sapiens.
Why we should care about crocodiles or some obscure species of bird is beyond me.
It appears many “nature lovers” do not understand the way of Nature. You see, evolution does not work through protecting weaker species. Species annihilate species all the time. Nobody shed a tear for the dodo and nobody wishes we were amongst dinosaurs.
The fact is that conservation is purely a matter of sentiment and the fact that we care more about crocodiles than human foetuses goes to show how shallow and irrational most humans are.
And most “nature lovers” don’t really care anyway. They care enough to post an angry comment on the Internet saying how barbaric poachers are for killing animals, but in the end they will still eat chicken and drink milk thereby supporting the cruel exploitation of animals.
A cute sad looking monkey on tv is worth saving. But laying off the ham sandwich is too much to ask for, and goring human foetuses is held by many to be the right of its mother.
These poachers bribed some guards (wOw!) and shot a few birds or whatever and broke the law in some foreign country. Big deal.
It would appear the dinosaurs are still among us.
Darwin, are you a Maltese hunter by any chance?
If you’re Christopher Darwin then I’m Michael Christ but I’d rather you didn’t sully Darwin’s science with your ridiculous interpretation of it.
Species do not annihilate species, environmental change does, either natural or brought about by man. Many tears have been in fact shed for the Dodo and I suspect a few have been shed for the dinosaurs too.
That being said, natural selection is blind, but we have risen above it. If you or any of your ancestors were short sighted you can thank your lucky stars that we have not let natural selection run its course, otherwise you would not be around to write the nonsense above.
I don’t see what abortion or vegetarian’s lifestyle choices have to do with these hunters bringing us into disrepute. Poaching and bribery are two such activities by any civilised measure and minimising or justifying them does the same.
Am I missing something here, or has someone mixed up Christopher Darwin with Charles Darwin?
Extinction by poaching is unnatural. I have nothing against hunting for food but here a large number wild animals are being turned into money or even worse trophies. By large I mean more then they can reproduce. That’s waste!
How can waste be good in this poor world?
“I’d like to see them try a spot of poaching in Germany. Perhaps they’ll end up with a jackboot up their butt.”
U kienu jkesksulhom il-German bicis.
For God’s sake let’s drop the word ‘sport’ out of hunting.
It’s plain killing to please ones primitive traumatized ego. Hunters can’t gulp down the fact that without their shotguns ‘they’ are nothing. Is it possible that their ‘namra’, delizju, tradizioni etc, the only passion their psychic can support.
Or is it a manner to impress their omnipotent macho presence amongst us ‘lesser mortals’.
If only they could rise to the higher realms of culture. But how can they do that? There exist on the Island, widespread, cultural illiteracy; amongst politicians, clergy, you name them. They can’t help hunters or anybody else for all I know, to raise higher, for the simple fact they have nothing to give in return. There lies a real danger in life that in giving out the least possible leaves one vulnerably, empty, and useless. So goes the saying ‘let there be ignorance, for there lays bliss’.
Hunters, leave messy death records, memories of their bloody carnage behind them….see they can’t look forward they are stuck in their fantasy, and in their joys of killing, lies the ultimate sensation of feeling good. Many of them, hide callously behind a (tacit!?) silent Church, who in her turn props up feasts of legendary saints, who never existed. Purely fantastical prefabricated creations. Hunters are fortified by these subtle innuendos. All this adds to an already gloomy situation, in popular religious term: idolatry. One such feast is coming up soon.
Killing for sport, is intrinsically evil, and a sport for killing is one I hate and abhor
Vaux, (or faux!) puhleeeease! You just fired off the standard shotgun blast of genreralisation. Let’s be specific now, shall we, and see how I fit your profile:
Hunter of game birds. Avid reader. Jesuit education. 5 A levels. 14 O levels. Good grades. Like music. Speak 4 languages. Appreciate culture. Obey the law. Like to think I live a good life. Got some land in which plenty of creatures live undisturbed. And so on. Howzat for the standard Neanderthal?
Re your comment. There’s NOTHING wrong with my ego, thank you very much, and I certainly don’t need my shotgun for anything else apart from the purpose for which I pay my license. If you feel you’re a “lesser mortal”, well, perhaps you simply are. That’s your problem. Hiding behind the Church? The same Church that is happily going ahead with the Nadur cemetary extension? Or the one which sold the Hondoq land? Bah. Better leave the Church out of this one.
You abhor hunting. Fine. But legal hunting is just that – legal. Illegal hunting is a crime. Now which part don’t you understand?
One last point. Do you eat meat, chicken, fish etc? If you do, well hey, you’re just another contract killer happily drowning your concience at whatever supermarket or restaurant trough you feed from.
Jesuit educated = nothing to be proud of, in my opinion. If nothing else, they didn’t teach you how to spell “licence”.
Maybe the Jesuits wore Stetsons and cowboy boots.
Is that all you can contribute, Chris? Nitpicking about a typo?
Jeez.
What you call a “typo” but in reality is bad spelling – admit it – was clearly not my point, Mr person who calls himself ‘drewsome’.
I could help you see it but you have all those O and A levels . . . work it out.
It’s not bad spelling. It’s a variant, British use “licence” and Americans use “license”. In fact sometimes “licence” as a verb is considered incorrect even by the British.
Jekk il-kacca minghajr kontroll hi hazina d-divorzju jaghmel hsara lil istat.
J Busuttil qed thawwad il-pastard mal-gizimin.Jew kien kumment ta’ certu sotillezza sublimi jew inkella ghandna problemi serji fl-elettorat …
Jiena naqbel ma’ J Busuttil. Il-kacca zomm liz-zaghzagh taghna l’boghod mill-vizzji tad-droga, alkahol u seks, li qed jeqirdu l-valuri tradizzjonali Maltin u jwasslu ghat-tifrik taz-zwieg, bir-rizultat ta’ separazzjonijiet u divorzji. Jekk irridu nsalvaw il-familja Maltija rridu nheggu d-delizzju tradizzjonali tal-kacca u l-insib, li kienu tarka ghall-Maltin u l-Ghawdxin sa mill-migja ta’ San Pawl.
Kwazi kkonvincejt lili nnifsi….
Today in Catalonia, a referendum was passed in that region banning Spain’s national barbaric spectacle of bullfighting. Dr. Gonzi should put the banning of hunting to be decided by a referendum. Unlike divorce, hunting and its barbarism is not a civil right.
Yes this was a victory for the bulls in Catalonia.
they’re still going to be turned into fillet… their death is going to be less nobel and maybe more humane…
BTW, it’s interesting that the picture is of anti-poachers. They sure look like they mean business.
I call these jerks sub-humans.
@Christopher Darwin: it seems you should change your second name because you understand nothing of Darwinism. The survival of the fittest is what happens in nature left to itself and undisturbed by shotguns.
If we go by your reasoning, humans would be the only species left on this sorry planet for there is no species in nature that can survive the blast of a gun, not even an elephant. The mentioning of foetuses (by which you imply abortion, I presume) is another favourite with the animal killers as if abortion justifies the wanton destruction of nature.
One should condone neither abortion nor hunting for trophies. The other favourite with the shooters is the eating of chickens or cattle. What crap! Man became a farmer, and invented animal husbandry in the process, precisely to emerge from his hunting phase. Hunting used to provide food and was resorted to according to the nutritional requirements of the community and not to shoot trophies to be exhibited stuffed in some glass case or hung on a living-room wall to show the “courage” of the hunter in shooting the helpless creature. But then rational thought is not a strong characteristic of the troglodyte killers who have the effrontery to mock us by calling themselves “conservationists”.
@ Hypatia
I do not want to nit-pick, but it is important to put the record straight about evolution.
a) “survival of the fittest” means “survival of the most suitable”. Suitable for what?
b) Evolution is the “paper trail” of responses to changes in the environment. The biosphere today is the result of a sequence of “selective pressures” that have been acting upon it since the first microorganisms appeared. When Darwin (Charles, not Christopher) coined survival of the fittest he meant that only the organisms most suitable to deal with their environment survive. Nowadays we say that only the best suited organims transmit their genes into the next generation. (Genetics wasn’t the science it is today in Darwin’s time. Mendel was still playing around with his peas then)
All this means that shooting – whether we like it or not – has become a new selective pressure. That members of a species kill members of other species is nothing new e.g. ants and termites. Luckily nobody is more effective than humans in exterminating species e.g. hunting, deforestation etc.
Human life – food, shelter, clothing, leisure – creates myriad selective pressures on ecosystems the world over. What would you expect us to do? Go out with a whimper? I don’t think so. We have to “live responsibly”. The way to live responsibly is to use science harnessed to a well defined and inflexible framework of morals and ethics.
‘Animal husbandry”!! How sweet and how sanitised! Ever been to a chicken farm, for instance, and seen how modern “husbandry” works? Or the conditions that animals are kept in from the cradle (or egg!) to the grave?
And, naturellement, your’re another devoted vegetarian.
And then there’s this one, compiled in 1999, when most of us probably had little or no internet access:
http://www.efah.net/egyhunt.htm
I also tried – though unsuccessfully – to trace a news report I recall of a Maltese man illegally importing the carcasses of several birds (presumably protected ones) from Egypt some five years or so ago.
This sort of thing must have been going on for years, since these people seem to make a regular habit out of going to Egypt on such holidays.
Daphne
Muslims call non-muslims infidel dogs
@janine
No I am not a hunter. I study animals I don’t shoot them. While I am fascinated by their complexity and moved with their struggle to survive, I accept the constant state of flux on this planet, with species extinguished and others appearing. The fact is that this is the era of Human, his domesticated partners and the vermin we can’t get rid of. Things are looking grim for most species, but such is Life.
@MikeC
“Species do not annihilate species, environmental change does”
I will laugh for days! The environment includes the species within it. You don’t seperate the two. This reminds me of a Dan Quayle quote: “It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it!”
“we [humans] have risen above [natural selection]”
Black-skinned humans are the result of a selection pressure in favour of those with thicker, more melanin enriched skin that protected from skin cancer. Your argument is invalid.
@Hypatia
“The survival of the fittest is what happens in nature left to itself and undisturbed by shotguns.”
Oh what a grand and intoxicating innocence. You believe us humans to be external to Nature and its ways. Wanton destruction of Nature? Nature and Evolution are everywhere even in the middle of the ugliest urban city. We cannot destroy it. My reasoning is simply that Nature will select traits in animals that make the use of a shotgun ineffective. You can’t exterminate all the cockroaches in the world with shotguns can you? Do you see where I am going here? In the eyes of evolution, the cockroach deserves to survive, while the pretty colourful birds you care about don’t.
Also, your comment about hunting being strictly a means to provide food are incredibly naive. The spirit of the hunt is part of what makes us human. You see it permeating through football fans, for example. But this is going over your head, isn’t it?
Black-skinned humans are the result of a selection pressure in favour of those with thicker, more melanin enriched skin that protected from skin cancer. Your argument is invalid.
I thought it was the other way round…
Evidence of recent adaptation in humans:
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2010/07/01_tibetan_genome.shtml
The point here is not whether or not hunting is acceptable in principle. It’s one thing to shoot a few birds for the pot (I wouldn’t anyway, but that’s my choice), quite another to go on a rampage in one of the world’s most important and sensitive bird areas.
Some of the (reliable) stories about hunting in Egypt are horrific. Some people I sort of know spent their last morning there shooting swallows, hundreds of them, just because they had plenty of cartridges left.
The funny (well) thing is that hunters who have been there love to exchange stories about how ‘primitive’ (‘ghadhom lura wisq’) Egyptians are.
But how do the Maltese butchers manage to get in Malta the dead or embalmed birds in Malta? Are there any controls at the airport?
Protected spieces enter Malta via catamaran very often, the authorities know this and they just let it be.
@ drewsome
YOU… kill for sport! That’s the fundamental issue
I reiterate this with all my convictions emanating from my interests and passion in Psychology , that killers for sport have some underlying unconscious problem. Your misbalance between the Freud’s Libido and Thanatos is so evidently leaning to killing. For sport !
Vaux, is bagging a few game birds for the pot so bad? I sometimes go fishing too….or snorkelling for an octopus or two. Sometimes I catch someting, most times I don’t. Whatever I catch is legal and is eaten. Very tasty too.
With respect, I really don’t see how the end result is so different from buying food off the shelf. Do I enjoy it? Yes. I enjoy the whole experience, the preparation, the outdoors, the hunt and the end result.
A question. Do you agree – or will you at least accept – that legal hunting should be allowed?
I would say “controlled” hunting – not killing of protected species!
Agree. Got no problem with that. Too many antis mix up the issue of legal and illegal hunting, often with little or no knowledge about migration, seasons, Malta’s particular status and so on.
Seeking the thrill of the hunt is an inherent part of being a human male. It has been replaced by high-stake poker games, gambling, “extreme sports” etc.
If the “killing instinct” weren’t important it wouldn’t have been with us today. It’s not “piggybacking” on some other trait necessary for our survival of the species (e.g. love for literature “existing” because of our “advanced” brain. The unnecessary “love for literature” is hitching a ride with the essential “evolved brain”)
The hunting instinct is one of those parts of being human that defy the modern push for sexual equivalence. Men will be men and women will be women. It is very hard for women to understand the “hunting” part of the male psyche. (I think that hunting per se is barbaric, but I can identify the way the hunting instinct is manifest in my psychological make-up)
Taking “hunters” to task is the same as criticising women for nagging. It’s what humans are programmed to do, irrespective of the cultural bombardment to break the mould.
@Reuben Scicluna and Christopher Darwin: I have read the Origin of Species when I was 14 at a time when it was not even mentioned in Malta. As far as I know, Darwin wrote about “natural selection”. I don’t know exactly what you’re driving at. Are you suggesting that the shotgun will eventually decide which species survive and which don’t? Of course humans are part of nature (I was waiting for you for this astounding revelation) …but the shotgun isn’t. In the end, when all the animals and birds have been blasted out of existence, I suppose hunters will have nothing left to hunt except humans. According to Christohper Darwin, it seems that only cochroaches will survive as they cannot be killed by shotguns whereas colourful birds, he decrees, do not deserve to live. What crap! Yes, we all know, roaches are supposed to survive even a nuclear holocaust. Maybe hunters will then resort to hunting roaches with a can of insecticide spray and exterminate them too. The assertion that football is based on the spirit of the hunt is a baseless assertion and I would welcome reliable scientific evidence that it is so. I once heard someone claim that the whole purpose of football is to score a goal and that stood for the satisfaction of the Oedipus complex…
Those who justify hunting will go to any length, no matter how absurd. I leave it to readers of this blog to decide in which category you two fit. And that is the end of the argument as far as I’m concerned. I am used to argue with people endowed with reason and with a knowledge of the scientific method and, sorry, they are two commodities you sorely lack.
You have clearly misunderstood Darwin (Charles, not Christopher).
Selection pressures in Darwin’s day were not the same as today, not least because of the impact of human activity on the ecosystem at a planetary level. You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you discuss “natural selection” and completely ignore human activity as an influence in the ecosystem – global and/or local.
Behaviour is “hereditary” too, to a point. Everything about living organisms is a direct consequence of evolution as a response to selection pressures. There is no way out of this.
Cockroaches may survive a nuclear holocaust, but how would they fare in a world of people with huge feet, for instance?
Evolution is about organisms filling vacancies (niches) in ecosystems. Humans have evolved the way we have because of past selection pressures. Our activities are a result of that. All our activities – the ones you like as well as the ones you don’t – necessarily leave an effect on our planet. How this will unfold in a few thousand years’ time is anyone’s guess.
If you went through the trouble of reading my reply properly you would have understood that hunting – the fun of which escapes me – necessarily impacts natural selection in the true meaning of the phrase. Your attempts to compartmentalise causes and effects into subgroups are simplistic rather than a simplification to help understanding.
OK, Reuben, we get it. You don’t care about humanity’s adverse impact on our environment. I guess you don’t care about global warming either. That’s how things are, let them be.
Nature is above all this. She’s above us as well.
Incidentally, what do you think of the studies showing the influence of hunting on wild caribou? Study posits that the males are evolving with smaller antlers because having big antlers is a liability due to the hunt. I cannot be bothered to find the reference though.
My sympathies are with Hypathia. I would recommend a strong antidote to your “Darwinian” arguments, and the same dosage as well to Christopher Darwin.
Stephen Jay Gould’s (1989) classic book, “Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History” (London: W. W. Norton & Company ISBN: 0-393-02705-8), will straighten out false presumptions you may have regarding natural selection and the inevitability of human domination of the natural world. Basically, Gould’s thesis is that life on earth is a contingency, and there is nothing inevitable about it.
If one jumps to the last six pages of his book (pp. 318-323), but don’t neglect the rest, you will find Gould’s concluding arguments. I will briefly quote:
“Mammals evolved at the end of the Triassic , at the same time as dinosaurs, or just a tad later. Mammals spent their first hundred million years–two-thirds of their total history–as small creatures living in the nooks and crannies of a dinosaur’s world. Their sixty million years of success following the demise of dinosaurs has been something of an afterthought.”
Gould continues: “We have no indication of any trend toward mammalian hegemony during this initial hundred million years. Quite the reverse–dinosaurs remained in unchallenged possession of all environments for large-bodied terrestrial creatures. Mammals made no substantial moves toward domination, larger brains, or even greater size.”
Gould continues: “If mammals had arisen late and helped to drive dinosaurs to their doom, then we could legitimately propose a scenario of expected progress. But dinosaurs remained dominant and probably became extinct only as a quirky result of the most unpredictable of all events–a mass dying triggered by extraterrestrial impact. If dinosaurs had not died in this event, they would probably still dominate the domain of large-bodied vertebrates, as they had for so long with such conspicuous success, and mammals would still be small creatures in the interstices of their world…..”
Regarding the origin of Homo sapiens, Gould continues: “I will not carry this argument to ridiculous extremes. Even I will admit that at some point in the story of human evlution, circumstances conspired to encourage mentality at our modern level….” And Gould goes on to describe our false impression that we have ascribed for Homo sapiens, as an anticipated result of an “evolutionary tendency” pervading all human populations.
Instead, Gould proposes an alternative view: “Homo sapiens arose as an evolutionary item, a definite entity, a small and coherent population that split off from a lineage of ancestors in Africa.” Gould notes, “We recognize that Homo erectus, our immediate ancestor, was the first species to emigrate from Africa and to settle in Europe and Asia as well.” But, Gould notes, “Asian Homo erectus died without issue and does not enter into our immediate ancestry (for we evolved from African populations); Neanderthal people were collateral cousins, perhaps already living in Europe while we emerged in Africa; and also contributing nothing to our immediate genetic heritage. In other words, we are an improbable and fragile entity, fortunately successful after precarious beginnings as a small population in Africa, not the predictable end result of a global tendency. We are a thing, an item of history, not an embodiment of general principles.”
Gould’s conclusion: “Biology’s most profound insight into human nature, status, and potential lies in the simple phrase, the embodiment of contingency: Homo sapiens is an entity, not a tendency.” Equally remarkable, the world’s first known chordate, Pikaia, from the Burgess Shale suggests nothing remarkable about its future, our future. “Wind the tape of life back to Burgess times, and let it play again. If Pikaia does not survive in the replay, we are wiped out of future history–all of us, from shark to robin ro orangutan.” We exist as a contingency of history.
Our conclusions based upon Gould, any contingency could wipe out Homo sapiens, could wipe us out, along with the rest of the planet’s natural world. And human beings seem to be the natural world’s worst enemy, as we accelerate the extinction of species, and ultimately, potentially our own.
There is nothing instinctive about human’s carrying a gun, or developing nuclear weapons; but there is much that is insane about human efforts towards domination. And when humans place themselves as “hunters” in a self-centered universe, greed and destruction follow. Hunters could learn a few things from the trnditional life-style of the American Indians.
There are no rights or “instincts” for the destruction of nature. But, there are environmental contingencies, and those human-induced contingencies may bring about our extinction, along with the “birds” we kill, as a result of our alleged “genetic dispositions,” or “natural tendencies.” Rubbish: since the 1930’s, “instincts” have ceased to be regarded as a valid explanatory construct in psychology. It’s entirely post-hoc. No biological argument can support the cause of hunting to extinction, as a human right.
@ Joseph A Borg
I seem to be having problems getting through to you lot … the study you have mentioned about caribou antlers being selected against is a perfect illustration (about which I knew nothing) of my point.
Human activity necessarily leaves an impact on the ecosystem. It’s what I’ve been trying to say all along.
If you are who I think you are you will surely remember Edwin Lanfranco’s “maxim” that “Every time we swat a fly we are changing the course of evolution”.
I have expressed my dislike of hunting twice in this discussion. I have merely pointed out that like it or not ALL OUR ACTIVITIES affect the progress of evolution.
Somewhere along this comment section I have read that “shotguns do not count as natural selection pressures.” Why? Our brain allows us to construct and use tools. It’s part of us.
Chimpanzees use twigs to dip into anthills and eat the ant lollipop. Can’t we take that into account?
Bonobos are known to eat some plant or other which, they seem to know, has contraceptive properties. They even have a sex-for-power social system.
Crows chuck stones at nuts to crack them. The list is endless.
Such behavioural patterns have evolved because they have an obvious survival value and will leave an impact on future ecosystems.
Our brain has evolved due to the same selection pressures. It is a brain which has resulted in us creating art, doing science and, unfortunately, killing each other. What can one do?
Nature is amoral. An organism has to use all methods at its disposal to survive and transmit its genes to the next generation.
@ Edward Clemmer
I feel you have taken Gould out of context there. A well-known phenomenon that flies in the face of what you’re saying is biological pest control.
Endemic species have been wiped out by the introduction of alien species intended to “control” the “offending” species. That is a case of hunting to extinction. Only difference is that it wasn’t man doing the hunting. I do not condone hunting as sport BUT nobody can deny that it has to be factored into the evolution equation.
Gould may have been referring to our moral responsibilities as implied stewards of creation. Some of Gould’s theories did not go down well with his peers as he always seem to imply the existence of some sort of underlying “purpose”. He even dared separate the domains of science and religion in what he termed NOMA (non overlapping magisteria). Dawkins took him to task for it in his risible The God Delusion.
@Reuben
As for my presentation of Gould’s arguments, there is no context out of which (though you feel otherwise) I have taken him. I have presented a fairly detailed synopsis of his final conclusions, the context of which is his book.
From the general throw-away statement you make about alleged “out of context,” there is nothing specific to Gould’s thesis that you identify as objectionable. Let’s repeat it in lay terms: Any life on this blessed planet is CONTINGENT on the events of history, and evolution has been a process of continuing (and massive) extinctions, and fortuitous non-extinctions for others, so far.
In fact, Gould’s presentation is quite elegant and detailed, and I have provided his concluding statements. Our existence is contingent–there is nothing teological or inevitable about it, except, because of the fragility of life and our survival dependent upon our natural environment, our potential extinction along with the rest of the planet. I don’t think that we want to accelerate extinction on Earth so that we can resemble present-day Mars.
A first heard Gould’s thesis at Harvard University about 1989-1990, where he was teaching biology, geology, and the history of science, when I also was teaching in Boston.
Interestingly, his presentation was part of the Harvard University Lecture series on religion. The context of his scientific presentation was a conference on religion–which is quite ecumenical for someone like Gould who separates the domains of science and religion, the later being a matter of faith; but neither science nor religion is antithetical to “reason.”
Gould properly does not introduce any religious arguments into science; but then, we also would expect religion not to impose itself upon science (much as Creationists and “intelligent-design” theorists are wont to do; or, perhaps, even “hunters” who want to justify their habits).
However, science in its “reason,” as Gould projects it, must have had some thoughtful matters for an audience on “religion.” It did, and it does; but that is another topic.
Because these domains are separate, one can potentially be a scientist and a “religionist” too. Even Pope Benedict XVI in his Regensburg address attempted to bridge the areas of science and faith, that neither is incompatible with the other because “reason” is essential to “the nature of God.”
Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, as an atheist and non-theist, claims no tolerance for religion. Stephen Jay Gould is a far more reasonable man, and also he is well-respected in the scientific community.
@ Reuben Scicluna: I don’t think I am who you think I am. As for the rest I agree with you perfectly.
@Hypatia
Humans using guns is as natural as the Blanket octopus that uses jellyfish tentacles as a weapon.
Humans farming crops and animals is also natural. As natural as the ant which actively cultivates fungus for its own consumption.
I am curious as to where people like you would draw the line of what is natural and what is “un-natural” (if such a thing exists).
You’re comparing animals using the defences nature has provided them with for their protection or as a way to hunt to survive, with humans using guns!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmXyf2eOZyY&feature=related
@drewsome
killing for sports is evil !
Vaux – Perhaps you could enlighten us whether ALL killing for food is evil? Are slaughterhouses evil? Chicken farms? Rabbit farms? Cow farms? Fish farms? Fishing? What’s your take on that, I wonder?
What’s next, Vaux? Save the cabbages? Preserve the turnips? A crusade to liberate those captive tomatoes? Plants have feelings too, y’know!
Come on and get real. Man is an omnivore and there’s no escaping that. Hunting is certainly not necessary for survival anymore but a mixed diet of protein and vegetables certainly is. Game is consumed all over the world and what’s the big deal if I cook up a tasty dish of legal game birds?
Evil? No more evil than a McDonald’s burger or Kentucky fried chicken. Definitely healthier food than the vitamin-medicine-enhanced stuff in shops.
Give the emotional rubbish a break will you?
Yes, slaughterhouses are evil. Try visiting one to see where your juicy steak really comes from. While you may think that being sensitive on this issue is “emotional rubbish”, others don’t.
Well…it is a fact that a lot of Maltese hunters, mostly lawyers, specialists and business men travel as far as South America to go hunting. I’m not shocked at the news.
This report makes absolutely sickening reading – but unfortunately nothing new. Have a look at this 1999 report entitled SEASONAL SLAUGHTER
OF BIRDS IN EGYPT and sub-titled “The destruction of birds by Maltese hunters”.
http://www.efah.net/egyhunt.htm
Rarely have I read such rubbish about evolution as I have here. The phrase “survival of the fittest” was not originated by Charles Darwin but by Herbert Spencer. It was later adopted by Darwin in the 5th Edition of “On the origin of species”. The term is no longer used by modern biologists who prefer “natural selection”. The relevance of evolutionary theory to bird killing by humans (?) is questionable to say the least.
This is part of what a Guru has to tell about the joys of hunting for sport.
“Of all the things to make a living with, of all the activities and hobbies, of all the means of survival, why must we sacrifice the life of others? Why must another sentient being have to suffer and lose their own life, to satisfy us? Here the talk is not about breeding and procuring food !
When you take a life, you not only take the life, but you’re killing a mother, a father, a friend, a relative, or guardian.
That goes for God’s creatures.
It is not about hunting a species into extinction or draining wildlife. It’s about the selfish act of CHOOSING an action in which your actions are the CAUSE of other suffering (EFFECT). Since when do people or living beings willingly give their lives to you for you to survive? Unless that animal clearly, willingly, says to you that their body is for you to enjoy as fun , then that’s fine.
The suffering you cause by shooting birds: pain to the dying bird, inability to live, baby chicks (children) without parents, loneliness of a widowed bird or widower from losing their mate. This applies to all life. You don’t just take life, you affect other lives.
In general, you show approval of killing and hunting as a lifestyle. Your actions demonstrate that life is “survival of the fittest”. Thus, it’s ok with hunting and being hunted ! You will find your match, one way or another.
Animals display the same reactions we display when we get hit, shot, sliced, etc. Animals try to run away out of fear of death—that is emotion and thought
Hunting for sport and joy. is EVIL. Ikollna nifgaw f’demmna.
Il-valuri ta’ XI Maltin.
Hunting had been a favorite pastime of Tolstoy since his youth. It combined his sensitive appreciation of natural beauty, his empathy with the animals hunted and those trained for the chase, and his outstanding energy and daring. While serving in the Caucasus he wrote enthusiastically in his letters of hunting expeditions to kill foxes and grey hares or of pursuing wild boar and deer without success. Among the changes that he brought into his life in 1885, Tolstoy abruptly gave up hunting. His young brother-in-law, Stepan Behrs writing in 1887, says: ‘From compassion he ( Tolstoy) has given up hunting and he told me that he has not only lost all wish to hunt but feels aghast , incredulous and astonished that he could have formerly embraced it with such passion.’
Hunting for sports and fun is EVIL
P.S I suggest blog readers to indulge some time and read works from this monolith of Russian Literature
welcome to cuckoo -land down under:
http://www.news.com.au/national/creationists-hijack-lessons-and-teach-schoolkids-man-and-dinosaurs-walked-together/story-e6frfkvr-1225899497234
lol , egyptians accusing people of slaughter?
and daphne caruana has a conscience for birds.
Tree hugging has become a hobby for most people who know nothing about nature itself while they go eat their mass produced cow at mcdonalds .
do you know humans kill about 400,000 cows for meat a day ??
bhal l storja tar recycling di … dal fuss kollu biex umbad only 4% tal plastic jigi recycled .
pathetic goons