GUEST POST: “Before saying what the referendum is about, we should say what it ISN’T about.”
Antoine Vella sent this in as a comment. I’m uploading it as a guest post.
The Committee Against Spring Hunting has its work cut out to inform the public about the reason for the referendum. It should start with explaining it to the No camp first, because confusing and incorrect messages are being sent out by people who will be voting No.
Before saying with the referendum is about, we should say what it isn’t about, and this is animal rights, cruelty to animals, illegal hunting and hunting in general.
That’s right: it’s not about hunting but only about hunting during the breeding season, in spring. In one word, it is about conservation.
The derogation to the EU Birds Directive allows Maltese hunters to kill 16,000 birds every spring; that’s 8,000 fewer nests. Little Malta thus deprives the European continent of 8,000 nests. Every single year. Our contribution to Europe’s fauna.
Hunters insist that this is insignificant compared to the “millions” of birds found in Europe. The excuse is false but I don’t like to quibble about numbers as the general public doesn’t know who to believe. My argument is another: why should we bring a species to the brink of extinction before deciding to protect it?
Humans never learn. There are countless examples of wild animals wantonly decimated in the tragically mistaken idea that their numbers are endless. Hunters always claim that their killing is insignificant and sustainable, until we wake up one day to find that the species doesn’t exist any more. The passenger pigeon (5 billion to nil in 100 years) and the American bison (60 million to a few hundred) are cases in point, but the same can be said of the tiger, bluefin tuna, California condor, most whales, white rhino, Tasmanian wolf . . . the sad list goes on and on. And this is just in the 20th century.
This is madness. First we practically kill off an entire species and then spend millions on long and difficult projects to bring them back.
It has happened in Malta too. Barn owls and jackdaws used to nest here but were wiped out by the late 1950s and now hunters have a project to re-introduce the barn owl. So, first they destroy the entire owl population of Malta and then they set up a project to re-introduce them. Wouldn’t it have been better not to kill off the owls in the first place?
Now we are talking of turtle doves and quails, not nesting but passing over Malta to nest elsewhere. And the story repeats itself – we keep killing them with the well-worn excuse that “there are so many, it doesn’t matter if we kill a few thousand”.
This is being done legally, of course, because the derogation allows it. It is why we are having the referendum: to abolish the derogation. And it is why the referendum is not about illegal hunting.
For years, environmentalists have tried in vain to persuade politicians to end the spring killings. Finally, they’ve taken the matter into their own hands and have forced the government to hold a referendum. We Maltese have a chance to show that we’ve learned from our mistakes and those of others. Or not.
18 Comments Comment
Reply to Joseph Click here to cancel reply
Well said!
Excellent post.
Excellent piece! Also are hunters trying to re-introduce the owl in order to be able to hunt it to extinction in Malta once again?
Of course. There are a few hunters who will don have a stuffed one on her mantelpiece.
How else can you explain their ‘interest’ in the barn owl (barbaġann)?
Good post, however I have an added reason to vote No. I would like to stop hunters holding political parties to ransom every time there are general elections.
I think that hunting should be abolished all year round, period. Why don’t these sick bastards start hunting each other and their families until they become extinct themselves (they can start with Muscat & Busuttil for all I care); at least that’s a species I can truly live without.
Great post. But one small mistake.
The 16,000 birds is the number permitted to be shot, not the number actually shot.
The SMS system fails drastically and can’t be property re-enforced.
The bird limit permitted per hunter is two birds in a day and four in a season.
So if a hunter kills two birds in the first five minutes on the first day of the season, the day is over for him. And if he kills another two the next day, the season is over for him.
The only hunters who send an SMS as required by law are the ones who are being checked by police at the time and have no option but to send it.
When you see records like thousands of shots fired on first day and six reported kills, you know it’s all a joke and the system isn’t working.
I am voting No not because I care for the birds and our environment etc, but I just want to free our kind from being held hostage every election at the hunters’ will.
Is the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association now going to take a position on the referendum? It should, given how vociferous it was about how spring hunting is so bad for tourism.
Thank you, Antoine.
SHOUT, please take this on board.
Perfectly put, and serves as a lesson to both camps.
This referendum is a test of just how civilised Maltese society is. As it stands, there is a marked decline in the general morals of this country, and no one with at least half a brain can deny it. Just open some blogs or even some social networking sites. After barely making through the hideous grammar and syntax (both in English and Maltese), the gist of most replies are plain stupid.
Thus, I am eagerly awaiting the results of this referendum, in order to see where we are in the “Neanderthal Barometer”.
Don’t hold your breath, Wacko.
Why should people vote ‘no’ for only one reason? Although, conservation might be the most significant argument against spring hunting it certainly is not the only one.
Those who want to enjoy the country side in spring without being subjected to abuse by hunters or gun shots is also another reason.
Others may be against the killing of animals for sport in general.
I’m not so sure. An exercise such as this one is bound to be about many things, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Animal-welfare arguments, for example, are not necessarily all-or-nothing. One might plausibly vote No by way of cutting down on a chunk of, though not all, animal cruelty.
What makes the referendum fascinating is precisely the convergence of so many different motives and emotions.
Great post. Thanks for the clarification. This was needed.
Don’t forget the Maltese ox. We were down to two females just over a decade ago and now after many years of hard work have a herd.
I thought they were back-bred. They used Wenzu The Ox’s sperm on “barrani” cows.
Correct. Wenzu was not 100% though. Son of one of the cows and had the right features!