GUEST POST: “It is clearly madness to target a species when it is reproducing or travelling to where it will reproduce”
The piece beneath was sent in this morning by MC (not Manuel Cuschieri).
——–
I’d been toying with sending in this comment which I wrote at the weekend and then decided not to bother, having spent the time to write it, partly because I felt it was superseded by events and by other comments. But reading Antoine Vella’s excellent piece (see earlier guest post) I thought I’d send it in anyway.
I agree with him on all the conservation points, but not on other issues. It’s not just about conservation. There are other issues, not least political, but also animal cruelty issues – if, like me, you are not afraid to say out loud that you view this referendum as a first step on the road to a total ban to end all hunting.
I must preface this comment with a personal statement: I mostly dislike birds. I don’t find them cuddly or sweet, and although I might occasionally appreciate a soaring eagle or a beautiful burst of birdsong, in general I consider them to be beady-eyed flying excrement machines. I dislike the sound of chirping birds at 6am almost as much as I dislike the sound of shotguns at the same time.
But I understand that it is rational thought rather than personal likes and dislikes that should drive my vote or conservation policy in general.
Conservation of species should be the main driver in this campaign, or one of the main drivers. It is clearly madness to target a species when it is reproducing or travelling to where it will reproduce. But the conservation argument should be applied to hunting in general.
Another reason for banning spring hunting is the fact that it is a smokescreen for the illegal hunting of protected species. The pipe-dream of increased enforcement fools no-one except the naive and those who wish to be fooled, i.e. those in search of an excuse to close both eyes to what is going on.
We choose to forget that the only reason there is any sort of protection at law – hunting seasons, bag limits and so on – is because these birds are in danger of extinction, and not because they are pretty or lovable. Protection is a conservation objective not a ‘let’s be nice to pretty things’ objective.
The reason for the spring hunting derogation is itself based on a false premise: the right to hunt. The Constitutional Court of Malta, in its ruling on the referendum some days ago, said categorically that there is no such right.
The hunters’ argument and that of their political supporters is that not enough quail and turtledove are around in autumn, so we must allow hunting in spring. This is rubbish. If anything, it is an argument for banning the hunting of quail and turtledove in autumn too.
Hunting is not a right. It is a privilege granted by society in its entirety to a subset of society on the understanding that certain norms will be observed. That is the theory behind a phrase that should be considered a contradiction in terms: “sustainable spring hunting”.
Which brings me to Simon Busuttil’s really disappointing behaviour. It is clear that the hunters have rendered any attempts at a sustainable spring hunting season meaningless, and this long before the Labour Party bent over backwards to help them do so.
Therefore Busuttil’s statement that he and the PN are in favour of a sustainable spring hunting season is at best disingenuous and at worst downright dishonest. What happened to ‘politika onesta’? Is this really a strategy? A cunning plan to lull Labour voters into voting No? Well, Labour supporters haven’t fallen for it. And it has alienated and annoyed PN supporters.
The Nationalist Party should have argued that: (a) conservation is a good thing; (b) hunters’ behaviour has shown that a sustainable spring hunting season is not possible or economically enforceable; (c) political honesty now means admitting that negotiating and then defending the derogation was a naive mistake in accepting the hunters’ ‘good faith’, and that the PN no longer supports it.
Hunting in general is an act of animal cruelty in itself, and it is a bizarre contradiction that this country and others have laws against animal cruelty and yet permit any form of hunting. How can you hunt humanely? What part of being blasted out of the sky is humane?
One could argue that factory farming of animals for food is also inhumane, but at least there are laws to make it as humane as possible, and it is not done for pleasure.
One could perhaps argue that it is not done out of need either, and ban it. But if we were to ban factory farming, then animal protein would become inaccessible to many, creating a cruelty to humans problem.
Even if you accept the highly controversial idea that the poor should be content to have access only to plant protein, essentially beans, that is actually a double blow to conservation of wildlife anyway. Beans aren’t made in factories. They need to be grown on land cleared by the destruction of animal/bird habitat.
Another prevention of cruelty to animals argument revolves around the treatment of dogs. Vast numbers of abandoned dogs are ex-hunting dogs. Just pay a visit to a sanctuary and see for yourself. You might want to adopt one. They are loving and friendly notwithstanding the treatment they have received. (I am typing this with the head of an adopted hunting dog jammed up against my hip and forearm; it’s not easy).
The problem is that the whole hunting subculture is one pervaded by animal cruelty. This should not come as a surprise. Too many hunters view their dogs as tools rather than pets and abandon them when they no longer function well.
On more than one occasion I have seen dogs kept in cages in filthy, cold, dark garages, only let out for occasional exercise or actual hunting. Many friends have responded with horror stories of their own. So less hunting means less abuse of hunting dogs. This ties back to my earlier remark that banning hunting, to start with in spring, is a prevention of cruelty to animals issue, and not just birds but also dogs.
I have voted PN all my life. The fact that the PL is utterly unfit for purpose and AD, irrespective of their actual politics, cannot succeed due to the electoral system means that I have no choice but to continue to do so for now. But I am sick and tired of having my sense of responsibility abused of.
I will continue to vote PN, but I will only vote for candidates who declare themselves against spring hunting. I strongly suggest that the 73% of PN supporters who are in favour of a ban on spring hunting do the same. My reasoning is that at least I can shape the only party it is realistically possible for me to vote for.
So far, unfortunately, in the 9th district where I live And vote, there are no such candidates.
Realistically, following Muscat’s intervention a few months ago, and Busuttil’s now, it is unlikely that the referendum will be won by the No vote. But the demographics show that this issue will not go away.
Unlike the legalisation of drugs, where young adults become parents and change their minds, people of an environmentalist bent do not become hunters as they get older. They do not decide, because of age and experience, that they were wrong and it is quite all right to shoot birds.
The referendum law says you cannot hold another one for the same purpose less than two years after the first, unsuccessful one. This means that come May, we can start collecting signatures again, for a referendum to be held in 2018, presumably in conjunction with the general election.
So hunters should resign themselves to the inevitable. Hunting (all of it, not just in spring) is on a slow way out. So as I see it, hunters have two choices ahead, one being to make nice and placate the rest of us to slow down the process as much as possible, and the other to yank off the band-aid and f*ck off to knitting class sooner rather than later.
40 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
If only the “No’ vote was so reasoned and clear in its message: “It’s not just about conservation. There are other issues, not least political, but also animal cruelty issues – if, like me, you are not afraid to say out loud that you view this referendum as a first step on the road to a total ban to end all hunting.”
If only the Nationalist Party had heeded MC’s suggestion: “The Nationalist Party should have argued that: (a) conservation is a good thing; (b) hunters’ behaviour has shown that a sustainable spring hunting season is not possible or economically enforceable; (c) political honesty now means admitting that negotiating and then defending the derogation was a naive mistake in accepting the hunters’ ‘good faith’, and that the PN no longer supports it.”
The writer has mentioned ‘rational thought’. This is where the Maltese nation in general continues to auto-f**k itself, because major decisions are taken using emotional sentiments as opposed to rational ones.
I’m afraid that on this issue, hunters will be seen as the underdogs and will garner the vote of those who ‘reason’ emotionally.
This is an excellent piece, but I disagree with the points made about the PN. If the PN supported the NO camp, as the writer suggests, it would have been a disaster for the party.
The referendum would have been turned into a Muscat vs. Busuttil contest and the Muscat/Yes vote would have won easily. That would have given Muscat an aura of invincibility making it more difficult for the PN to dislodge him in the 2018 general elections.
Attention would have been diverted away from Labour’s incompetence in government. The PN needs to get people to focus on the government’s many faults: lack of transparency, lack of accountability, a mess in the energy sector, high fuel prices, more threats to the environment and lack of respect for the rule of law.
It takes time and energy for the PN to convince people of the government’s incompetence. The campaign for local council elections is another opportunity for the Opposition to drive the point home and it simply could not afford having attention diverted away on another issue, no matter how important that other issue may be.
I wish PN voters would stop being resentful towards Busuttil for his decision to vote Yes. Politically, it is the right one because it is the least damaging to the PN in the current circumstances.
“The PN needs to get people to focus on the government’s many faults: …more threats to the environment…”
Sure, and the best way to do that is for the PN leader to be himself a threat to the environment by voting yes to Spring hunting.
There is a much easier to comprehend reason why hunting should not be allowed. When a hunter blasts a bird out of the sky, he has just killed MY bird as much as his.
Great post!
I find it an insult to the electorate that 30 MPs have stated that they will vote ‘yes’ while only one intends to vote ‘no’. It is highly improbable that these are their real intentions.
The country deserves a parliament in which its members feel at liberty to express their opinion on any issues even when this goes against their own party.
It is so disheartening to see MPs tow their party line especially when their party leaders have encouraged them to express their own opinions.
Dear MC,
That is exactly the way I feel, but you can express yourself extremely well.
I shall do the same by voting for any PN candidate who is ready to come out now and say that he or she is voting against spring hunting.
I was under the impression that Simon Busuttil was growing some balls, but it seems I am wrong.
MC, do us all a big favour and make yourself available for TV because up until now, we have only seen ignorant posers playing Mother Theresa.
Like you, I have voted for the PN all my life, and most probably will until Baxxter decides to resurrect the Constitutional Party.
I disagree, as is my nature, with everyone on this blog regarding Simon Busuttil’s handling of the situation.
As a hunter, I would not have been happy had Busuttil come out in favour of the ban. This would have reduced the referendum to a PN vs PL match. At the moment Muscat can do no wrong, and the contest would have been won hands down.
Busuttil would have come charging out like Lord Cardigan, and gone down in flames. He couldn’t survive a third mauling at this point.
As it is, he pulled the rug from under Muscat’s feet. And this is the second time.
Had Muscat’s ploy to postpone local council elections succeeded, no amount of Moira Delia dressed as a bunny girl would have got even 10% of the electorate to the polls.
That’s my take, anyway.
How will you vote? If it’s No, those enthusiastic but naive chaps over at SHout would do well to make you the leader of the campaign. A hunter who yearns for the Constitutional Party, who can write in an articulate manner, and who will vote No.
Should read ‘I would have been happy’.
Sorry Baxx, it has to be yes for me.
If only for nostalgic reasons, and the chance to spend some time with my old man, one of little words, over a Thermos flask of coffee.
I can totally respect Antoine Vella’s reasoning that he just doesn’t like birds being shot and will vote No, but being familiar with the shooting scene in most of Europe, the scientific and conservation objections just don’t hold water.
Ta’ Sapienza and Baxxter, the Stricklandian diaspora shall have its home in the PN.
Mark my words.
Oh for f*ck’s sake, Jozef! How long have you been following politics? Sometimes I feel as if I’ve been around longer than you. Because believe me, I’ve seen it all, and there hasn’t been a time in the last three decades when those from a Stricklandian background felt LESS at home in the PN than today.
I thought the massive electoral defeat, and I might as well add the disastrous state the party’s in, would make them realise who it was that voted them in back in the 1960s, and kept them in the game, and often in power, ever since.
Today’s PN is a spent force. It is a nasty joke. And do you know why? Because the ideologues and leaders have turned their backs on the Stricklandians and on Stricklandian principles.
I’m not just talking about the way the party has become working class by design, where the level of political discourse is the lowest it’s ever been, and the rising stars of the party are the most provincial, atavistic, boring, anti-cosmopolitan men you can find.
I’m talking about the principles. The PN doesn’t want a Stricklandian future for Malta. I’m not sure it’s even clear about what it wants, but they’re doing their damnedest to keep everything the way it is. The world is rushing by, we’re being left behind, we’re at the cusp of history and they want to preserve all this – the ignorance, the hamallagni, the uglification, the inequality, the injustice, the fottimenti big and small, the powerful lobbies, the undemocratic institutions, the abuse, the superstition and the nombrilism.
There’s nothing there that the Stricklandians can even remotely relate to.
“It is clearly madness to target a species when it is reproducing”.
People reproduce all the time. It is not seasonal, but random. Yet we target people through abortion, euthanasia and all sorts of anti-life measures whilst our reproducing population is now well below replacement rates in most countries.
Populations are shrinking in real terms as we are simply not having enough kids to replace ourselves, even if we stay alive longer, giving persons the false security that in fact, populations are increasing.
I am against hunting personally and I believe it is madness to hunt in spring. But it is also madness to call abortion a choice or a right when we know that trouble is on the way.
[Daphne – Please, Paul, let’s stick to the subject of hunting, and more specifically, spring hunting. We need to talk about why that’s bad.]
This man must have witnessed something regarding pregnancy which severely traumatized him. Must have been some particularly hideous pudenda or something worse.
We’re trying to end spring hunting once and for all, and in he jumps screaming about abortion.
And it is a madness endorsed by our political leaders.
However, we cannot underestimate the broader political spectrum. An endorsement by Simon Busuttil for the ‘No’ camp would most certainly have resulted in a Busuttil vs Muscat contest instead of the actual issue being discussed as we are doing here.
This would not have been in the interest of those who, like myself, want spring hunting to be abolished – nor in the interest of Busuttil himself.
You can call it political dishonesty but I prefer considering it political strategy.
Muscat knew this and forced Busuttil’s hand on the matter.
Muscat is a schemer and all that matters to him is scoring political points over his rival and hanging on to power.
This is my opinion too, and I am on the opposite side in this referendum.
Simon Busuttil is a party leader, not a Peter Serracino Inglott. His endorsing of the anti hunting lobby would have meant a clear win for the hunting lobby, his own political suicide and his party having to start from scratch.
This is an excellent piece and hats off to MC. He’s got my thoughts exactly. Very well done.
I am against spring hunting but I have a bad feeling it is here to stay.
People are arguing that if the rest of Europe can, than so should we.
My answer to them is if you want to be like all of Europe it has to be in everything, such as the hefty fines if caught breaking the law, the tricky yearly examinations to keep your licence and so on.
If hunting is not abolished, the No lobby should make sure that laws are enforced and should be brought in line with the rest of Europe.
[Daphne – There is no spring hunting in the rest of Europe. That is why ours is a DEROGATION FROM THE LAW. Otherwise, it would be the law itself. How hard is this to understand. I think the No campaign really has to start by explaining to the electorate what DEROGATION means.]
Which makes Simon Busuttil’s explanation even sillier.
“I fought for EU membership so we could be different from the rest of Europe. I’m now voting to keep it that way.”
It’s not silly at all, Baxxter.
What Simon Busuttil means is that since outside the EU we would have been in Africa, it wouldn’t have been possible for us to be different from the rest of Europe.
En otras palabras, we would have been different from the rest of Africa.
And he didn’t want that.
They really must start explaining because there are a lot of people who, like me, have no idea.
I switch off when I hear the word hunting because although I am against it, I felt there was nothing I could do.
Unfortunately that attitude is helping the hunters’ cause.
The little info I had was overheard at the office around 20 years ago, when I worked for a rifles importer, even if then I used to go into deaf mode as there was no chance of discussion with that lot.
Government immigration papers/documents scattered around Aldo Moro Road, Marsa.
http://maltarightnow.com/news/2015/01/21/hidma-mill-riu-biex-jingabru-dokumenti-sensittivi-mit-triq/
This excellent piece should be the anti-hunting lobby’s referendum manifesto.
It should also be a vade mecum for anyone who wants to use his or her vote to shape Malta’s political way forward.
But most probably it will not because it is too downright honest and is not afraid to call a spade by its name.
I recently heard somebody say, more or less: “Why all this bother about conservation? If turtledoves and quails become extinct, then hunting will die a natural death, and the environmentalists will be happy.”
I shall try to answer this as simply as possible.
First of all, every living species on earth eats and is eaten. Even humans are eaten when they are six feet under. Nature is the largest and oldest recycling plant on earth.
Water, air, minerals and organic matter have been recycled ever since life started on earth. It is a matter of the living feeding on the dead.
This is called the food chain. Species A feeds on species B which feeds on C and C on D and D on E. And E feeds on A when A is no longer with us.
Now let us imagine that species C becomes extinct. This will cause be famine among their predators, species B, which ultimately will also become extinct and cause famine among species A.
On the other hand, there will be nobody who will feed on species D. This will cause a population explosion in this species.
They will in turn decimate species E because the reproductive ability of species E will not be able make up for the increased number of predators.
Consider now if species E are crops. There will be devastation in our fields, not enough wheat, or grain, or vegetables or fruits.
So it will ultimately affect us, humans, too.
My advice is let us not mess with nature because nature will mess with us, and we shall be the ultimate victims.
We are already there where it comes to birds of prey. Extinct owls, more rats, more chemicals, more human sicknesses.
The way farmhouses were built in days gone by would have made provision for such birds to nest. Owls, buzzards etc do not need to live in total isolation or only in a forest or wood. Proximity to trees and hunting ground within a definable span would be good for them.
New buildings do not make such provisions. Owls are not that shy of humans that they will necessarily choose to always nest at a distance. But they do like to stick to their nest year-in year-out, and if that is threatened, and its neighbourhood too, well then the owl won’t stick around.
‘The Nationalist Party should have argued that: (a) conservation is a good thing; (b) hunters’ behaviour has shown that a sustainable spring hunting season is not possible or economically enforceable; (c) political honesty now means admitting that negotiating and then defending the derogation was a naive mistake in accepting the hunters’ ‘good faith’, and that the PN no longer supports it.’
One can only agree one hundred per cent.
With most MPs interviewed saying they will vote YES to spring hunting, I just give up on the whole spineless lot of them.
Apparently, I’ll really have to ‘hunt’ for the candidates on the voting ballot to find the few who voted No to spring hunting. I am determined not to vote for any of those who voted in favour.
I’ve already had to be very discerning in the 2013 general elections, but now it will be even worse. What a disillusionment.
You are calling them spineless on the assumption that they are actually against hunting but pretending not to be. That is quite a big assumption.
The hunters are going to vote to keep the derogation of spring hunting. I take it that when they vote Yes it means they are accepting the derogation as it is, with all its limits and restrictions.
If this is not the case, the hunters should pronounce themselves.
I am against spring hunting for conservation reasons.
This paragraph is utter nonsense:
“Even if you accept the highly controversial idea that the poor should be content to have access only to plant PROTEIN, essentially beans, that is actually a double blow to conservation of wildlife anyway. Beans aren’t made in factories. They need to be grown on land cleared by the destruction of animal/bird habitat.”
So what about animal protein? Does it fall from the sky?
We need plants to feed animals, which likewise need to be grown on land cleared by the destruction of animal/bird habitat.
There is a conservation argument for reducing animal protein consumption in favour of plant protein, because the yield is much higher.
With every step up the food chain, biomass is lost because of energy consumption for basic life functions, and a ton of plant biomass produces only a fraction of a ton of animal biomass, the actual amounts depending on the species.
Thank you for your feedback. I apologise if I did not make my point clearly. My comment was already verbose enough as it was. Let me explain my reasoning further.
My point was in reference to the humanity or otherwise of factory farming when used as a justification for killing animals through hunting.
Eliminating factory farming on the basis that it is inhumane would make animal protein much more expensive, therefore inaccessible to the poor.
One of the primary causes of extinction is habitat loss.
This new expensive animal protein would consume more habitat than it does today, for instance by converting forests to grazing land.
In addition, we would have to clear more habitat to create the farmland to grow more plants to feed those who would now not be able to afford animal protein because of the higher cost of production.
Some of the same arguments against factory farming of animals would be used against the more efficient methods of plant production, therefore lower yields, therefore requiring more land and more habitat loss.
Also, we would not free up any of the land or resources currently in use for the purpose, hence a huge net loss of habitat.
I hope that helps.
I wish we could ban hunting altogether but at least ban spring hunting for conservation issues.
I favour sustainable hunting only when there are surplus numbers, since anyway, by the rules of population dynamics, only the fittest survive because food would be scarce, etc.
I live in an ODZ area and I have sighted eagles, buzzards, rsieset, qerd in-nahal, ducks, BUT not a single turtle dove.
My neighbours are typical hunters, hunting dogs kept on 1m leashes, growing illegal acacia trees for roosting birds, filling everywhere with junk and pesticides and buying a melvizz in a 20x10x10cm cage for 5 euros to lure fellow mlievez. You get the idea.
Living in Malta is becoming exasperating; half of us are educated and half are a disgrace. And what is that EU environment commissioner waiting for? He has all the power to halt this derogation.
[Daphne – In fact he does not because Malta won a judgement in its favour at the European Court of Justice.]
Not all hunters are w****kers. It is sad that hunters in Malta also often happen to be from thoroughly uneducated backgrounds, so sense and logic sometimes (most times) isn’t available.
Hunting is enjoyed by many across the world, for food (many would rather eat wild birds/game than something factory-farmed) or even for conservation (culling). Culling is used to stop animals from depleting their natural food source, eliminating older animals to help push the young through into the senior positions of a habitat, and even killing off sick animals to reduce the spread of disease.
Hunting is wrong when done for sport and it is just an extension of man’s arrogance when done for this reason alone, and should never be condoned.
There is a bunch of idiots in Malta who disobey rules and laws and essentially dig their own graves. But do they do any harm to the species? The main reason for turtle dove decline is destruction of their natural breeding habitat, competition with another species of dove and temperature changes.
Hunting does have a small effect but Europe’s global bag count is around 3 million a year, Malta’s a claimed 10k but actually closer to 100k.
Malta, of the 6 countries that allow the hunting of turtle doves, accounts for 3% of killings and that is not just in spring but for the whole year.
Malta is not the main reason for their decline, and this not just because hunting in general is not responsible but also because we only account for 3% of European hunting (taken from the last European study carried out in 2009 for the conservation of the turtle dove).
I hope they don’t ban hunting, I would love the chance to take my son out in the future and teach him the respect and seriousness of the pastime and what it once meant to catch your own food.
Well, here’s hoping that your son will tell you that he has evolved over previous generations, thank you very much.
Here’s hoping that he will also tell you that while you and he are enjoying the turtledove, his children and grandchildren maybe will have to forgo that pleasure. Why? Because their gramps was selfish.
But maybe he will tell you that no, dad, that turtledove that you want to shoot doesn’t belong to you or me, same as that tiger doesn’t belong to one person, but belongs to humanity.
Furthermore I hope he will tell you that by your selfishness you are stealing from his children and their children.
There may be hope for your son, but never you mind, at least you get to enjoy yourself.
Sorry Vanni but didn’t you read my comment above? Hunting in general and even more specifically hunting in Malta is not the cause of decline in turtle dove population.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/hunting/docs/turtle_dove.pdf
But then don’t take my word for it.
I see, so when you shoot a bird, you are actually increasing their numbers?
The author is completely wrong about calling for the PN to support the No vote.
Had Simon Busuttil done that he would have risked looking like a “loser”.
I think he made the mature and calculated decision of de-politicising this issue in the hope that the No vote succeeds anyway.
I am sure deep down either party would prefer not to have to pander to these hooligans every time they need votes.
The author is also treading dangerous ground by declaring he is in favour of an outright ban on hunting. He has every right to do so of course, but that’s just the kind of scaremongering tactic the hunting lobby have been trying to employ, besides actual physical intimidation of course.
They have consistently claimed “this is the first step to an outright ban” with the hope of getting sympathy.
Whether one wishes hunting to be banned outright or not they should quietly hold their tongue and focus on the spring hunting issue or they risk changing the way the general public view the vote, symbolising it as a fight to retain a hobby rather than to control the season.
[Daphne – You are perfectly correct about that.]
He has a right to call for an outright ban on hunting, but dare he eat a fresh fish or any other non reared animal
With respect to Paul’s comment about first steps or otherwise, he might be strategically correct, assuming the hunters and their supporters are mostly fools. Be that as it may, I prefer truth to strategy.
The end does not justify the means, but that’s just me.
With respect to the fish question, I do eat wild caught fish, but I make distinctions.
For instance, if a restaurant tells me they have a cerna for two or an acciola for two, it is obvious that it is young and therefore has not bred, and I decline it.
You can mostly make similar choices with other species. If in doubt, go for the farmed stuff.