Well it would be one way to ensure that there wasn’t corruption. And a way to raise funds for them.

Of course Birdlife shouldn’t look after the tests.

Licence examinations should always be conducted by the licence-issuer.

You need a licence to drive a boat, car, go scuba diving and each one of those involves a course and tests.

If illiteracy is an excuse, and I don’t think it should be, I am sure that one can get around this by oral examinations.

Moreover the course should not be run by some governmental organisation but by Birdlife against a fee, which in turn Birdlife can use to raise funds for its activities to monitor the hunters.

Separately, since hunters take they should be made to contribute to the environment as a condition of their licence.

We shouldn’t have to rely on their goodwill to do so. They take for themselves that which belongs to all of us, so they should give back.

Paying a licence fee shouldn’t be sufficient. There should be an actual physical contribution in kind.

The referendum question had to be about the derogation specifically and not about spring hunting in general because the referendum was ABROGATIVE – that is, for the removal of a specific piece of legislation.

This was because the referendum was not ‘forced on the country’ as you say, but forced on the government BY the country.

Is it just a case of applying for one and it is simply given or does one have to undergo any form of testing as one would to be able to drive a car or a boat?