Hunters look forward to ‘new spring’ under Labour

Hunters are looking forward to the implementation of a number of concessions, agreed to by the Labour Party before the election, which may have a significant impact on the contentious issue of hunting in spring.

But as the season approaches, it remains unclear exactly what will change from last year, as representatives of hunters' organisations admit that Labour's commitments have so far been vague.

Among the possible concessions is a partial or total waiver of the €50 licence fee for the spring season; the removal of the mandatory 'armband' for hunters; the removal of a hunting ban on Sundays and public holidays; and the establishment of annual fixed dates for both spring and autumn seasons.

But while conservationists have cried foul over the apparent pre-electoral 'pact' with the Labour Party, the hunters themselves insist that there is nothing illegal or objectionable in their demands.

According to Lino Farrugia, secretary-general of the Hunters and Trappers Federation (FKNK), hunters did not demand anything that went beyond the letter and spirit of the European Wild Birds Directive.

"All our requests were limited to things which were not exigencies according to the framework legislation," he told MaltaToday.

For instance, the ban on hunting on Sundays and public holidays was imposed by local law, and is viewed as 'excessive' by hunters.

And while Farrugia acknowledges that a special licence is necessary, seeing as how a derogation from EU law is being applied, he argues that the idea to force hunters to wear an armband is actually a local imposition which some hunters view as unnecessary and intrusive.

Perhaps the most controversial of the agreements is the proposed waiver of a 'special fee' of €50 for a spring hunting licence.

"The amount was in our view higher than necessary," Farrugia said yesterday. "Again, this was a decision taken locally, and not imposed from above the European Union."

Conservationist groups such as Birdlife Malta are concerned that by waiving or reducing the fee, government may radically increase the number of licensed hunters in spring - at a time when enforcement levels remain pitifully low. 

BLM's conservation manager Nichola Barbara explains that even though the special licence fee limited to the number of hunters in spring to 6,000, reports of illegal hunting remained unacceptably high.

"There has been no change to the Framework Directive since last year, which means that the same rules apply to this year's spring season. These rules include a minimum ratio of seven enforcement officers per 100 hunters."

BLM insists that the number of reports concerning illegal hunting from the 2012 season suggests that enforcement remains a major problem which can only be exacerbated if the number of licensed hunters increases.

"Bearing in mind that with such low levels of law enforcement, it is doubtful that all hunters who availed of last year's spring season were in fact licensed and legal," Barbara points out, adding that this also undermines the system of having hunters report their catch by SMS.

"The SMS system is a joke. Last year, hunters officially reported only four turtle dove shot on the first day of the season. Yet there were hundred of gunshots heard that day..."

This raises another problem: according to the present system, the numbers of both turtle dove and quail that can be legally shot in spring depends on the corresponding numbers reported by hunters last autumn. If hunters claim to have shot fewer than 10,000 specimens of turtle dove and quail last autumn, the maximum limit for this year's spring season will be fixed at 11,000 turtle dove and 5,000 quail.

Barbara argues that this system is flawed because it places too much trust in the numbers reported by hunters themselves, and which Birdlife has consistently refuted.

The conservationist NGO is also concerned that any extra concessions may increase the number of licensed hunters (on top of an unknown number of poachers), thus exacerbating an already delicate situation.

But Mark Mifsud Bonnici, of the Kaccaturi San Umberto, reasons that the €50 licence fee itself was only one of the reasons why many hunters did not apply for a licence last year.

"A bigger issue concerns the announcement of dates for hunting season, which until last year was always left until the last possible moment," he told MaltaToday.

The uncertainty of when the season would open (coupled with the Sunday/public holiday ban) also means that hunters would not be able to apply for leave from work: so many simply don't bother applying for a licence which they probably would not be able to actually use.

Furthermore, hunters have long complained about anomalies in the licensing regime itself.

"All autumn season licences expire at the end of December, yet the season itself extends into January," Mifsud Bonnici said. "We have been complaining about this for years, yet nothing has ever been done."

KSU was not involved in negotiations with PL, but Mifsud Bonnici admits that he is looking forward to a more 'reasonable' approach under the new administration.

Paradoxically, both KSU and FKNK concur with BLM in demanding an increase in law enforcement agents assigned to monitor hunters in spring.

"Last year we were promised additional wardens, and we even paid up front for a service which never materialised," Mifsud Bonnici said. "We have always argued in favour of more enforcement; the only people who don't want that are the ones who break the law and ruin it for everyone. Why should I have to renounce my hobby because of some fool who can't resist shooting at a protected bird?"

Naturally, Birdlife presents a different picture of the scenario - days before the election, it revealed that the number of protected birds shot over the past year remained significantly high: apparently belying the hunters' claims that the situation regarding illegal poaching had improved.

Nonetheless, all sides agree that the number of law enforcement officers assigned to monitor hunting (among other issues pertaining to the environment) is far too low to guarantee the minimum requirements for the derogation to be applied.