In his letter of 16 March, John Azzopardi wrote: “This election has proved conclusively that the much-touted hunters’ vote is totally insignificant and ineffective”.

In the first place Mr Azzopardi writes of “vote” as if it were a bloc vote, which it certainly was not. Secondly, how well over 20,000 votes of hunters and their families can be “totally insignificant” in a country where even a few hundred can make all the difference is beyond all logic.

Hunting sympathizers of the Nationalist Party may still have voted for a party that had stood by its promise of spring hunting in 2003/4/5/6/7, and had expressed its determination to defend the spring-hunting case at the European Court of Justice. If the Malta Labour Party had intended to re-negotiate on hunting, it would surely have said so, and not make “a veiled attempt” as Mr Azzopardi suggests. The MLP’s stand was practically identical to the PN’s, in that both had declared they would abide by the decision of the ECJ on spring hunting. Consequently no major swing in hunters’ votes was to be expected. Significantly enough, the hunters were not asked by their Federation to cast their vote for a certain party, and its thousands of members were free to make their own choice. How that choice manifested itself is anybody’s guess.

The only established party clearly out to ban spring hunting – Alternattiva Demokratika – obtained a very poor election result. So much for the political clout of the ultra-conservation extremists!

The certain reality is that hunters are part of the electorate, and will remain so. A wise government will keep that in mind and will strive to ensure the retention of sustainable hunting in conformity with EU environmental policy. Accordingly, a wise government will pay attention to what the law-abiding hunters have to say, and avoid giving in to the emotional ravings of abolitionists.

Mark Mifsud Bonnici

Secretary

Kaccaturi San Ubertu