A bird in the hand is most definitely not worth two in the bush, at least according to the European Court of Justice when it comes to the trapping of finches in Malta.

The ECJ yesterday closed the chapter on the long saga that has been successive Maltese governments’ obstinate refusal to abide by European Union law in favour of pandering to the large hunting and trapping lobby.

In the interest of full disclosure, and although it is no secret, this newspaper and others had campaigned in favour of the referendum to abolish spring hunting and it has also warned time and time again about the inadvisability of opening finch trapping seasons in clear violation of European Union directives.

We have always argued factually on these issues and we will keep to that by looking at yesterday’s verdict from a purely factual point of view.  And the fact of the matter is that neither of the main political parties has been willing to touch the perceived rights of hunters or trappers with even a barge pole.  Instead, they have done nothing but to accommodate them since the days of the EU referendum.

This government in particular applied derogations to allow for the trapping of finches since it was first elected – for the seasons of 2014 through to 2017, when it must have known full well that those derogations were non-starters.

One derogation applies to the trapping of seven breeds of finches, which the ECJ ruled as illegal, and the other is applied in order to allow the trapping of song thrushes and golden plovers, which is still the subject of European Commission infringement proceedings.

When Malta joined the EU the government agreed to gradually phase out the trapping of finches over a five-year period during which a fully-fledged captive breeding programme was meant to have been developed but never got off the ground. It was made illegal in 2009, however, in 2014 the practice was reintroduced. In September 2015, the European Commission announced it would be taking Malta to the European Court of Justice over the matter.

The EU directive clearly states that there is only a limited scope for any derogation “from the requirement of strict protection where there is no other satisfactory solution”.  Such scope includes reasons in the interests of public health and safety or air safety, to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water, and for the protection of flora and fauna. A derogation can be applied in the interest of research and teaching, repopulation, reintroduction and for the breeding necessary for these purposes.

Malta’s case fits none of these bills. 

This is not about the right to keep songbirds at home in cages it is about safeguarding trappers’ recreational time in their fields.  There are many recreational activities that some people would like to engage in but which are illegal, and EU law is not about picking and choosing those which suit one’s purpose or, in this case, political exigencies.

Here’s an idea: if one likes songbirds so much, go out and buy one that has been bred in captivity.  Don’t take one from the wild and endanger them, and from the countryside where their song can be enjoyed by others.

Both main political parties yesterday lamented the decision, for different reasons, but both are intent on pandering to the electorally powerful hunting lobbies.

The pandering must stop, and the law and the environment must be respected.

Now, incidentally, comes the hard part: enforcement of a law by a government that does not really want to enforce it.  And rampant illegalities in the past give very little encouragement for the future.

Much will remain to be seen on how intent the authorities are to crack down on what is now an illegal practice.  It seems that Justas one chapter closes and another one opens.