BirdLife Malta yesterday accused the government of taking a knee-jerk decision and of being guilty of misdemeanours.

BirdLife executive director Tolga Temuge was commenting on a government proposal to have hunters joined by birdwatchers to count birds for a scientific study, which the government needs to justify spring hunting.

The proposal was described as “ridiculous” and “unscientific”.

In its reply, the Rural Affairs and Environment Ministry said that that until some time ago, the government was being attacked for not having completed the study, and now it is being attacked because it wanted to involve all the stakeholders in it.

This is not a coherent approach, the ministry said.

Mr Temuge said: “The government is suggesting that birdwatchers are escorted by hunters and together they can happily count birds! The proposal is so ridiculous it is hard to believe that this is not some kind of joke. First of all, this cannot form the basis of an independent and scientific study.

“Secondly, many of the birdwatchers have either been directly attacked or had their property vandalised by hunters in the past. Birdwatchers cannot even enter certain key birdwatching locations in peak migration periods due to verbal and physical abuse from the hunters.”

BirdLife also hit back at Minister George Pullicino’s claim that the Ornis committee had agreed on the methodology of the proposed study.

It criticised the Environment Minister for using the Ornis Committee to excuse hasty decisions leading to repercussions that Mr Pullicino himself should be accountable for. BirdLife insisted that the Ornis committee had not yet discussed the study and had so far not adopted any position on this issue.

In a letter by BirdLife Malta to the secretary of the Ornis Committee on 20 March, BirdLife said it had serious concerns about the way the whole methodology was put together by J.C. Ricci and added it would like to have the opportunity to have a look at the other proposals put forward by other scientists.

“The idea of having a study where the conclusion is predetermined – since it now has to prove the government was right – can never be scientific or objective.

“This is yet another knee-jerk decision by the government following a string of misdemeanours that will only be made worse unless the government decides to take a bold stand and do what is inevitable,” Tolga Temuge said.

In its reply, the ministry noted that BirdLife was criticising the fact that its representatives were being asked to take part in the process of collecting information on which a scientific study on the migration of turtle-doves and quail will be based.

The minister cannot but notice that at one point BirdLife implied that the government already knew the conclusions of this report and at the same time criticised the government’s offer to the same organisation to take part in the drawing up of the report and therefore play an important part in the study.

The ministry also noted BirdLife’s reference to a quotation made by Minister Pullicino on the methodology of the survey. The ministry invited BirdLife to check the clarification that was published in The Times on 23 March.

“At no point did Minister Pullicino say that the Ornis Committee had agreed with the methodology. That comment was a mistake that the journalist clarified in (The Times) the edition of 23 March.”

The ministry also noted that BirdLife had criticised preliminary plans that needed to be finalised and also attacked the credentials of the person who will be responsible for the study, forgetting that this person had carried out similar studies for other EU member states.