The government’s decision to stop the spring hunting season with immediate effect, 10 days before the programmed end to the season, has turned hunting into a burning political issue that will have its effect on the outcome of the general election. And, as such, the position that will be taken by the Malta Labour Party on the issue will be a determining factor.

This is, in a nutshell, what The Malta Independent commented editorially last Saturday, two days after the bold move taken by the government following persistent reports of illegal hunting of protected species.

The Malta Labour Party did not react immediately to the stand taken by the government, and it was only last Sunday that Labour leader Alfred Sant remarked on what had happened a few days earlier.

Few expected the Labour leader to shower praise on the government for the decision taken. However, few were also those who would have thought that Dr Sant would have described the government’s move as having been an “unjust u-turn”.

It seems that the word “u-turn” has become one of the most favourite buzzwords with political parties and politicians. Each time there is a hint of a change in direction, the two sides accuse each other of “u-turns” in an “I-told-you-so” tone that has become a characteristic of the way politics is done in Malta. And each side is proud to come up with a list of these u-turns – real or perceived – as a means to ridicule the other side.

But, in this case, it is not a question of the government doing a u-turn. It is a question of the government taking action, in a decisive way, to stop illegal activities.

Dr Sant criticised the lack of enforcement exercised by the authorities to curb illegal hunting, saying that the “massacre of honey buzzards”, a protected species, would not have taken place if there really was a decent system that regulates hunting and trapping. He went on to say that many good-willed hunters are suffering the consequences of the illegal practices of the few.

This may be so, but at the end of the day, the government had no other option to prove that it is doing its best to control hunting. It had previously decided to re-open the spring hunting season, in spite of opposition from the European Commission and from environment groups, giving hunters another chance. Then, when the abuse continued, it decided to take a hard-line approach to the matter.

This decision was welcomed across the board, except of course by the hunters’ lobby, which is understandable. For his part, the position taken by Dr Sant – and, by default, of the Malta Labour Party – can be interpreted to mean that, in a similar situation, the MLP would not have cut the spring hunting season short.

This stand was also confirmed yesterday in a statement issued by MLP spokesmen Joe Brincat and Roderick Galdes, who said that they cannot understand why the government chose to end the spring hunting season abruptly before making a attempt to increase enforcement against abuse.

It is probable that the MLP’s position on this particular issue was taken to earn political mileage from the hunters’ lobby. With an election a few months away, and possibly to be held before the next spring hunting season is due to open, the MLP feels that it would score points among the hunters’ group if it is seen to be against the decision taken by the government.

The MLP knows that the hunting community – and this includes the hunters’ families too – forms a sizeable chunk of the electorate. By not condoning a decision that hit hunting hard, the MLP felt that it would make inroads among the hunters.

Yet, there is another side to the coin. What Labour could gain from the hunters’ side after such remarks could backfire, in the sense that it could end up losing more than it would have gained.

As The Malta Independent concluded last Saturday, “there are many who may not necessarily be active environmentalists, but who were pleased that the government has taken a strong stand on the issue”.