Love it or hate it, the practice of bird hunting stands little chance of becoming completely extinct in Malta anytime soon. 

First of all, it would simply not be correct to ban the practice altogether as regards the non-endangered, legal turtledove and quail species.  There can be no bones made about it: if there are species that are legal quarry, then let them be hunted within the confines of the law.  The problem is with the hunters who disregard the law and shoot endangered species at will.

Secondly, both of the country’s main parties appear to be too concerned by the potential voter fallout that would be caused by tackling the hunting issue that has dogged the country for so long head-on.  That was apparent with the previous administration, although it did have the guts to close the season early once, back in spring 2007, in the face of a mass slaughter of protected birds. 

It is also apparent with the current government, which had contentiously struck a pre-election agreement with hunters and which, both last spring and now this autumn, has further relaxed restrictions on hunting.

This autumn, the government has extended hunting hours until 7pm since, according to a government statement, the previous 3pm curfew had deprived law-abiding hunters of afternoon hunting opportunities.

But it is precisely these afternoon hunting opportunities that ornithologists have highlighted. They argue that birds of prey, all of which are protected species and which are apparently among the most coveted trophies for illegal hunters, come in to roost in the afternoon.  In fact, ornithologists state, the majority of such raptors that are killed illegally are killed in the afternoon.   Most birds of prey, they point out, would have already roosted by 7pm after daring the crosshairs while descending onto Malta.

Moreover, they point out that the two legal species – turtledove and quail – tend to migrate at night and that as such the main hunting hours for these two species are in the hours just before dawn. 

As such, they argue, extending the curfew until 7pm will make no difference to law-abiding hunters and is tantamount to completely removing the curfew altogether – one of the main demands being made by hunting lobbies.

As such, while the measure is aimed at striking a kind of compromise on the issue, it appears it was more of a one-sided compromise. The compromise, according to ornithological organisations forming part of the Ornis committee that recommends hunting season dates and hours to the government, was made by the newly-established Wild Birds Regulation Unit, which, the media has reported, is comprised mainly of pro-hunting individuals.

But, on the government’s part, the unit is to monitor the season closely and coordinate with the home affairs ministry, the police the AFM and Mepa to, as it says, “to deter and eradicate abuse”.

The European Commission recently cited the formation of the unit as part of a hunting reform package being sold to Brussels by the government.  It also said it was in regular contact with the Maltese authorities to improve enforcement “through concrete action”.

But it is the type of severity of the concrete action that is most topical here.  If the government were really able to take such concrete action, there would be little reason to have any curfew on hunting whatsoever, apart from freeing up the countryside more in the autumn afternoons when the Maltese countryside is arguably at its best.

If there was real zero tolerance to illegal hunting and if that zero tolerance were to be truly enforced, Malta would not have half the problems it does with spring hunting, the European Commission and the European Courts of Justice.  But it precisely this implementation of zero tolerance that has proved to be so difficult.

What is needed are even stiffer penalties against illegal hunting, and for the courts to throw the book at those who break hunting laws.  Fines and penalties related to hunting laws were in 2007 increased sharply, and the time has come for them to be increased even more sharply, if the right message and the right kind of deterrent are to be created.

But, in the meantime, the government at least had harsh words for those who intend breaking hunting laws once the season opens on 15 September.  The government said in announcing the autumn hunting dates that it will: “demand nothing short of strict compliance with the hunting regulations...and it will ensure that these are adhered to”.

But the problem is that it is not starting off on the right foot by allowing hunting until the time that endangered birds of prey have already roosted, as opposed to the previous curfew that banned hunting during the pre-roosting time of day. The easing of the ban will also be effective precisely at the time of year – between mid-September and early October - that the migration period for birds of prey is at its peak.  We wish the authorities luck with their enforcement pledges, but remain of the opinion that the government had already made things more difficult than necessary before the season has even started.