An important factor in the spring hunting referendum is that we are given the facts. On the hunters' side we are told that the European Court accepts that Malta can derogate; that the two species of birds hunted are of no concern and that European Directives permit hunting in the spring by means of derogation. Those against hunting, on the other hand, oppose all this and state their own facts for us to evaluate.

Personally, I have no time to look up who is right or who is fooling whom. My only consolation is that, in this day and age, whatever Malta does or legislates has to satisfy the strict scrutiny of the European Commission.

I am aware that spring hunting was stopped by the European Commission some years after accession. I am also aware that the government of the time, having 10,000 hunters and their respective organisations to choose from, delegated negotiations on the issue of hunting to Saviour Balzan. It strikes me as being very odd, knowing this person's opinion on hunting - and even more, now that he heads the opponents of hunting - that he should have ever been trusted by any government to offer sound advice or negotiate hunting genuinely. Whatever the reason, my doubts on this issue are pacified by the words of Dr Fenech Adami, Dr Joseph Muscat and Dr Simon Busuttil, who all support spring hunting.

I have every respect for those out to protect the birds that need protection, as I do for those that hunt a few birds for the table. I commend our Prime Minister for his expedient action, following an illegality, by suspending the autumn season. Undoubtedly, my concerns as to the seriousness of ensuring an end to illegalities have been clarified.

What baffles me, as I am sure it does many others, are a series of facts for which I find no answer. The referendum is spearheaded by Alternattiva Demokratika, a political party, and yet they expected other political parties to refrain from politicising the issue and not interfering. Contrary to a series of publicised actions prior to the spring hunting case in the European Courts, the European Commission has failed to take any action or pronounce itself against any shortcomings ever since. Also, whilst the hunting lobby refers to quotes and references in most of their arguments, I fail to see anything similar from those opposing them.  

I read that our countryside is occupied by hunters and yet have to experience such "occupation", since I have never encountered any problems during the few days of hunting in spring. I also eat meat and whilst respecting those that don't, I fail to see the argument of those opposing hunting who gladly eat any meat available. All in all, my personal opinion - based on everything I have read and heard so far - is that this referendum has nothing to do with spring hunting. It is clearly nothing but a contest with nasty consequences by those opposing hunting against those who have made hunting part of their life.

I see no reason why I should be one of those supporting a ban which, if dubious, would be banned by the European Commission. I weighed my options and on evaluating my contribution towards a rational solution I decided to vote YES.

Noel Grech

Sliema