There is something profoundly difficult to understand about the timing of the proposed changes to penalties for offences involving protected birds.

At precisely the moment when Malta is once again seeing protected birds shot, injured and killed - one of them ended up in a school ground - the discussion has turned to whether some of the penalties for those offences should be reduced.

The question therefore is a very simple one: what exactly is the government trying to fix?

BirdLife Malta says it has recovered or received reports of 21 birds shot between 14 and 21 September alone. Among them were protected species including turtle-doves, grey herons, marsh-harriers, kestrels, hoopoes and a purple heron. A particularly disturbing case involved a highly protected black stork shot outside Buskett after two had arrived in Malta following the storms.

And yet, there is a proposal to reduce the fine for killing a stork from €5,000 to €3,000.

One would have thought that the starting point for such a discussion would be rather different. If illegal shooting of protected birds remains a problem, the obvious question is whether the existing system is working effectively enough as a deterrent. It is difficult to see how the answer can be to make the financial consequence of the offence smaller.

A penalty is part of the message the law sends about the seriousness of an offence. If somebody deliberately shoots a protected bird, the State needs to make clear that it is an offence against legislation whose purpose is the conservation of wild birds.

There is a further contradiction that should not be ignored. Recent prosecutions have resulted in fines of €3,000 and, in some cases, lifetime hunting or trapping bans. If enforcement authorities and the courts are already treating serious wildlife offences as matters warranting substantial penalties and licence consequences, why is the legislative conversation moving in the opposite direction?

The government should therefore publish the evidence behind any conclusion that current penalties are disproportionate. If there is convincing evidence that the penalties are excessive, let the public see it. If there is evidence that they are failing to deter illegalities, that evidence should be even more relevant.

The 21 birds reported by BirdLife in one week should not be dismissed as an isolated statistical blip. Nor should the shooting of a rare black stork be treated as merely another incident in the hunting calendar.

And this is where the argument goes beyond birds.

Malta has spent years constructing a framework in which hunting is permitted but regulated. That means the privilege comes with rules. Those who abide by them should have no reason to object to meaningful penalties for those who do not. As BirdLife has pointed out, reducing penalties does not reward the law-abiding hunter. It rewards, or at least reduces the risk for, the person prepared to break the law.

The same principle should apply to proposals concerning the reinstatement of hunting licences revoked because of serious breaches. If a licence is withdrawn because somebody has broken the rules, its automatic or insufficiently justified restoration risks making the original sanction meaningless.

There is nothing unreasonable about reviewing legislation. Laws should be reviewed when circumstances change, and penalties should be proportionate. But proportionality cannot become a convenient synonym for leniency.

In this case, the government should be asking whether enforcement is sufficiently effective, whether penalties are sufficiently deterrent, and whether those who repeatedly break the rules face consequences that actually matter.

Reducing penalties while protected birds continue to be shot sends precisely the wrong signal.

The answer to a deterrent that apparently is not deterring is not a weaker deterrent.

It should be a stronger one.