The Japanese will listen to reason and temporarily stop hunting the humpback whale ... but Maltese hunters will not give up their pastime!

A controversial Japanese mission to hunt humpback whales in the Antarctic has been temporarily abandoned, a top government official says.
Nobutaka Machimura said the humpback hunt would not go ahead - although the fleet will still hunt about 1,000 other whales in the area.

The BBC's Chris Hogg, in Tokyo, says Japan is now unlikely to chase the humpbacks for at least a year.

The move comes after pressure from the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

Japan is regularly condemned for its annual whaling missions.

But this year's Antarctic expedition was particularly controversial because, in addition to 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales, the fleet intended to kill up to 50 humpbacks.

It was the first time Japan had targeted the humpbacks since a moratorium was introduced in the mid-1960s - when the species had been hunted almost to extinction.


Australia criticism

Japan says whaling is necessary for scientific research, but other countries say the same goals could be achieved using non-lethal techniques.

"Japan has decided not to catch humpback whales for one year or two," Mr Machimura told reporters.

He said the decision had been reached after a meeting with the IWC.

Mr Machimura said the IWC had not been "functioning normally", claiming that the commission had been distorted by ideology.

He said Japan would suspend the humpback whale hunt while the IWC held talks on "normalising" its functions.

Australia had been particularly critical of the humpback hunt, and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith welcomed Japan's decision.

But he reiterated Canberra's view that there was no credible reason for Japan to hunt any species of whale, and pledged to keep up diplomatic efforts to prevent further missions.

Hunting, hunting, hunting everywhere.... birds are animals, too.

Protected bird shot down
by Chris Galea - cgal@di-ve.com
Local News -- 19 December 2007 -- 16:35CEST
A protected bird with severe visible gunshot wounds was delivered to BirdLife Malta’s office on Wednesday, the NGO reported. The black-headed gull had suffered severe injuries and the vet had no other option but to euthanize the bird.

“The young black-headed gull brought in today is the latest victim of poachers in Malta and is only one of the many shot protected birds BirdLife continues to receive,” Conservation Manager of BirdLife Malta, Dr André Raine explained.

“The bird was brought in by an ex-hunter who was disgusted with the current lack of respect shown by some hunters to the law.

“In any other country, no self-respecting hunter would be so cowardly as to shoot at a seagull, yet here in Malta now that the migration is over some hunters are shooting at anything that has the misfortune to fly past them,” Dr Raine went on.

The bird is the latest victim to be allegedly shot down by poachers, as BirdLife Malta claimed that it received more than 30 protected birds at its office this autumn.

Reaction to this Honourable speech against Birdlife and in favour of hunters.

The hunting lobby
Ralph Cassar, energy and environment spokesman, Alternattiva Denmokratika, Attard.

Labour MP Joe Abela got all hot under the collar last week about a BirdLife leaflet and a court case involving two of his constituents.

Is Mr Abela saying that the countryside is not taken over by hunters? Is he saying that BirdLife should not have published a leaflet about hunting? Does he expect that whoever breaks the law is given preferential treatment because they happen to be his constituents?

Maybe he should concentrate on helping his party draw up policies that protect the countryside from further degradation instead of wasting time on the hunting issue.

Spring hunting will soon be a thing of the past, whatever the Labour Party or, for that matter, government Ministers say, thanks to all those of us who voted yes for accession to the EU.

ROTTWEILERS FOR SALE: THE SUNDAY TIMES E-PAPER! IS THERE HOPE FOR THIS COUNTRY?

ROTTWEILER puppies guard, pets or show dogs. Imported sire from top UK kennel. Dan champion.

Dear Mr Editor,
In my writings and in my thoughts, I always WORSHIPPED your newspaper – and your sister-newspaper – for the courageous stance it takes in favour of animals.

However, after taking a look at the ‘PETS’ (sic) part of the Classifieds, in your online newspaper today, I was distraught and disgusted that the newspaper showed the following:

ROTTWEILER puppies guard, pets or show dogs. Imported sire from top UK kennel. Dan champion.
And

SNAKES, carpet Pythons, Burmese Pythons, red tail Boas, and Amazon tree Boas.


It is bad enough that we have people breeding dogs and cats for financial profit. It is bad enough that a newspaper deems it fit to publish these sales. However, I draw a line when it comes to rottweilers, which are CERTAINLY illegal to have, let alone breed, abroad at least ( I am not sure what the situation is, in Malta, but nevertheless….!) and exotic animals which should not even be in Malta – pythons.

In my opinion, Mr Editor, your newspaper is being guilty of hypocrisy, here. You find nothing wrong in getting money for advertisements of this sort, yet, then, you ‘champion’ the breeding and the selling of rottweilers, You jolly well know that animals are not meant to be guard dogs – technology has seen to that! You also jolly well know that a civilized newspapers such as yours should not stoop so low as to encourage the breeding and selling of rottweilers!

I would be most gracious (as I said before, I respect your newspapers a lot for the stand you all take in favour of animals) to receive your reaction to the above, before going further.

Sincerely.

FURTHER TO THIS CORRESPONDENCE, THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES ASKED ME TO SHOW PROOF THAT ROTTWEILERS ARE ILLEGAL IN MALTA - IN FACT, I HAD NONE TO OFFER. I FELT I DIDN'T NEED TO OFFER ANY PROOF REGARDING THE PERIL OF SUCH A BREED - A BREED THAT, NEEDLESS TO SAY, WAS MADE BY MAN IN ORDER TO 'PRODUCE', LITERALLY, A SUPERIOR SPECIES OF GUARD DOG.
THEN, WHEN A ROTTWEILER KILLS OR HARMS A BOY OR GIRL, WE SHOOT TO KILL IT! BUT THAT IS JUSTICE FOR YOU.

A dishonourable speech in Parliament ... is this Labour's voice on Hunting?

Labour MP Joe Abela has asked a judge to abstain from a court case against a hunter, saying comments which he had made could prejudice the case.
Speaking during the adjournment of the House of Representatives late yesterday, Mr Abela also made a strong attack against the government's treatment of hunters and criticised Birdlife Malta for using public funds for literature against the hunters.
Mr Abela said he was not a hunter himself and had ‘great sympathy' for birds', but the House needed to hear both the points of view of environmentalists and hunters.
He said he was concerned recently to have received a pamphlet, published by Birdlife Malta and funded by the EU, asking whether it was right that hunters had taken over the countryside, to the detriment of ordinary citizens. While it was not true that the hunters had taken over the countryside, or 80 percent of it as was claimed, was it right that EU funds, which were public funds, were used in this way to incite the people against the hunters? Was this healthy for society?
It was well known, Mr Abela said, that many hunters owned the fields where they went hunting. Did Birdlife expect private property to be open for all?
It was not fair, he said, that the rights of hunters continued to be trampled upon. And not just by Birdlife.
The current state of affairs was such that it was almost better to have a field of haxixa than to have a field where one could go hunting. It was unacceptable in this country that one could buy haxixa everywhere and at any time, but then the special forces were deployed to persecute hunters, stopping them as they walked in the countryside without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This was a violation of people's rights.
Nobody was stopping the people, including tourists, from taking their walks along countryside paths, but one could not expect to have a right to trespass over people's property, Mr Abela said.
He said another example of how rights were trampled was the case of Karl Bugeja, who is facing charges in court of shooting a protected bird. Even before witnesses were heard and the case was concluded, the judge had told him to either settle or he would suffer even more punishment, Mr Abela said.
This, he insisted, prejudiced the case. How could he not lose the case? Was it possible that the judiciary too was bowing its head to what the government, and ultimately Brussels, wanted? How could the rights of 16,000 hunters be ignored?
Malta was being purer than the virgins in the interpretation of EU law, and it had become the only country where hunters practically could not practice anywhere.
It was important that the courts enjoyed the people's respect, and he was therefore requesting Mr Justice Galea Debono to abstain from this case, once it had been prejudiced, Mr Abela said. Mr Bugeja, like any other citizen, expected the courts to be independent of what the government, Brussels, Birdlife or anybody else said. If the concept of independence was eroded, how could institutions such as the courts enjoy credibility?
Mr Abela said he was therefore appealing for independence by the courts and proper use of public funds, including EU funds.

I was disgusted – to say the least – to read about a very dis-honourable speech made in Parliament. An ode to hunters, from none other than Labour MP Joe Abela, who found it expedient to express himself in a way that interferes with the work of the judiciary in what appears to be an on-going case against a particular hunter. In the process, he also denigrates and brutally attacks one of the most important environmental NGOs in the country as well as being of scandal with regard to the content of his ‘speech’. With his words, he also takes the Government to task for its tough stance in its handling of the hunting issue – as if we’re not bad enough as it is!
He claims that he is not a hunter himself - but he certainly is no friend or ‘sympathiser’ of birds – whatever that means – because he sees nothing wrong with these birds being shot down at will, maimed or somehow hurt and left to die in the countryside by Maltese hunters.
He attacks Birdlife’s EU-sponsored pamphlet and questions the reason behind such a sponsorship. Little does this honourable gentleman realize what the European Union really stands for. If one had to take a look at the EUbarometer, one would find that from among the so many directives that the EU gives, as well as the stands that it takes on countless issues, one of the most important aspects that the majority of EU citizens really appreciate is the effect that the EU directives have in controlling the environment – and by that, we also mean the natural environment.
And birds, this honourable gentleman must be taught to realize, are an intrinsic part of the environment, along with all other animals that are not there to entertain the human species, even less so to be a natural target for some of us who have no life, literally, and have nothing better to do in their spare (and non-spare) time than to shoot at birds which, after all, are not their property but belong to us all.
Or does this honourable gentleman feel that owning a piece of land – how, I simply cannot fathom; perhaps one can tell us how these hunters acquired this land in the first place, when they acquired it, how much they paid or are paying for it, to whom, etc …! – means that you also own the birds that fly in the air above it?
Does it also mean that you have lead and pellets coming down over private property and community land such as roads, streets and lanes? Have we monitored in a scientific way the effect that such lead is having on our soil, and its effect on the quality of water on our water-table?
What are the ‘rights of hunters’ that this honourable gentleman is referring to? And if hunters have rights, don’t we, the rest of the people living on these islands, have our rights too? Abela denies the fact that people, including tourists, are stopped in their tracks, in the countryside. Perhaps Abela too, along with other MPs in the House, are living on cloud nine!
Who are the ‘environmentalists’ that Abela chooses to denigrate? Are they merely the administrators of environmental NGOs? If this is what he thinks, how wrong Abela is!
He claims that a certain judge should abstain from continuing to hear a case against a hunter. But, with his words, isn’t he, himself, showing prejudice in favour of this hunter? Who shall we believe? And with what moral and academic authority does this honourable gentleman come along, standing up in the House and pontificate about a subject which he should have been prudent enough to avoid? Or does being an MP mean that you have a God-given power and authority to speak about anything under the sun, even if you are the world’s least-paid clown?
He speaks about ‘the people’ and ‘their respect’ with regards to the judiciary. He would do well to leave the judiciary well alone – that is what the more intelligent people in this country want. Certainly, Abela does not speak on my behalf when he attacks this judge and asks him to abstain.
My conclusion: is this speech a reflection of Labour’s approach to the subject of hunting? We, the electorate, demand to hear Labour leaders telling us whether they distance themselves from Abela’s speech or whether, indeed, this is the way things will go if and when Labour wins the next general election. While waiting for such a declaration, the voters who are in favour of having a clean natural environment in our small country, will arrive at their conclusions and know who to vote for and who not to vote for.




BirdLife denies Labour MP's claims
BirdLife Malta has insisted that its publication "A spring guide to reclaiming your countryside" is not funded by the European Union but by its own members.
The society was reacting to comments in Parliament by Labour MP Joe Abela.
Tolga Temuge, Executive Director BirdLife Malta, said that it seemed that Mr Abela had not understood the content of this information booklet.
"According to MEPA only 22% of Maltese terrain consists of natural vegetation. And 80% of that limited countryside is open to hunting, leaving almost no room for the majority of people in this country to enjoy their countryside in peace," he said.
On Mr Abela's comments on the rights of hunters being trampled upon, Birdlife said Malta is the only country in the EU that still allows spring hunting, has the longest hunting period in Europe, has the highest density of hunters per square kilometre and has only a mere 22 police ALE officers to check illegal hunting.
"Mr. Abela is more than welcome to join BirdLife Malta volunteers during the peak migration period to witness firsthand the illegal killing of protected species and the occupation of our countryside," Temuge said.
BirdLife called on the Malta Labour Party to state whether Mr Abela's position reflected the official party line on the issue of hunting.

Yes, indeed. The circus is in town, or rather, in Malta.

I sincerely hope that all people who have a sense of fairness and justice towards animals will do their best and BOYCOTT the circus - any circus, any company or institution that offers animals as a means of attraction to human beings.

Whoever wishes to see animals has other venues and choices - such as scientific and serious documentaries. We no longer need to have animal circuses to stifle our curiosity about the animal kingdom.

The more so since we have become more aware of the stress and the hardship that entertainment animals go through.

It is no use saying that such and such animals were born in captivity. They should have never been bred in the first place! Their mothers should not have been in captivity either.

It is also no use saying that animals are not facing any torture or hardship whatsover? Says who, may I ask? And when are outsiders and media-people invited to monitor the goings-on of the circuses? When 'the coast is clear', so to speak.

I do not try to explain all this by quoting various sources just to show how learned and well-read I am. I don't need to read of what I am already convinced about. However, as usual, I speak from the heart and from my mind.

Animals are not there to entertain us. Animals are there to live their own natural lives in peace and quiet, as far as possible, without man's intervention.

Of course, there are those who would tell you that, well, there shouldn't be pets in homes, etc .... That is al stupid assertion and a daft way of reasoning. I, myself, have two cats here at home. The reason why they are here with me is to save them from the cruel streets. In return, I give them an excellent way of living, and they make my home all the more happier.

In conclusion, I urge those few who read this blog to please BOYCOTT THE CIRCUS. Spread the word - tell everyone about it. We don't need to go and visit circuses. Save your money for something more fruitful. Or else, use that money to buy dog and cat food to give to sanctuaries. They surely need it.

The Circus comes to town, yey! (sic{k})

Circus animals
Elaine Mizzi, Kalkara.
I am writing to express my deep disappointment and concern that once again a circus, which exploits animals, will be coming to Malta. Through such shows, animals are forced to perform tricks that are contradictory to their innate instincts and behaviour, which results in substantial injuries. Besides, such performance and training most often entails learning through painful and punitive methods.
Animals in circuses have to sustain long distance travelling to get to the performance destination and during transportation they are often kept in unsuitable and precarious conditions.
The climate of the locality may furthermore be unsuitable for their natural temperament in such a way that they undergo undue suffering. These factors continue to exacerbate the already stressful conditions caused by confinement and transportation.
As a result of this, I am urging animal lovers to boycott this circus and its sponsors to show that animals should not be exploited for profit.

Animals for sale!

From SIMONE AQUILINA, writing in THE TIMES, 29/11/07:

I am writing to utter my complete disgust at what I saw the other day at the market in Marsaxlokk. Apart from this market being a disorganised chaos and looking more like a market out of a third world country, a man was selling birds and puppies, right next to a stall selling imqaret if I might add.
What was so horrible was that these poor birds were cooped up in small cages. Some could not even lift their heads, others were packed so tightly in a cage that they could hardly breathe. Puppies were stuffed four to a small cage and one could see that all these poor birds and animals were very distressed.
One enquires whether this man can actually sell these birds and puppies. Also do the relevant authorities or local council members visit the market to see with their own eyes what is happening?
One could notice quite a number of tourists who were as distressed as I was watching this horrible sight.
Hopefully, through this newspaper, the relevant authorities will take action so that such sights are not seen anymore.

I BET ANYTHING THAT IF IT HAD BEEN A QUESTION OF COUNTERFEIT CDS, DVDS AND WHATHAVEYOU, THE AUTHORITIES WOULD HAVE JUMPED ON THEM! AND RIGHTLY SO! BUT THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL CRIME AND ... THE NON-EXISTENT CRIMES AGAINST ANIMALS!