The Wild Birds’ Regulation Unit (WBRU), under the direction of the Ministry for Gozo, plans to apply a derogation to “allow finch trapping under the guise of scientific research.”

The aim of this research derogation, “is to determine that the numbers of seven protected finch species captured in Malta are small enough to use a legal loophole to continue taking finches from the wild in Malta,” said Ms Gatt.

The WBRU is proposing to allow trappers to catch wild finches in an attempt to encounter finches wearing lightweight metal identification rings fitted by international research groups for the scientific study of wild birds (bird ringing) to find out their origin, she said.

Ms Gatt argued that the WBRU is “confusing matters with a scientifically flawed and nonsensical proposal, the sole aim of which appears to be pleasing the trapping lobby and allowing them to carry out their hobby while looking the other way.”

The probability of encountering ringed songbirds from elsewhere is typically less than 0.1%; this means that for every 1000 wild birds caught, only 1 is likely to be carrying a ring, she said.

Ms Gatt stressed that, “the intensive effort required to catch hundreds of thousands of finches would cause a disproportionate amount of disturbance to all wildlife (and people) being exposed to deafening and distracting bird callers and whooshing clap nets across our countryside.”

Even then, she said, “the WBRU does not state how the aim of the research derogation is to be fulfilled – which it will not, since the methods proposed are not appropriate to address the “small numbers” rule – because that is clearly not the aim of this derogation.”

Ms Gatt went on to say that, “it appears likely that the lack of significant wintering populations and, especially, the rarity of the occurrence of breeding finches in Malta is a direct result of decades of large scale finch trapping on the islands, which continues being “tolerated” (as a result of insufficient enforcement) despite being outlawed.”

“One could argue that the 1% loophole is automatically inapplicable if it is considered that trappers are actively taking from finch populations that would establish themselves on the Maltese Islands as local breeding birds,” she said.

“Allowing trappers to capture birds for research constitutes a blatant conflict of interest,” stated Ms Gatt. “Moreover, this scenario creates a slapstick enforcement issue, with only 4 police officers for every 1000 licenced trappers being proposed, one reason why Malta was chastised by the EU over the 2014-2015 trapping season.”

Marie Clair Gatt concluded by saying that, “in essence, it is clear that the point of this derogation is to allow an otherwise illegal and unsustainable activity – the trapping and caging of wild finches – to appease a group of hobbyists.”

This proposal is under public consultation until Tuesday 15th September and is available by clicking here.

Marie Claire Gatt is an ornithologist with an M. Sc. in Bird Conservation, currently finalising a Ph. D. in avian migration ecology.

The full-length technical response to the public consultation is shown below:

Public consultation submission

Marie Claire Gatt, B. Sc. (Hons.) (Melit.), M. Sc.

Benjamin Metzger, M. Sc., Ph. D (rer. nat.)

The aim of the Wild Birds’ Regulation Unit’s research derogation is to determine that the numbers of seven finch species captured in Malta are less than 1% of the bird populations’ annual mortality in order to use a legal loophole to continue taking finches from the wild in Malta.

Finch trapping is illegal under the EU Birds’ Directive since finches are protected species, and it is unnecessary for the practice of bird breeding since finches can be successfully bred in captivity (one reason for Malta having been slammed by the EU for the 2014-2015 trapping season in the C-557/15 judgement).

The WBRU are proposing to allow trappers to catch wild finches using clap-nets in order to attempt to control finches fitted with foreign rings.

Apart from the objective of this derogation being farcical on the outset – one does not embark on a scientific investigation with the conclusions already set – the methods and sampling design proposed are not appropriate for the aim.

It is unclear how ringing control data would address the WBRU’s research question – the “small numbers” rule they refer to requires an assessment of species annual survivability (Epstein et al., 2019).

The percentage of ringing controls for small bird species is typically less than 0.1%; this means that for every 1000 wild birds caught, only 1 is likely to be carrying a ring. Hundreds of thousands of finches would therefore have to be caught in a 62-day study period in order to obtain a significant dataset of previously ringed birds.

The intensive effort required would cause a disproportionate amount of disturbance, not only to the target species but to all other wildlife (and people) being exposed to deafening bird callers and whooshing clap nets across our countryside.

The use of bird callers at a large scale is a great burden on migrating finch flocks which are grounded during active migration, impeded from foraging, and undergo the stress of capture and handling.

The wide-scale use of large clap-nets requires the chemical clearing of undeveloped land which pollutes and scars the landscape for years.

No information is given on how the purpose of the research derogation is to be fulfilled because that is clearly not the aim of this derogation.

The proposal mentions remote tracking but refers to satellite tags and geolocators (GLS) as though they were the same thing, which they are definitely not.

On the assumption that this is meant to refer to geolocators (satellite tags are currently by far too large and heavy to be deployed on any finch species) the GLS-tagging of birds on migration – in all likelihood autumn migration, no less – is ridiculous since the devices would need to be recaptured to obtain tracking data; the likeliness of that happening is incredibly low, and with each geolocator costing over €100 it would be the equivalent of chucking taxpayer money into the sea.

A logical first step in such an endeavour would be to consult the wealth of systematically collected information available from scientific bird ringing stations and bird observatories to obtain the desired information and identify specific knowledge gaps.

A relevant example, to name just one, is the second volume of Atlante Migrazione (Spina & Volponi, 2008) which collates knowledge from scientific bird ringing of all bird species migrating through Italy.

A striking feature reported there is that a massive proportion of ringed finches controlled are caught through intentional trapping not for scientific purposes (>70% of all controls), suggesting the high efficiency bird trapping has at attracting and removing finches from wild populations.

Data on Goldfinch populations in North Africa already underline the detrimental impact trapping has on wild populations: There, the species is in rapid decline where poaching for bird trade has been increasing rapidly since the 1990s (E. de Juana in litt. 2017, A. Ngari in litt. 2017).

The species has since disappeared from over 50% of its range in North Africa (Khelifa et al. 2017), resulting in Goldfinches classified as being in decline by the IUCN (Birdlife International, 2020).

It appears likely that the lack of significant wintering populations and, especially, the rarity of the occurrence of breeding finches in Malta is a direct result of decades of large scale finch trapping on the islands, which continues being “tolerated” (as a result of insufficient enforcement) despite being outlawed.

One could argue that the 1% loophole is automatically inapplicable if it is considered that trappers are actively taking from finch populations that would otherwise establish themselves on the Maltese Islands as local breeding birds.

Allowing trappers to capture birds for research constitutes a blatant conflict of interest – one which usually hinders licenced breeders of native birds from holding a bird ringing licence. In addition, trappers do not undergo the appropriate training for the capture and handling of wild birds destined for release.

Moreover, this scenario creates a slapstick enforcement issue, with only 4 police officers for every 1000 trappers being proposed, another reason why Malta was chastised by the EU previously over finch trapping (C-557/15).

Had the WBRU, or the FKNK, a genuine interest in research and in the origin of finches passing over Malta, they could have promoted the reporting of the probably hundreds (or even thousands) of foreign ringed specimens that have been caught by trappers over the last decades.

In essence, it is clear that the point of this derogation is to allow an unsustainable activity – the trapping and caging of wild finches – which is otherwise illegal under the EU Birds Directive, to appease a group of hobbyists. The authenticity of this claim of research is comparable to that of Japan’s whaling fleets.

Bibliography

Adler, J. H. (2014, March 31) ICJ rules against Japanese whaling. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/31/icj-rules-against-japanese-whaling/

BirdLife International (2020) Species factsheet: Carduelis carduelis. Retrieved from http://www.birdlife.org

Epstein, Y., Christiernsson, A., Lo pez-Bao, J. V. and Chapron, G. (2019). When is it legal to hunt strictly protected species in the European Union? – Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1: e18.

Sultana, J., Borg, J. J., Gauci, C. and Falzon, V. (2011). The Breeding Birds of Malta. – BirdLife Malta.

Permalink: “Flawed research derogation is a gift to trapping lobby” – Marie Claire Gatt