A kid killing garden birds with his air rifle: despicable.
A grown man killing wildfowl with a shotgun: respectable, upholding heritage, preserving habitat, understanding nature etc.
The issue is the same: two people killing living things for fun. Why should that be supported?
...if the areas aren't already marginal enough to prevent development etc., taxation changes could swiftly provide money for maintenance...
I agree, the principle of killing birds and animals for fun is something that should be non-existant.
However, whether we approve or not, it is a fact that responsible hunting does, or at least does in some cases, contribute to conservation, to a better environment for birds and thus even if we were able to ban it, then the result is not going to be beneficial. Sure, we should be able to change taxation, provide grants, etc, to protect important areas purely for conservation, but however much money we get, there will always be more that could be done. In the UK, and especially beyond the UK, there are countless cases where conservation would simply would not get the funds to protect everything, even less to turn productive areas of agricultural land back into conservation lands - so in this cases, what would be better, the landowners maintain the relatively wildlife-poor land as it is, but don't hunt, or actively conserve and enhance the habitat, then conduct controlled hunt taking into account quotas to avoid depletion, etc.
And a glance around the world will quickly reveal many examples where hunting interests have led to habitat protection/improvement/creation - Bharatphur, one of world's top bird locaities, is a totally man-made place, created to satisfy hunting interests; hunting lodges in southern Africa, where former farmers actively enhanced habitat, took it out of production, restocked, but maintain these areas through hunting incomes; the whole duck stamp thing in the US; plus one of the places I plan to visit on my next trip is as I understand still in existance largely because hunters have resisited the massive financial returns they could make if they allowed the area to develop as in neighbouring areas.
As said at start, I am at best uneasy about speaking in favour of hunting interests, but when conducted responsibly and benefits are known to occur, all I can do is remain passive.
...which takes us to
why is ambelopoulia production in the med thought so much worse than wildfowling? Both industries obtain food from birds- are we more squeamish about eating little twittery songbirds than dull ducks?
Hunting on Malta, in Cyprus, in parts of France does not qualify under any of the reasons I stated before - there is no 'give back' by the hunting interests, quite the opposite - hunting elements in many parts of the Med have no concern for the species shot, they do not conduct shoots only on selective dates (unless selective mean whenever something flies over) and they do not seek to conserve lands to enhance overall populations or indeed maintain populations. There are also numerous documented cases of illegal shots over the few reserves that do exist (not created by hunters), plus examples of the hunters actually destroying reserves in acts of spite.
At its simplest, Maltese gunners, for example, simply engage in carnage, wildfowlers on the Slobs, duckhunters on Lake Ontario, range owners in the Zambezi do not.
