On April 11, we are all invited to cast our vote to determine whether spring hunting should be allowed or not. That is, whether hunters will be allowed to take over the countryside again to shoot birds during the period of the year when birds are migrating to their nesting grounds.

The debate so far has seen the SHouT (spring hunting out) campaigners trying to make their point whereas the hunters, mainly FKNK, which represents them, justifying its case by trying to draw support from other so-called minority groups scaremongering them that they will be next and, hence, people should vote Yes (for the law allowing spring hunting to remain).

My main concern is that although a number of weeks have already elapsed from the decision on the date of the referendum I fail to see any particular activity by the SHouT campaigners. If they think that by just being on the social media, people, especially those where there is no local council elections, will readily go out to cast their vote, then they are mistaken.

Anyone who has some experience with the way elections work, knows how difficult it is to get people to go out and vote.

This referendum is unique. It was not started by the main political parties and so they don’t have a vested interest in it and, therefore, one can expect a lower turnout.

People need to understand a couple of points and consequences of this referendum: The referendum is not about anybody’s fundamental rights or about traditions or hobbies. The whole point of the referendum is about nature conservation.

This referendum is a testing ground for nature conservation in Malta

If shooters were really conservationists, as some claim to be, then they should be voting with the No camp. Primarily, the only way how a population of any living species could increase is through breeding. If, for any particular reason, breeding is unsuccessful then there will be a drop in the population.

Over the years, populations of various bird species have changed due to a variety of reasons, including habitat loss and pesticides. Shooting certainly does not help increase populations. Unfortunately, man, being selfish, reacts only when populations drop to very critical levels and it is only then that he tries to take corrective measures.

Locally, things are not much different. Population of birds species which migrate over the Maltese islands, including turtle dove, have declined over the years.

Shooters know it through first-hand experience but put the blame on everything else except hunting.

Irrespective of who is to blame, if the population is decreasing, it is common sense not to make it worse. Each specimen that is shot during springtime, when birds are moving to their breeding grounds, means less offspring, resulting in a smaller population, whether those birds fly back over Malta or not.

Hunters are effectively shooting at their own feet as they are decimating and want to keep decimating the populations of the same birds they want to hunt. That argument is valid for all living species on planet earth, whether it’s birds or any other species. That is why there are laws, agreements and seasons where capturing species, including trapping or hunting, are controlled so that species are allowed to recover in numbers.

Since we form part of the same universe, then those concepts are applicable to one and all, including the Maltese population.

Unfortunately, some people, including our beloved politicians, fail to understand such a simple concept because their main concern is the people and not the conservation of the wild species.

If the first point about the conservation of the species is not enough for people to realise their importance of participating in this referendum there is another fundamental point that should make them think twice.

This referendum is a testing ground for nature conservation in Malta and our politicians know that very well. Both leaders have so far appeased the Yes camp by committing themselves but most politicians have remained mum.

If the No camp wins the referendum, that would send a strong signal to our politicians that the public cares about the natural environment and wants action by the political class and requests that it stops pandering to the hunting lobby.

However, if the referendum is lost, that would be a clear sign by the electorate that it’s not bothered about its natural environment. That would imply the death of all our environmental NGOs, which, for decades, have worked in favour of safeguarding what remains of our natural environment.

The countryside will just become a no-go zone as hunters will get the upper hand.

I strongly suspect that both main political parties have taken such a stand because this would place them in a better position to give in to requests for further development and destruction of the environment. They would have ample proof that the environmental NGOs are a weak lobby.

So it is up to all environmental NGOs and their members to give a strong push in the run-up to the referendum for it to succeed, otherwise the Maltese people are doomed.

Whether birds continue to migrate over our islands and whether you will continue to enjoy the countryside at the best time of the year is up to the electorate.

This is a unique occasion where the people can send a very strong signal to the politicians, the consequences of which will be reaped by our children. So think twice before casting your vote.

Joe Doublet is an environmental science lecturer at the Junior College.