When it was announced that a referendum on spring hunting would be held, some people sighed. This was going to lead to referendum-fatigue, they said. Did we really want to end up like the Swiss (apart from their secret bank accounts and their chocolate) and have to troop down to the polling booth every other weekend?

Wouldn’t all these voting opportunities tire us out? And most of all – wouldn’t another campaign lead to more polarisation and division? You know how it gets around here, every time we have to vote.

In no time at all you get the formation of a ‘Yes’ camp and an opposing ‘No’ camp and its verbal blood-letting and exchange of insults all the way to election day. No matter which side wins, there are always deeper divisions after a bruising campaign.

That was the case with the referendum on EU membership and divorce legislation in any case. But this time round it’s oddly very different. It is a strange, muted campaign. The hunters are practically unrecognisable.

Only last September they were marching into Valletta hurling beer bottles and insults, manhandling reporters and a journalist. This was the same day that a group of birdwatchers were assaulted in Buskett by a group of men who threw stones.

Where are they now? The men in camouflage gear have disappeared; Lino Farrugia is nowhere to be seen (except for the court room where he testifies about his heartache at his bare bottom being the subject of a cartoon).

The campaign is fronted by fresh-faced young people wearing the de rigeur T-shirts portraying positivity. Hunters have downed their guns and picked up their trowels as they fly off to Ethiopia to build schools for impoverished villages. Over here the hunters are as busy as bees, shoring up rubble walls and organising clean-ups.

And in another recent development, we are discovering the feminine face of hunting. We may have thought that hunting was a bit of a macho affair, with burly men doing the shooting. The hunters seem to be intent on showing us how mistaken we were. If their press conferences are anything to go by, it seems that women have swollen the ranks of the hunting federation and they have elected one of their own to be spokesperson for the lobby.

We may have never caught sight of these avid female hunters but maybe that’s because they were so well camouflaged. Or maybe because they were not much in evidence but hunters thought that having the fairer sex on board would help their makeover.

Our enforcement system is woefully inadequate; the Administrative Law Enforcement section is as good as dismantled

The hunting lobby is perfectly entitled to embark on this revamping exercise. However, when considering the issues at stake in the upcoming referendum on spring hunting, we should place more importance on the three ‘Cs’ – conservation, credibility and consequences. The first – that of conservation issue is one of the main reasons for the holding of the referendum. Spring is breeding time for birds which fly over the Maltese islands on their way back to mainland Europe. It makes ultimate conservation sense to give birds safe passage to allow them to breed and multiply, thus ensuring the survival of the species.

Both quail and turtle doves appear on the lists of threatened species of international bodies of repute. Their numbers have decreased dramatically over the past years. We would be foolish to wait until they are on the brink of extinction before engaging in costly programmes to boost their population.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Trading the short spring hunting season – a couple of weeks or so – towards helping the survival of a species and biodiversity – is a good deal.

During the referendum campaign when we are addressed by winsome lady hunters and bombarded with improbable photos of gentlemen hunters strolling through the fields in their tweed caps and breeches, we would do well to weigh the credibility of the lobbies involved. To date, we have witnessed several hunting seasons characterised by a veritable bird slaughter, with illegal hunting being horrifically in evidence.

Our enforcement system is woefully inadequate; the Administrative Law Enforcement section is as good as dismantled. There has never been any political will to beef it up. Compare this long-time record with a few months where hunters are on their best behaviour. Credibility is earned over time and is not the result of a slick marketing campaign showing unrealistic photoshopped snaps.

Finally – perhaps the most important consideration – the consequences of the ‘Yes’ vote prevailing. If the hunting lobby succeeds in its endeavour to retain the spring hunting slaughter, that would spell a body blow to the environmental movement and to all related environmental issues.

If the electorate does not take this opportunity to champion birds and biodiversity, our politicians will dismiss the environmental movement as weak and insignificant. They will not even go through the motions of deliberating such issues.

The situation is bad enough. A ‘Yes’ victory will make it worse.

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt