On a campaign truth can be the first casualty. So let us not be fooled by the so-called facts that are being bandied about by the pro-hunting lobby.
A clip posted on the social media by those calling for spring hunting to remain starts with a declaration that turtle dove and quail are not endangered species and could therefore be hunted in spring. If they were listed as being endangered they would be protected species, so the clip says nothing new. Nobody has stated they are protected.
Those who oppose spring hunting have always argued that, like all other birds, turtle dove and quail too have a right to couple, nest and breed in spring, which, in fact, would benefit the hunting community because the new offspring would mean there would be more birds to hunt in autumn. But this is being totally left unsaid by the hunters.
The clip features a young lawyer, who, by her very admission, is proud of coming from a hunting family, saying that “stopping spring hunting would eradicate the sport”. Does she not know that respecting the breeding season does not eradicate the five-month period – August to January – hunters have to shoot so many species of birds, including turtle dove and quail, plus the other months for rabbit hunting?
This is a unique chance to decide directly as a people on this issue
She claims Malta had been in breach of the Birds Directive between 2004 and 2007 because the season was too long, there were no bag limits and there was insufficient reporting.
Does she not know that, post-2007, the spring season surreptitiously increased from one week, to 10 days, to two weeks and then to three weeks? How long will it keep growing?
It is untrue that in 2004-2007 there were no bag limits. And does she not know that many hunters today are reporting that, by some extraordinary coincidence, they bagged their doves and quails only in the last couple of days of the season, thus allowing themselves to keep hunting throughout the whole season not having reported any earlier catches?
She uses her young lawyer status to claim that she can get 40,000 signatures (as if that is an easy, everyday feat) to vote against any activity practised by any minority.
"Does this lawyer not know that the Constitutional Court found that the upcoming referendum does not breach minority rights?"
Can she please name those activities that, as is being alleged, can be banned, as she says, by means of a referendum?
In the clip, immediately after saying that she would be able to collect 40,000 signatures, she also declared there are two types of referenda: to introduce legislation and to ban laws.
Does she not know that people can only ask to abrogate, ban, legislation, not change it?
There is no activity that can be banned by referenda. It is only an exception that a law allows to an existing restriction that can be banned, as in the case of the spring hunting derogation, which is an exception to restrictions on spring hunting.
Such attitude is putting fear in the minds of people who practise their sport when such practice can never be touched by a referendum. Furthermore, the outcome of this referendum would have absolutely no bearing on any other future referendum.
The pro-spring hunting clip introduces us to Jessica, a female hunter, as if to give the people the impression that this is a sport commonly practised by both genders.
It is common knowledge that this is not the case at all because women are not inclined to hunt. Also, women, who constitute 50 per cent of the voting population, are far more likely to understand and empathise with the argument of allowing birds to mate and breed in spring rather than with those who want to eradicate the breeding process of doves and quail just for sport.
Slipping a female hunter into the clip will not curry favour with the female part of the population.
The other hunter interviewed in the clip states that, last spring, there were 5,000 police spot checks, that is, one check for every three hunters in three whole weeks. Is this considered sufficient? And how much will the taxpayer have to fork out to pay for all this police patrolling in spring when hunting for sport is banned across Europe?
The truth will always come out in the end. However, it is important that it shines out clearly before the referendum date and not some time in the future, when it is too late.
Together we can make a difference and have a unique chance to decide directly as a people on this issue. This is a very exciting part of our young and still evolving democracy, where people actually have the power to decide on an issue themselves.
Let us not squander this opportunity, not just to speak out, as we do with so many other issues, but to empower ourselves and act to protect all birds and allow them to mate in the right season, as nature intended, by voting no to spring hunting.
Rodolfo Ragonesi is CEO of the Gaia Foundation.