On Saturday the Maltese will be called upon to decide whether hunting should continue to take place in spring, the season in which birds should be breeding, to ensure locals and tourists alike can enjoy the wonderful spectacle of wildlife in its natural habitat.

This is not a poll that splits classes, as some are doing their best to misinform. This is a poll that gives common Maltese the opportunity to act more honourably than their politicians who – for the sake of votes, nothing else – pander to the hunting lobby’s belligerent tactics.

Hunters have benefitted from concessions as the silent disenfranchised majority watched passively from the sidelines. Saturday is an opportunity for the passive to take centre stage, to stand up and be counted.

It is indeed ironic that practically the only thing upon which there is political consensus in Malta is that hunting should take place in spring.

This in spite of the fact that it is the breeding season, in spite of the fact that we do not have the space for it, in spite of the fact that people are unable to enjoy the countryside, in spite of the fact it harms our reputation abroad and in spite of the fact that hunters have repeatedly abused the situation by shooting protected species.

The Prime Minister and the Opposition leader said they are voting in favour to retain this spring concession for their own questionable reasons. Joseph Muscat went one step further and broke his own promise by even lobbying for a Yes vote.

On Saturday, people have a unique chance to inject the voice of reason into an arena where the sound of tough talk and gunfire has been allowed to dominate.

People have an opportunity to put a stop to senseless shooting of birds as they migrate to breed, a cruel act which defies the most basic ecological sensitivities.

People have an opportunity a to tell the authorities that they know their justification of hunting in spring (in breach of the EU’s Birds Directive) is based on unreliable figures.

People have an opportunity to reclaim the countryside for three weeks in spring without having to fear gunshot as they walk or picnic with their families.

People have an opportunity to tell hunters they have not been fooled by fictitious claims that other hobbies will be under threat if the No vote prevails.

People also have an opportunity to save taxpayers’ money on the expensive, while at the same time, inadequate enforcement system that is supposed to keep errant hunters in check.

But beyond the arguments we have been hearing for weeks, there is one crucial issue many overlook.

If the Yes vote prevails, people can forget about environmental awareness and conservation for at least a decade.

The environment has been put on the backburner because politicians believe it is considered a priority by only a small minority. A win for the Yes vote would merely reinforce this perception and pave the way for more destruction of pristine land.

One also needs to ask how hunters will behave once they win the vote.

We would venture to speculate that they would be even more bullish – or untouchable – than ever before and that, given new-found strength, they would demand even more concessions, failing which they would withdraw their vote.

Seemingly, this is the only language that our politicians understand.

Some may feel indifferent to Saturday’s vote because they feel its outcome does not really affect them.

They could not be more wrong. The spring hunting referendum affects all of us, our future generations and the image of our country.

It is for all these reasons that a victory for the No vote, the underdog in this race, is so crucial.