Hunting was not something that attracted my attention before the forthcoming referendum became a national issue. I am an animal lover and my initial reaction was that my vote is going to be a definite No.

I had no doubt in my mind that the No would have a landslide victory as I wondered how could hunters ever defend such an atrocity.

A hunter’s wife, an old friend of mine, asked me: are you a vegetarian and do you feel the same about fishing as you doabout hunting?

The answer was a flat no, which, in fact, made me realise that my hastened conclusion was based on emotion rather than logic. I became so curious that I followed a lot of the referendum campaign, attentively listening to both sides and weeding out the PR hype in the arguments.

I now find myself with a list of many unanswered questions, which have moved me well away from a definite No vote.

The hunters and those against have so much in common, not least the environment and are both against illegal hunting. So, would it be too naïve for me to ask why a compromise cannot be found?

Why are we having a referendum about a right granted by the EU? It was explained to me by a hunter that before the European Court of Justice’s judgment, which confirmed that Malta was justified in allowing controlled hunting in spring, the international hunters, FACE and International BirdLife agreed that the ruling will be respected and will put an end to this whole issue. Unfortunately, BirdLife Malta did not honour that agreement. Why?

Unfortunately, Maltese society is cursed with a trait of division. Will the result of the referendum, whichever way it goes, solve and heal all this? Unfortunately, I don’t think so. It will, I feel, increase hostility, especially in the countryside.

Whoever came up with the idea of a referendum should have been wiser and alittle more responsible.

The two species subject to the referendum – turtle dove and the quail (the second, incidentally, is a common item on many menus) are shot in millions in many EU member states. Why are we then making such a big fuss for a maximum of 16,000 birds, which is an insignificant fraction of the rest taken by other EU member states?

A friend of mine, staunchly in favour of No, explains that the problem is because spring is the mating season and Malta is the only country in Europe that hunts in spring. This is hardly very convincing.

Spring hunting does not make the Maltese hunter the evil monster he has been depicted to be

A bird shot in autumn still cannot breed in spring. Still, whatever the reasoning, we are still talking about a maximum of 16,000 against three million.

Furthermore, albeit it’s true that Malta is the only country that hunts the two species in question, many other EU countries hunt other species in spring. Really, spring hunting does not make the Maltese hunter the evil monster he has been depicted to be.

But, more importantly, the reason why Malta is the only country that hunts turtle dove and quail in spring was given by the European Court of Justice: very simply because the island has special circumstances absent in all other EU member states. Another query that haunts me is why has the Shout campaign been marred with images of illegalities, carcasses of death species and birds with dripping blood, all very repulsive.

Ivan Fenech’s article (March 31) could have had some valid points but the pictures accompanying it spoilt all the effort.

Frankly, I do not see the relevance of all this to the referendum.

Evidently, the idea is to portray a generalised evil image of the hunters, as Shout spokesman Mark Sultana tried to do on various occasions. This leads me to compare the killing of a bird with the killing of a character or characters. But, as I said above, the effect of the confrontation, emerging from our social curse, leads us to go to such extremes.

Maltese hunters are another group within Maltese society, which includes as many gentlemen and criminals as there are in any other group. So if any of us stops to think s/he will realise that s/he belongs to a group in society that has both good and bad characters.

But, to return to the issues of illegalities as an argument to vote No, without going into the merits of its validity, the reasoning applies to all hunting, not just the 19 days in spring. Why then, I ask, are we having a referendum only for spring hunting and not hunting in general? I see a streak of hypocrisy there.

Having delved deeper into the subject, I’m definitely more inclined to vote Yes. However, I have an open mind and stand to be convinced otherwise. I will continue to follow the debates and also look for comments to this article. I will, of course, ignore the insults.

Joanne Micallef is a housewife and the mother of a teenager.