The hunting lobby’s campaign is a professional, seemingly well-funded one but despite the serene image of a groomed family enjoying the countryside, it is probably too late to change public perception of a hunting lobby which used aggressive tactics in the past, according to experts.

Hunters realised that they were being identified with lawless aggressive behaviour and have responded by presenting themselves as being the minority victims of an intolerant foreign agenda, according to anthropologist David Zammit.

The message they are striving to get across is that their culture and way of life (symbolically encapsulating all Maltese traditional lifestyles) is under threat of extinction.

They have also found articulate lawyer-spokespersons who can present their message – that the hunters are in fact the hunted – reasonably and persuasively, he said.

“If we try to contextualise the referendum campaigns historically, it is clear that the background is one in which over time the anti-hunting lobby has been successful in progressively promoting a negative perception of hunting as an activity and of hunters as a group,” Dr Zammit explained.

“Their message has tended to be received most positively by young, urban middle-class Maltese and less so by other sectors of the population. At the same time the message has been couched in a scientific idiom [...] such that hunting has come to be seen as emblematic of a lawless, ignorant sub-culture, which entry into the European Union (i.e., into a scientific modern way of life) would rid us of once and for all.”

Some hunters, for their part, sensing that they were losing the PR battle, have tended to react in an increasingly aggressive way, Dr Zammit added. They have tried to claim ownership of the countryside and, in the process, have excluded other sectors of the population and insisted that if the law did not accommodate them, they were prepared to dispense with the law.

Both sides now increasingly use military metaphors, and the debate about spring hunting is now about a war for survival.

International Relations lecturer Carmen Sammut pointed out there were no hardened, weathered men in camouflage in the recent posters published by the hunting lobby,

“Instead we get a happy, young, groomed family enjoying the Maltese countryside. Even the toddler seems happy and safe. In another poster we see a well-dressed man walking his pedigree dogs. In none of these idyllic pictures do we see guns, pellets, dead birds or other hunting paraphernalia.”

The campaign clearly uses political strategies that are borrowed from party electoral tactics, Dr Sammut added, with pro-hunting speakers surrounded by young and innocent people wearing colourful t-shirts. This has now become a standard partisan practice.

The campaign was also reminiscent of the 2003 EU membership campaign and the Labour Party’s 2013 general election campaign – both positive campaigns which had a lot of funds poured into them.

While initially the hunting lobby employed negative messages, it quickly switched its tactics, Dr Sammut observed. The initial scaremongering campaign that a No result would threaten all hobbyists was quickly shot down by Judge Giovanni Bonello.

A manipulated image of the hunting lobby’s campaign posters has been making the rounds on social media, offering to illustrate a more realistic image.

“At this point it seems that the hunters let the professionals run their campaign and hunters only swayed from their main message on one occasion: the day that FKNK president Joe Perici Calascione declared this campaign to be a ‘war’.”

The hunting lobby was making a huge effort to represent hunters as benevolent members of society who volunteered with Catholic missions overseas and made “conservationist” efforts to plant trees and to restore the natural environment.

“Although this is a professional campaign, to some of us, it sounds like an artificial campaign since the hunting lobby we see portrayed here feels alien to what we have known throughout the rest of our lives.

“It is probably too late to change their public perception, when the hunting lobby used extremely aggressive tactics in the past.”

In none of these idyllic pictures do we see guns, pellets, dead birds or other hunting paraphernalia

Getting people out to vote will be the biggest challenge for the No campaigners, Dr Sammut believes. Possibly because they have less funds than the hunting lobby, there does not seemto be an adequately cohesive and coordinated No campaign.

“Up till now, we have seen No campaigners employing a scattergun approach where they are trying to appeal to all segments of Maltese society, namely through sympathetic media outlets.”

The No campaign has adopted two positive messages: ensuring that the Maltese commit to the protection of species and giving Maltese families the opportunity to reclaim the countryside during spring time.

“More attention must be taken to avoid a condescending stance, that would not score any points with a big portion of the electorate.

“While it is understandable that the hunting issue is related to lifestyle, culture and distinctions related to taste, any classist undertones and arrogant statements will be extremely damaging.”

Stereotyping all hunters and their families as if they were backward, irrational, Neanderthal machos, Dr Sammut continued, would not endear the No campaign to the hunters’ wives, children and siblings, who constituted a significant constituency.

“In a society that was becoming increasingly complex, No campaigners should not assume that hunters still automatically command the loyalty of their clan. I come from a family and community where most men hunt, but I may regret and even oppose this so called ‘tradition’.

“After all, the effort that went into collecting signatures and all the pressure to hold the referendum, the No side must appear better prepared and more cohesive.

“If this initiative is defeated, it is likely that there will be massive implications for the environment and for the role of civil society in this country.”

Her warning was echoed by sociologist Michael Briguglio, who pointed out that the No camp must take care to respect its adversaries.

He noted that both camps had taken a leaf from successful past campaigns.

“The hunting lobby has produced a positive campaign, shorn of conflicts, which aspires to represent everyone. Hunting is portrayed as something natural and an intrinsic part of the Maltese fabric.

“However, the hunting lobby’s campaign can also be interpreted as illustrating precisely what hunting is not about – a number of elements associated with hunting are concealed and fool no one.”

During the last general election campaign, the PL did not focus on issues such as the economy but projected an image of the adversary – the PN – as an undesirable party to have in government.

The No camp, Dr Briguglio noted, was also focusing its campaign on its adversary – hunters who occupied the countryside and who, throughout the years, did not do much to improve the illegal hunting situation.