The result that retained spring hunting was buoyed by the No camp’s failure to reach beyond the upper middle classes, weak grassroots campaigning and an often condescending stance towards hunters, according to experts.

The 2,220 votes which gave hunters their victory indicated that the Spring Hunting – Out (Shout) campaign was outflanked by the hunting lobby’s slick, well-funded campaign.

For many of the potential No voters, the issue was not a matter of “life or death” as it was for most hunters, media analyst Fr Joe Borg pointed out.

Hunters felt threatened by the referendum as they had more to lose. Their motivation was, therefore, stronger and their efforts to get people out to vote were more consistent.

While the No camp relied more on the positive media coverage afforded by the independent press, the hunting lobby insisted on one-to-one contact, particularly in the last few days of the campaign.

“Personal contacts are more effective than the media when the issue involves the change of attitudes and behaviour. The media was stronger in passing on information but informational exchange, however, is not enough when one needs to change attitudes and behaviour.

It was left a bit too late. It took them a while to find their feet

“Besides, some of the information – such as that other hobbies or ‘traditions’ were not at risk – was passed on by people including lawyers and the English media who were not trusted as they were perceived to be pro-No.”

The Yes campaign made it a point to give the least possible coverage to controversial people, being fronted by a well-mannered and charismatic person, he continued.

On the other hand, the No campaign did not mind presenting controversial people on its frontline.

According to columnist Martin Scicluna, the No camp rolled out a well-intended but amateurish campaign comprising a group of enthusiasts who relied on the assumption that the strength of their argument would prevail.

Yet a number of educated, middle-class people who were not keen on hunting failed to be drawn out of their complacency and towards the voting booth.

On the other hand, the hunters had street leaders who worked on the ground to mobilise voters, Mr Scicluna pointed out.

The No camp sometimes fell into the trap of peppering their messages with classist undertones and a condescending stance.

“If funding were not a problem, the No camp would have engaged PR specialists who would have advised them that they should not allow emotion to rule them.

“They also needed to pre-empt the hunting lobby’s arguments. They needed to persuade hobbyists that their pastimes would not be affected instead of relying solely on Judge Giovanni Bonello and other lawyers.”

Academic Carmen Sammut explained that interpersonal influences and political parties had the strongest impact on voters.

Shout mainly addressed the upper middle class and failed to communicate its message to other segments of society in different zones.

“As soon as the 40,000 signatures were collected, the No camp should have started to assemble and to plan a cohesive and coordinated campaign.

“It was left a bit too late. It took them a while to find their feet.”

The political leaders were also very influential in polarising votes, especially those who did not have any particular opinion on the issue.

The Yes camp was more successful in mobilising people to go out and vote, as was evident from the turnout figures for the pro-hunting districts, according to sociologist Michael Briguglio.

The Joseph Muscat factor could not be ignored, he added. His statement two weeks ago during a political activity in Qala had an effect in favour of the Yes campaign.

The No campaign too easily dismissed the European Court of Justice ruling in 2009, which condemned Malta on one hand but also left a window of opportunity open, Dr Briguglio pointed out.

The No camp was mistaken when it insisted upon minimising the importance of the court’s decision, which essentially put the ball in Malta’s court again.

“However, although the No camp may be disappointed by the result, 49 per cent is not bad at all and it has significant long-term ramifications for the environment.

“Some environmentalists may lose heart but it may also embolden the green movement, in its broad sense, because it shows there is a significant base of voters interested in environmental issues.

“The result will not spell the end of the hunting issue, just like a No victory would not have closed the matter forever.

“There are still conservation arguments to be made and cases of abuse will definitely crop up that will continue to stimulate the debate.”