On Saturday the 11th of April I will be voting YES for spring hunting. Firstly, I want to assert that I am not a hunter or an environmentalist by any means. I have come to this conclusion after pondering what a NO vote would mean and the precedent that this would set. This article is not meant to be just another piece of propaganda in an endless duel of mudslinging. Instead, I want to present my sincere thoughts and present a thought-provoking argument to you the readers.
The people gravitating towards a NO vote tend to present two main arguments. Firstly, is that hunters have been irresponsible in the practice of their hobby, that is, that a section of the hunting community have failed to adhere to the rules and regulations of the hunting season. And secondly, that the very act of hunting is cruel and barbaric. I find these two points to be contradictory.
Firstly, a small minority of the hunting community should not reflect the whole. If this were so, the police force would be disbanded because of a group of corrupt police-officers, and a group of irresponsible drivers would lead to the revoking of all Maltese driving licenses. Secondly, unless one is a vegan I find it illogical to suggest that hunting a bird is cruel and barbaric. All types of meat are a process of an animal being killed for human consumption.
In an ideal world, both hunters and environmentalists alike would share the Maltese countryside. However, we do not live in an ideal world and it is true that even the smallest of minorities within the hunting community should be reprimanded for their illegal actions, but a referendum abolishing spring hunting for the entire Maltese hunting community is not the way to go.
This referendum has come to fruition based on a failure to listen. It is my belief that the money and effort that has been put into both the YES and NO campaigns could have been made to better use through a dialogue between the two sides and educational programmes that would ultimately lead to a compromise and peaceful resolution between the two sides. A NO vote would only set the precedent that it would be ok for one group to conquer another and force their will and opinion onto the general populace, opening the door towards future referenda and further conflict. A YES vote will allow for further debate between the two sides, and it leaves the possibility of a future in which both sides will come to an understanding.
