Annie get your gun, spring hunting is fun

The well-funded hunters’ Yes campaign appears to be cynical and surreal to an extent that it sometimes verges on the hilarious – ever since Judge Giovanni Bonello shot down the FKNK’s claim that the spring hunting referendum threatens a number of hobbies, the hunters have resorted to a positive campaign that is almost reminiscent of the national electoral campaigns of our recent past.  

Make-up artists were hired to cover up the dark spots of the gun-toting community. Gone are the weathered faces of the camouflaged men. Man-the-hunter gave way to refined, educated and articulate women who stepped in to give a presentable front to a campaign that is supposed to protect ‘the tradition’. It was in fact lawyer Kathleen Grima who announced that hunters would not boycott the spring hunting referendum.

The FKNK’s own emblem now seems passé and outdated. The picture of the man approaching a tree, accompanied by his loyal dog and weapon, is a thing of the past. It suddenly dawned on us that a community of 12,000 hunters and 4,000 trappers may actually double in number. The hunters’ federation is no longer patriarchal and patronising. Lo and behold, the federation has suddenly caught up with the feminist era. 

So women are encouraged to put up RTO signs and polish their barrel. They may soon apply for licences to compete for scarce hunting posts in the areas under FKNK control. I wonder how man-the-hunter feels when he has to compete with the women who were roped in to nurture the notion that hunters’ rights and privileges should remain intact. 

The IVA campaign is trying to give a soft and palatable image to the hunting lobby. They know they will never persuade some electors to vote Yes, but if citizens perceive them as a harmless law-abiding group, some may not bother to walk to the ballot box on April 11. The No campaigners need more than half of the votes to be able to abrogate the spring hunting derogation.

Hunters believe that the No camp (constituted of NGOs, media personalities and uncoordinated sympathisers) does not garner massive support. They are betting their odds that people may sometimes pay lip service to the environment but that in fact, as polls sometimes reveal, environmental issues do not often feature among the priorities of the Maltese. 

While the FKNK is giving the impression that Maltese culture has bred an army of wannabe gun-toting Annies, they also organise activities that are aimed to reinforce the benevolent and ‘conservationist’ nature of hunters. In this “war,” seven skilled construction workers (men) went on a trip to build a school in Ethiopia for Fr Gorg Grima’s Moviment Gesu fil-Proxxmu.

The fact that the men on this mission chose to assert their identity as hunters over their identity as Christians (and tradesmen) tends to speak volumes. While this does not diminish the value of their contribution, their tactic may not counter-balance the significance of Archbishop Charles Scicluna’s opposition to spring hunting.  

Then there are the various clean-ups, the restoration work and tree planting which seem to be given ample visibility. And it is not merely the two political parties that are blowing wind into their sails. Even Zaren tal-Ajkla joined the bandwagon. He appeared on Xarabank to proclaim his backing for hunters and to advertise a “mass meeting” in their support.

While the Iva website is still under construction, the new poster that was published by the Yes camp may in fact be mistaken for an advert for the No campaigners: A well-groomed happy family enjoying a nice sunny day in the lush green ourdoors. It is in fact the No campaigners are arguing that abolishing spring hunting will enable Maltese families to reclaim the beautiful but diminishing Maltese countryside.

The poster exalts the joys of a family day out on a warm spring day. At no point does the poster link its visual text with hunters and their paraphernalia. The hunting lobby’s make-up artists are not that stupid to believe that voters are gullible and ignorant about what takes place in our countryside during the hunting season. 

The poster may however confuse people who may not have a clear idea what Yes and No stand for. In the process, it may obscure what both camps represent and so this part of the campaign may actually misfire.

Voters are not passive idiots. The images which the FKNK is suddenly trying to project seem rather hollow and artificial. Many of us have long made up our mind on the hunting issue since this has long been a passionate issue, which has been brewing for decades. The black spots on the face of the hunting community cannot be easily concealed and forgotten. 

Polls show there is still some time left for Shout campaigners to get the vote out. It might as well turn out that the expensive but artificial hunters’ campaign may actually convince people that No is the way forward. It has long been known that the effect of a campaign does not merely depend on its message, but also on the reputation of the source of the message. The public now needs to decide whether it can afford to believe the hunting lobby’s slick new image.