The regional agricultural, forestry, and pastoral territory designated for scheduled hunting in designated hunting areas must be divided into sub-provincial areas, preferably homogeneous and delimited by natural boundaries. Therefore, the provision of a single regional area conflicts with national regulations on the hunting of migratory species. For this reason, the Constitutional Court, in its ruling No. 142 of June 20, 2013, declared the 2004 Abruzzo regional law, "Organic regulations for the exercise of hunting activities, the protection of warm-blooded wild fauna, and the protection of the environment," unconstitutional. The question of its legitimacy was raised during an administrative proceeding regarding the 2011-2012 hunting calendar in Abruzzo. Several environmental associations have challenged the legitimacy of the regional acts that approved it, because they failed to comply with a contrary recommendation from the Higher Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA). Because, since the hunting calendar merely implements regional provisions, these conflict with state legislation.
The provisions, in fact, establish a single regional compartment rather than sub-provincial ones. The single compartment for migratory fauna is provided for by regional law, which automatically entitles hunters registered with an Abruzzo territorial hunting area (ATC) or resident in the region to registration in the single compartment and regulates the permitted hunting days per week. Sub-provincial compartments, on the other hand, are provided for by national law (157/1992), which lays down the provisions for the protection of warm-blooded wildlife and for hunting. National law introduced the concept of a hunting area of "sub-provincial dimensions" precisely to ensure the natural homogeneity of hunting environments. In fact, it provides that the regions, with specific regulations, after consulting the most representative professional agricultural organizations at the national level and the interested provinces, divide the agricultural, forestry and pastoral territory intended for programmed hunting into hunting areas of sub-provincial dimensions, possibly homogeneous and delimited by natural boundaries (Article 14, paragraph 1 of Law 157/1992).
With this provision—as the Constitutional Court clarified in a 2000 ruling— the national legislator sought to strike a balance between the primary objective of adequately safeguarding the national wildlife heritage and the interest in hunting, through the provision of thorough hunting planning . From this perspective, enhancing the naturalistic homogeneity of the territories in which hunting takes place becomes crucial.
These characteristics must be adequately considered by the Regions when defining hunting zones. This is also because the key aspect, in the state legislator's design, is the creation of a close bond between the hunter and the territory in which he is authorized to hunt. Therefore, by reducing the size of the zones themselves, the state legislator sought to achieve a more balanced distribution of hunters across the territory , and by referring to natural boundaries, it sought to give specific importance—in terms of management, responsibility, and oversight of the proper conduct of hunting—to the local community, which is smaller and more closely tied, historically and environmentally, to the specific characteristics of the territory.
The provision for a single regional hunting area ignores these objectives. Indeed, it clearly conflicts with the national model, not only because of the failure to divide the entire regional territory into sub-provincial hunting areas, but also because of the failure to consider the environmental, naturalistic, and human characteristics inherent to individual territorial contexts.
2 July 2013
Source: GreenReport
You May Also Like ..
