A series of controversies
Arci Caccia Lombardia wishes to clarify the Association's position regarding the issue of mountain passes , the subject of a specific resolution presented to the Regional Council on September 23, which sparked a "spirited" protest from the minority that occupied the Presidency benches, resulting in a series of controversies. A brief summary: the ruling of the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy, appealed before the Council of State, forced the Lombardy Region to impose a hunting ban on 475 identified mountain passes in the region. This ban severely limits the region's exclusively mountainous territory, preventing approximately 20.000 hunters from engaging in any hunting activity. Arci Caccia Lombardia, along with other hunting associations, participated in the appeal, believing the ruling to be inconsistent with European Directives, lacking scientific criteria, and significantly penalizing hunting.
Incorrect reconstructions
The approval of the Mountain Law (Provisions for the Recognition and Promotion of Mountain Areas), through Article 15, clarifies and better defines the institution, already present in Law 157/92 (unique in European hunting legislation), of mountain passes closed to hunting. Contrary to the reconstruction put forward by animal rights groups, this does not constitute a green light for what is called "wild hunting," but rather a better objective interpretation of the orographic characteristics of a pass and the quantification of migratory flows that may pass through it. To better understand the overall picture, it is useful to remember that European directives do not provide for an outright hunting ban on migratory routes, but rather clearly defined protection rules for specific areas, resulting in consistent criteria for the protection of migratory species, such as Special Protection Areas. It is also worth noting that today hunters are subject to bag limits based on species and hunting day, meaning there is no difference between animals shot in the plains and those shot near a mountain pass, even in the presence of high migratory flows.
The clarifications
The approval of this new law, following its publication in the Official Journal, could not have been immediately implemented in the Lombardy Region without a specific bridging resolution which, as provided for in the specific article, with the necessary amendments, would have brought the status quo back to the 2023/24 hunting season. Specifically, 23 border crossings were officially recognized by the Regional Council in resolution no. XII/53 of July 27, 2023, pending, as stated in the law article, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture's 180-day determination of the border crossings affected by migratory flows to be subject to the conditions established for Special Protection Zones. It is argued that in order to expedite the institutional approval process for the resolution, the conditions set out in the regulations were not met (the emergency procedure requires the text to be provided to the committee members at least 24 hours before the meeting) and that, had this occurred, it would have resulted in a maximum delay of one day in the vote in the chamber. Therefore, it would be a position of principle that involves a forcing that, in the future, could be used for any other provision concerning citizens.
Instrumentalized act
Given the above, the minority councilors, particularly those from the Democratic Party group, were aware of the issues related to the border crossings and of the urgent requests from the local area, duly justified, even before initiating the approval process for the resolution. A detailed communication was sent to them on September 14, explaining the reasons for the resolution and the subsequent process. So, why exploit this act with the border crossing resolution? Aren't there other methods, if deemed necessary, to obstruct? Occupy the Presidency benches for a measure on hunting? And then we would like to know what the official position of the Democratic Party is/was regarding the resolution reopening the "border crossings" unexpectedly indicated by ISPRA, because, from the tangle of press releases, this is not apparent. Why then do some councilors continue to assert in press releases that this resolution "allows hunters to hunt at the border crossings where migratory flocks pass," demonstrating a failure to understand the reality of the situation? Yet, among Lombardy's hunters, there aren't exclusively center-right voters! Where is the attention paid to the territories and the demands coming from the mountain areas they want to protect?
Appeal to the Democratic Party
We also recall that in Lombardy, over thirty years of center-right government, hunting has taken significant steps backward, starting with the failure to fully implement Framework Law 157/92, not to mention the Wildlife Hunting Plan, which, since the approval of Law 26/1993, is still in its infancy. Arci Caccia Lombardia dissociates itself from the positions expressed by the center-left during the Regional Council on September 23, increasingly concerned by the "animal rights" drift of the Democratic Party, which, in our opinion, should be much more sensitive to the needs of non-metropolitan areas. Otherwise, it should be explicitly stated that hunting, understood as always by this association as the management of wildlife and the environment, is not part of the party's programs. Everything would be much clearer.
You May Also Like ..
