Arci Caccia's point of view
Arci Caccia Piemonte writes to the Assessors for Agriculture Food Hunting and Fishing Marco PROTOPAPA, to the Assessor for Health. Dr. Luigi Genesio ICARDI and the PSA Extraordinary Commissioner Dr. Vincenzo CAPUTO by asking a simple question: Do we want to eradicate PSA or the hunting activity?
Current emergency
This is the text: More than a year later we are still forced to deal with the problems linked to the PSA emergency and the negative effects affecting our territory and deriving from its insistence as well as from the measures aimed at its eradication. Precisely on the latter this Hunting Association intends to dwell in the awareness of being the representative of a category with interests and in the belief that each of the actors in the affair - stakeholders and institutional bodies - must do their part. In consideration of the great discontent, confusion and discouragement spreading within the hunting world of lower Piedmont and in the light of the news, albeit "unofficial" leaking out from regional and provincial circles which fear a new "crushing" of the various human activities in the restricted areas , it is considered most appropriate to externalize our considerations to the competent institutional bodies also due to the contents of the report of the GOE - Operational Group of Experts - drawn up in January Us
Herds of wild boar
For this purpose it is intended to underline how in the GOE report, hunting activity in general and therefore also that directed towards other species is seen as a source of disturbance on the movement dynamics of wild boar herds and as a possible factor in the spread of the virus to the point of expressing an unfavorable opinion on the possibility of practicing it by reporting the following wording: "Besides this, the group does not exclude that the worsening of the current regional epidemiological situation can be ascribed precisely to the hunting activity that is being carried out on the regional territory. ” In premising that between "does not exclude" and any "it is probable", "it is absolutely certain" and "it is scientifically proven" there are several intermediate steps, it is considered appropriate to introduce the following points of reflection on which institutions are requested to direction to carry out the necessary evaluations.
Withdrawal numbers
– Planned wild boar hunting: on this point it is clear that this question needs specific treatment also in consideration of the fact that the numerical data of the levies, where permitted, provide embarrassing reports which lead us to believe that a containment and numerical reduction of the species can only take place using this type of hunting. There are several proposals that have reached the institutional tables, in some cases very detailed with even the provision of certain rules of engagement and therefore any further point of argument is considered superfluous. On the other hand, it seems to be affirmable without great fears of denial that the increase in cases recorded in the last period is attributable more to the restrictions imposed than to the hunting activity, which in practice did not take place, with a consequent increase in populations and subsequently in the number of infectable subjects.
– Hunting towards other species: The unfavorable attitude towards the hunting activity directed towards other species since the beginning has been concentrated on two key points:
– 1) disturbance caused by wandering on the territory and such as to induce the movements of the herds of wild boars
– 2) possible dispersion and further diffusion of infected traces on the ground or their transfer to unharmed areas
Forms of hunting
With regard to point one and on the basis of decades of experience, gained in traveling thousands of km in the woods, which is not considered refutable by any scientific method, we allow ourselves to highlight how the assumption is devoid of any foundation and precisely in consideration of the conformation of the area of interest. The forms of hunting aimed at other species other than the wild boar do not disturb the latter in the least, inducing it to carry out significant movements and whoever claims the contrary is lying knowing that they are lying. A single wild boar or a herd, disturbed in its daytime sleep by a pointing dog or some tracking dogs on the hare's head, can move a few hundred meters to stop at the first fort or bush which, in our territories abandoned by the forestry, now constitute the predominant vegetation. Not to mention the alleged disturbance induced by the shot, often even useless to move the wild boars from their daytime shelters. On the other hand, and as repeatedly stated, herds of wild boars carry out large movements of tens of kilometers for their ordinary biological purposes (search for food and water, mating, escape from wolves which often cause them to change area with their constant presence). It goes without saying that once again considerations of a general nature do not prove to be appropriate to the specificity of the area to which they are claimed to be applied and such is the evidence of what is deduced a contrariis that any further argument is considered superfluous.
The role of hunters
With regard to point two, it is necessary to carry out some considerations of a purely logical nature given that it is quite evident that the conclusions which are reached starting from the same assumptions risk becoming totally divergent depending on the approach method which is sometimes perceived too permeated by opposing ideologies. These considerations apply both to hunting aimed at other species and to all activities in the Outdoor world which in 2022 had been subject to bans which were then progressively, and we may add, wisely waived. It is precisely this wisdom demonstrated in the past year that the institutions concerned are asked to draw on by carrying out a scrupulous evaluation of the considerations set out below.
When it is argued that a hunter, who roams the area with his dog, can intercept an infected trace and spread it over the area, the evaluation of another much more important factor is omitted; the woods and fields crossed by the man and his dog are populated at night by a multitude of animals (hedgehogs, stone martens, foxes, badgers, hares, mini-hares and rabbits, porcupines, golden jackals and wolves, roe deer, fallow deer and red deer, not to mention of birds), which weaves a dense network of movements with the ability to intersect infected traces and spread them thousands of times higher. What control do we have over these natural dynamics? NOBODY. While for humans we have introduced biosecurity rules. As far as the feared risk that hunters transport the virus to unscathed areas is concerned, it is believed that given the extension of the area concerned, this eventuality would be averted in a way that is as simple as it is easily achievable by resorting to the introduction of limitations similar to those at the time provided for the collection of truffles.
Finally, taking up a passage from the Goe's report on the need to ban hunting in the ludic/recreational component, tolerating it at most only in the forms pertaining to the aim of eradicating the Psa, the objection is that if it is true as it is true that one of the most effective activities eradication consists in monitoring, research and removal of carcasses, then the wandering hunt for small game can easily be considered not only useful but even indispensable, a place that only hunters know and scour the most inaccessible ravines of our territory, like it or not.
Cost/benefit analysis
At this point, it is believed that each point evaluation cannot be separated from a careful cost/benefit analysis. Reintroducing the restrictions on hunting would have a very high cost both in economic terms and in irrecoverable loss of a wealth of human and dog experiences, compared to a benefit, in the light of the above, impalpable and totally irrelevant. Just think of the foreseeable failure of economic activities such as armories and wildlife hunting companies on which many families live as well as the cessation of hunting activity of a significant part of the practitioners which will make it impossible for any wildlife management in the very short term. Why expose yourself to so many costs, certain and absolutely predictable, in the face of a marginal benefit that is not even remotely appreciable? But above all who will answer for all this? We certainly believe that those who express aseptic unfavorable opinions will not be called upon to do so by slavishly abiding by European protocols which have been contested from the outset because they immediately appeared as calibrated to totally different realities from ours.
A further effort is therefore urgently needed to which our Association and the hunting world in general will be able to give, when called upon to do so, their own contribution but with the condition that the doubt that within "hunting" is becoming galloping: Do you want to eradicate ASF or hunting activity? (source: Arci Caccia).