Political controversy
We report below today's speech by Francesco Lollobrigida, Minister of Agriculture, regarding the question presented by the Honourable Zanella on reform of Law 157 of 1992: “I would like to clarify that the rumors circulating in some newspapers, to which the questioner refers, are not supported by the final text of the legislative proposal. This suggests that the aim was only to fuel political controversy, based on unverified information, and to offer a prejudicial view of the Government's action. The Ministry acted on the specific instructions of numerous municipal councils, five regional councils, the Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces and, in particular, on the basis of a policy act of the Italian Parliament which, in the last legislature, approved a report that explicitly committed the Government to review the regulatory framework starting from law no. 157 of 1992. This is the “case assigned on damage caused to agriculture by the excessive presence of wild fauna” act no. 337, examined by the Agriculture Commission of the Senate of the Republic”.
21 specific indications
"The act approved by the competent parliamentary bodies without any dissenting votes, was composed of 21 specific indications, many of which were incorporated into the text of the bill. For completeness of information, on the basis of the same guidelines, the then Minister Patuanelli gave a favorable opinion to 15 of the 21 points, deferring to the opinion of the Commission for the remaining 6, which were approved in full, I repeat, without any dissenting votes. With respect to a commitment from Parliament, the Government must act consequentially, and this is why it is my intention to inform the Council of Ministers of what has been developed and to provide all political forces with the possibility of updating law 157 of 1992, containing provisions for the protection of homeothermic wild fauna and for hunting, as proposed by them".
The reasons for the acceleration
“The reasons that led us to speed up the preparation of the bill are those cited in the act approved by the Senate; the uncontrolled spread of wild fauna produces:
Ecological and environmental damage resulting from ecosystem alterations that cause imbalances between species;
Health risks due to the spread of epizootics such as African swine fever (ASF);
Damage to agricultural activity resulting from the excessive presence of wild fauna, especially ungulates such as wild boars, which makes the exercise of agricultural activity itself difficult;
Civil and social problems arising from the management of compensation actions against breeders and farmers damaged by wild fauna;
Danger to public safety due to the occurrence of road accidents, even fatal ones.
Entering into the context of the controversy, and then leaving Parliament the possibility of discussing the merits of the article, it is obviously useful to dispel some doubts.
Denials galore
“It is not true that the expansion of the species that can be used in hunting practice as “live decoys” is foreseen. The species that can be used remain those permitted by current legislation. It is not true that there are changes in the merits regarding the “roccoli”, or, better said, capture facilities, but only the competences of the various levels of government are being intervened in order to make them consistent with the changes that have occurred in the institutional structures following the revision of Title V of the Constitution and the approval of the Delrio Law. It is not true that hunting is permitted in maritime state-owned areas, much less in those frequented for recreational or hiking purposes. Saying that hunting will be possible on the beach is simply fake news!”.
The parliamentary process
"It is not true that the times in which hunting can be carried out are being changed. On the contrary, interventions will be planned that, even in the face of climate change, will make it more flexible to draw up hunting calendars based on updated and coherent scientific elements that are respectful of the management of wildlife heritage. Obviously, the text cannot correspond to principles that are contrary to constitutional norms and I want to point out that they are fully compliant with European dictates. This text is the result of a discussion with the competent ministry. Our democratic model provides for a parliamentary process and there will be a broad discussion in Parliament with associations of all kinds that I do not exclude even as a ministry with environmental, animal rights, scientific hunting associations and all others involved in the reform of 157 that we intend to carry forward".
You May Also Like ..
