A poorly addressed bill
In Italy, unlike other countries in Europe and around the world, we are unable to seriously and thoughtfully discuss the protection and management of the environment and wildlife, as closely related to hunting. We thought that the end of the referendum, rejected by the Italian people, and the approval of Law 157 in 1992 had drawn a clear line between ideology and rationality. Unfortunately, we must change our minds. The right and the government, which presented a bill tainted by propaganda and misguided by privatization, have sparked a new row, sparking conflict. There was no need to even base the discussion—which, 30 years after the law's approval, was absolutely necessary—on technically and scientifically irrefutable evidence derived from the report on the law's implementation, which the law itself required.
The favorite terrain of animal rights activists
Wildlife management is a serious matter and cannot be improvised through emotional and impulsive campaigns, which are the favorite terrain of our country's animal rights activists. They are now accompanied, regrettably, by environmentalist associations that have passively followed suit, losing their unique ideals based on scientific evidence. Social hunting and the role of the hunter are now under attack. From a bioregulator and a positive protagonist in biodiversity management, they are now portrayed as a destroyer of nature belonging to a bloodthirsty and violent lobby. And there are even those, such as those on the right, who would like to relegate them to mere paying consumers of privately organized activities. We are not in agreement. We have expressed our willingness to discuss how to improve Law 157, offering our knowledge and expertise, but starting from the assumption that the public hunting system should not be touched. A system based on the principle of wildlife as a common good, the State's inalienable heritage, on the maintenance of Article 842 of the Civil Code, and on land use planning, recognizing the balancing role of hunting.
Question of amendments
In the Senate, on the other hand, where the debate on the right-wing forces' ugly reform bill will begin, thousands of obstructive amendments have been submitted by the opposition. It's no surprise that they were submitted by senators from the Five Star Movement and AVS. We know their anti-hunting animosity, coupled with their inability to address the country's broader interests. What's unbearable is that, despite being supported by substantive amendments, the Democratic Party has also fallen into the prejudicial fray, thus betraying its electoral platform, which we at Arcicaccia had agreed to, while respecting the organizations' autonomy. These amendments, accompanied by public statements, are rejected because they identify hunters as intent on using biodiversity and wildlife as their own personal playground, with no respect for anyone or anything.
A battle of truth
Words are like boulders, if misused, and betray cultural shifts, at least among some within the Democratic Party. We will address these shifts to our hunters everywhere, to spark reaction and dissent, given the well-known progressive sensibilities of many of our members. Furthermore, in recent months we have sought contacts and dialogue that have been ignored by the leadership. We, however, will not give up; we will continue the fight for truth and work to defeat opposing extremism, which is so detrimental to the environment and to popular and sustainable hunting (source: Arci Caccia).
You May Also Like ..
