Clarification needed
In recent days, we've witnessed yet another information short circuit on social media: dozens of viral posts promise all Tuscan landowners a "magic formula" to ban hunters from their land. All it takes is a form downloaded from the internet, a couple of haphazardly inserted ethical or environmental reasons, and the job's done—all without spending a cent on fencing the land.
Be careful, though: this is yet another case of misinformation driven by animal rights propaganda.
Selling easy illusions generates shares and "likes," but inevitably hits a wall of regulatory reality. Reading the official text of the Regional Wildlife and Hunting Plan (PFVR), approved by the Regional Council of Tuscany, the story is entirely different: the law imposes strict rules that render photocopied forms circulated online unusable.
Anatomy of Disinformation: The Tale of the "Easy Module"
The narrative spread by certain propaganda relies on emotion: it leads citizens to believe that simply expressing their ethical disagreement with hunting or mentioning the protection of wildlife and agritourism in general terms will result in the Region excluding their land from hunting programs.
This approach deliberately omits the technical details required by law, creating the illusion that land exclusion is an unconditional right exercisable by anyone who owns even a small plot of land or a garden in the countryside.
The reality of the facts, defined by art. 25 of Regional Law 3/94 and art. 44 of Prime Ministerial Decree 36/R/2022, requires a completely different procedure.
The 2 real (and mandatory) requirements provided by the law
For the Regional Council to consider a request to remove the land from the scheduled hunting season, one of these two conditions must be met:
1. The restriction of the 200 hectares merged
As stated in the text of the Wildlife Plan approved by the council and as far as we know not modified by the council on this point:
"Area of land of sufficient size and environmental characteristics to effectively support wildlife protection and conservation, and no less than 200 hectares combined. This extension may be achieved through the participation of land belonging to neighboring owners and tenants."
Owners of small or medium-sized plots cannot make any independent requests. To do so, they would have to join forces with all their neighbors to reach a huge contiguous area: a full 200 hectares (equivalent to approximately 280 soccer fields). Without this extension, personal ethical reasons are worthless before the Commission.
2. Experimental programs with public funding
The only alternative contemplated by the law concerns:
“areas of land on which experimental breeding and cultivation programs are conducted, implemented with public funding for the purposes of scientific research and technological innovation.”
Therefore, simply carrying out agricultural or agritourism activities is not enough: a real, formal scientific or technological research project is needed, supported and recognized by public funds.
Bureaucracy and technical costs:
The misinformation also ignores the complex technical documentation required. The application isn't presented with a simple signature at the bottom of a printed sheet of paper, but requires:
Legally available securities of the fund;
Detailed land registry extract with all land registers;
Vector GIS data (shapefiles) for digital boundary mapping;
Certified technical report certifying formal compliance with the legal provisions (the 200 hectares or public research funding).
Submitting a form without a GIS shapefile or a technical report certifying the 200 hectares merged means only one thing: the application will be immediately dismissed due to inadmissibility.
The application, as per the recent amendment to art. 25 of regional law 3/94, must then be submitted exclusively via an online form made available on the Region's institutional website.
The harm of propaganda and real alternatives
Feeding this type of misinformation produces a triple damage:
It deceives citizens, making them believe that they can block hunting on their land with a signature.
It clogs up regional offices with applications that will be systematically rejected.
It triggers unnecessary friction between owners and hunters based on completely incorrect information.
Anyone who truly wishes to remove private land from hunting, regardless of its size and without having to depend on the five-year deadlines of the Wildlife Plan, has the tool provided for by Article 842 of the Civil Code: perimeter fencing and the establishment of a closed hunting reserve. Everything else is just social media propaganda (source: AB – Agrivenatoria Biodiversitalia).
You May Also Like ..
