A bad habit
The brawl over regional hunting calendars, which has now become a bad habit, is confirming a series of assessments that we have already made in the past and that are now worth revisiting, just to refresh everyone's memory, both ours and that of the reader. The first: as much as the Regions can argue the deviations from the Ispra opinion, this year too almost all TARs has shown that the opinion itself is almost insurmountable. In short, in practice it has been transformed from mandatory which it is – in the sense that the Regions, according to the law, must necessarily request it – into substantially binding: if you deviate, bad Region and destructive of your wildlife heritage, I will scold you with the suspension and then we'll see. The second: the presidents of the TAR who decree with their own act the suspension of the regional provisions (this year the price paid above all was the pre-openings for the wild turtle dove, but also the general opening, see Lombardy), clearly demonstrate a Pilate-like attitude: faced with the trite threat feared by the recurring associations of "serious and irreparable damage to the wildlife heritage", first of all to avoid being held jointly responsible for the alleged devastation, they suspend hunting and then, this time too, we'll see. So what do you want it to be if the hunters have to stay at the stake for a couple more weeks? Then they will be able to hunt until January.
Protection of wildlife
English: It is a pity, however, that taxes to the State and the Regions were paid for the entire hunting season, as much as the ATC registration fees and not for reduced durations and deducted by the axe of administrative justice. Also assuming that early closures are not imposed in January as well. The third: the protection of wild fauna, as a slice of the broader exclusive state competence on the protection of nature and the ecosystem, is today clearly outlined as completely prevalent compared to the legitimate expectations of citizen-hunters whose interests, although they carry out a legal activity, recede because they do not coincide with the general interest which is, precisely, the protection of nature. So far, as we said, nothing new. However, there are some new developments in the current 2024, which, if nothing else, allow us to make further reflections and who knows, they may be useful to those who decide. The first is that the opinion of the National Wildlife-Hunting Technical Committee, introduced with the latest changes to art. 18 of Law 157/92 and which the Regions had to request for the first time, has so far proven to be an unnecessary burden on procedures.
No more farces
It is true that we are stuck at the precautionary phase for all appeals, so we will have to wait for the merit phases (which lead to a sentence) to understand more: however, it is undoubted that up to now, in the suspension game, the TAR have given the additional opinion of the CTFVN approximately the value of the famous "two of spades". The only scientifically supported opinion, therefore the only one to be taken into consideration, has so far been considered that of Ispra. The second novelty also derives from a very recent change in state law and is that rule introduced again in art. 18, which requires the TAR, where they have accepted the precautionary request, to set the hearing on the merits within 30 days of the filing of the suspension order. This rule will prevent us from witnessing again the farce that has happened many times, for which the judgment on the merits arrived after the hunting season had ended and, therefore, was completely irrelevant because the hunting calendar was no longer in force.
After the damage comes the insult
In a word: after the damage, the mockery. The third novelty, finally, is not yet there and is therefore a hope, namely that in the decision-making phase of merit, which will culminate in the sentences, the TAR will want to be less hasty than in the precautionary phase, thanks to an investigation attentive to the briefs filed by the administrations that adopt the calendars, i.e. the Regions, as well as those that will be formalized by the hunting associations that will deem it appropriate to constitute themselves as opponents alongside the Regions. The new course, which did not begin with the opinions of Ispra and the CTFVN, nor with the precautionary phases, we hope instead that it will blossom on the merits, which will then set jurisprudence for the years to come. Good luck! (source: ANUU).