Animalist winks
In recent days, the Capellino Foundation , which de facto owns famous dog and pet food brands, has been wreaking havoc with its anti-hunting campaign. The campaign is accompanied by a dossier highlighting all the ills of hunting, which is nothing more than a collage of all the now-hackneyed hoaxes that the anti-hunting information system has long used to discredit hunting and hunters. It is, however, a clear economic initiative that winks at the animal rights movement, which is more willing than hunters to spend enormous sums on products linked to the Foundation. It is clear that the context of the proposed reform of Law 157 and the disproportionate reaction it has caused at all levels are also based on false and flawed analyses. An ancient Latin saying goes, "qui prodest" (who benefits)? Who benefits from all this? Certainly not to hunters, or at least not to all of them. In fact, I firmly believe that a segment of the hunting and farming community will attempt, in this climate of feral conflict, to completely demolish social and public hunting in our country, in the name of a new and rediscovered path of harmony between civil society and hunting. This is the real issue at stake; this is what we are discussing, perhaps unconsciously for many. The Capellino Foundation's campaign and the positive comments it receives serve this purpose.
The heart of tradition
Even the proposed amendment currently being discussed in Parliament contains the seeds of this process (for example, introducing profit-making in game management, and the attack on the ATC by providing for national appointments to committees such as that of the ENCI). The real attack, therefore, lies at the heart of Italian hunting tradition and culture, which, today, is instead summarized in a balanced manner by Law 157. Is the reference model similar to Northern European systems? Is it expanding in terms of the number of practitioners? The numbers need to be examined in more detail. For example, today in Germany, with 90.000.000 million inhabitants and three times the size of Italy, and with state-owned lands 10 times larger than ours, there are as many hunters as in Italy. Anyone who thinks this is right and natural should contribute to the ongoing debate and make this clear to hunters and the public. One thing, however—let's not talk about modernity—is the hunting model in vogue from the Middle Ages until at least the 900s. Article 842 of the Civil Code is often cited as if it were merely a favor to hunting. A careful analysis must necessarily place it within a peculiarity of the Italian legal system. Following the recent disintegration of large estates in Italy, which occurred in the last century, this led to a fragmentation of private agricultural property unprecedented in Europe.
Article 842
There was, therefore, a need to safeguard a series of land use practices that risked being undermined by the sudden rise of private property. Consider, for example, the network of private roads and paths, whose public use is protected by law, or the uniquely Italian system of easements of way that protect access to land regardless of ownership. We say this not to show that we at Arci Caccia also study, but to demonstrate that the attack on Law 842 carries with it a logic that will generally compromise the public use of private land, a valued value to many, not just hunters, whom attentive politicians of the past had recognized and safeguarded. Arci Caccia, however, cherishes this quintessential Italian culture and model, which it does not consider nostalgic. We do not want to accept that hunting, if done by a few who pay a lot, is acceptable, modern, and sustainable, while if done by everyone, within a system of public regulations, it is anachronistic. In this way, mediation between the various interests is entrusted to money, not to people and their mutual engagement. Many Italians have spent their lives fighting this principle; we are still the same, as hunters and as citizens (Christian Maffei – National President of Arci Caccia).
You May Also Like ..
