The intervention of Arci Caccia
The XII Commission of the Chamber of Deputies sent the following Bills to the Hunting Associations:
Dear XII Agriculture Commission of the Chamber of Deputies.
With regard to the request for a written opinion, sent with your note dated 26/7/23, the following is highlighted:
Proposal number 136 signed by Bruzzone and others.
It should be noted that some passages are already contained in the National Wildlife Control Plan. Furthermore, the impact assessment is required only for the Regions that do not have the wildlife plans approved on the subject (the competent Ministry has already expressed itself in a circular with a note sent to the Regions).
Proposal no. 608 Vaccari and others
It should be noted that some passages are already contained in the National Wildlife Control Plan. As regards the part relating to direct interventions by farmers, some Regions have already regulated the issue of "self-defence". In this regard, contradictions are found with the interventions of the same nature implemented simultaneously by the ATC and the Regions, always in the context of activities attributable to control and not to hunting.
We fully agree with the proposal to exclude from the scope of the legislation on "de minimis" state aid for farms compensated for damage from wildlife.
We highlight how the proposed legislative path for the elaboration of the measures referred to in art. 2 can constitute a valid and respectful path for everyone's participation in order to avoid errors that would lead to the ineffectiveness of the measures taken.
Proposal no. 1002 Regional Council of Friuli Venezia Giulia
The content seems completely superseded by the National Wildlife Control Plan for which the Regions have 180 days from the date of approval for the adaptation measures.
Proposal 167
We believe that the transfer of functions from the State to the Regions is out of our line of interest as a purely legal matter with strong implications also at the Community level.
Proposal 568 Loggerhead
It should be noted that some regions have already set up and make use of regional observatories in their activity, therefore in principle any structure dedicated to increasing the wealth of scientifically relevant data to support the decisions of the competent institutions should be considered positive. But we recognize that the proposed wording risks generating confusion and overlapping of competences with ISPRA which maintains, and in our opinion today it could not be otherwise for the existing legislative and constitutional complex, a coordination role.
We wonder:
How is this role exercised?
Who expresses the mandatory even if not binding opinions on topics of hunting interest that are certainly the subject of ISPRA's coordination action?
General consideration:
A large part of the above proposals, in addition to being superseded by the regulations subsequently adopted, take their cue, even in a commendable way, from the need to react to an emergency that is taking place in the country relating to the management of "harmful or invasive" species and today, also to the health emergency, with the spread of the African swine fever, all without dealing in a complete way with the complex set of rules and competences on the subject, already consolidated, with the risk of creating difficult situations or even blocking the activities . As happened for the modification to the art. 19 of Law 152/97 hastily introduced, which then required the approval of the subsequent Plan.
You May Also Like ..
We therefore forcefully reiterate that it is essential to also implement paths that can disregard the word "extraordinary" in order to organically develop an ordinary, modern and efficient system for managing longer-term problems.
We also highlight that many of the activities covered by the proposals sent presuppose monitoring campaigns and the collection of data that need funding, and here too a general strategy, which cannot be resolved with the volunteering of hunters.
From the complex of proposals that we have analyzed and from the current debate in general, it should be clear that we are almost always talking about control interventions and not hunting interventions in which figures have been created that can be traced back to the hunting world and beyond, whose vagueness of classification, to date worries us, we go from professional hunters to bioregulators, all accompanied by adequate training courses that are the most diverse in the area, even with different costs and training programs. Also in this field it will be necessary not to generate confusion.
The need for a debate
In some proposals the will emerges for an important transfer of competences from the State to the Regions, here too we register little clarity. the set of rules existing since The recent constitutional amendment of articles 9 and 41 have also reaffirmed the role of the State on the topics of interest of the above provisions, especially in the field of biodiversity and huntable species, as can also be seen from the set of European regulations, we believe that each process of regionalization or placement in another channel of the above functions should be carefully evaluated.
With these brief considerations, also given the limited time, in addition to the specific themes, we urge the opening of an overall debate that sees the general themes of hunting management framed in the general framework of land management in a non-emergency but perspective key. To do this it will also be necessary to decide the places and times of this confrontation which will necessarily have to ensure pluralism and representation for all the actors involved as well as the correct institutional framework.
