On September 17, the Senate concluded its examination of the amendments to Bill 1552, reforming Law 157/92 on hunting, by the joint 8th Committee (Environment, Ecological Transition, Energy, Public Works, Communications, Technological Innovation) and 9th Committee (Industry, Trade, Tourism, Agriculture, and Agri-food Production). The bill will therefore follow the standard procedure: after the committee discussion and vote, it moves to the Senate. If approved, it moves to the Chamber of Deputies, where the process repeats. If the bill is amended, it must return to the Senate for approval, until both chambers approve the exact same bill. The bill is then promulgated by the President of the Republic and enters into force on the fifteenth day following its publication in the Official Journal . Timeframe? The Senate has juggled 2084 amendments, hearings, and consolidations with other previously submitted bills on wildlife. However, the Five Star Movement and the Democratic Party will undoubtedly obstruct the process in an attempt to block what is being considered—wrongly—an "unprecedented hunting deregulation." Most of the amendments come from the Five Star Movement, which has submitted over a thousand, while the Green Alliance and the Left have submitted more than 500, and the Democratic Party has submitted over 300. Meanwhile, Animalisti Italiani, ENPA, LAC, LAV, LNDC, and OIPA have submitted 53,000 signatures for the popular initiative bill " for the abolition of hunting, the protection of bears and wolves, the increase in protected areas, and the ban on hunters' entry onto private property ."
Since its first presentation, the reform ( our article here ) has generated a heated debate, especially political and ideological, with some "local" newspapers committed to promoting imaginative if not downright false interpretations. In response to an article like this, for example in Il Fatto Quotidiano , Elena Tubetti of Fratelli d'Italia, the bill's rapporteur, responded as follows: "The Senate is not discussing the possibility of shooting on beaches or at private resorts; poaching will not be encouraged in any way, and it will remain an illegal practice prosecuted by the authorities. In short, this law will not be the script of a horror film, as the author writes. The update of Law 157 of 92 was necessary precisely to better protect wildlife and regulate hunting, especially given the antiquated nature of the law, which fails to take into account the changing context after more than thirty years. Parliament is discussing it, fulfilling a commitment that Parliament itself had assigned to the Government in the previous legislature. The committees have heard all interested parties, following the rules dictated by the laws and the Constitution. Therefore, there will be a law that will continue to protect wildlife and better regulate hunting. It is legitimate to have one's own opinions, as well as to support them." The abolition of hunting, in Italy the right to express one's views is guaranteed, and it is legitimate to engage in activities to support one's positions. However, it is essential that no one attempt to cause unfounded alarm by publishing news that has nothing to do with the spirit and purpose of the law, much less with the facts. We trust in your cooperation to provide the public with accurate information, as objective as possible.
To better outline the evolving picture and the alignments, the hearings that took place before the summer are of particular interest.
Suggestions from the hunting and agricultural world
Hunting associations individually (Federcaccia, Enalcaccia, Arcicaccia, ANLC, ANUUMigratoristi, Cacciatori italiani, and Associazione Cacciatori Veneti), as well as the Joint Hunting World Control Room, the Hunting and Nature Committee, and the agricultural confederations (LiberiAgricoltori, Confagricoltura, Coldiretti, CIA-Agricoltori italiani, and Copagri) generally welcome the proposals, believing them to be more in line with hunters' needs and "modern" wildlife management. They also complain about an "anti-hunting disinformation campaign." They see agriculture and farmers as pivotal to the reconstruction of rural areas, with a deep understanding of local ecological balances. The UNA Foundation, which includes hunting, environmental, agricultural, and scientific bodies, shares the goal of updating regulations for integrated nature management and protection. Arcicaccia also makes some distinctions : it reiterates the centrality of safeguarding social and public hunting, its opposition to transforming Wildlife Hunting Companies into profit-making institutions and the widespread use of thermal imaging cameras and night vision goggles in selective hunting, with shared use under controlled conditions.
Turning to the bill's text in its entirety, regarding temporary capture and ringing (Articles 4 and 5) , ANLC suggests the use of microchips as an alternative to ring identification and proposes allowing the capture of birds for breeding purposes and for fairs and festivals. Regarding protected areas and state-owned maritime property (Article 6) , ANLC, Italian Hunters, and Confagricoltura contest the exclusion of state-owned maritime property from hunting planning, arguing that it would preclude the hunting of waterfowl in valley areas managed by hunters, and that regulations regarding distances already exist. The Veneto Hunters' Association proposes reintroducing state-owned areas into wildlife and hunting planning and reducing protected areas if they exceed established percentages. Federcaccia considers the provision regarding state-owned maritime property "superficial" and "should be eliminated," as it would block wildlife and hunting management along the coast. The Hunting World Control Room and Confagricoltura emphasize the need to clarify that the hunting ban on state-owned maritime property does not apply to valleys or other wetlands already subject to hunting management.
With regard to the proposed new structure of the territorial hunting areas (article 9) , the Italian Federation of Sporting Weapons and Sports Dog Disciplines (FIDASC) and ANUUMigratoristi propose to replace the ENCI representative with one of the sporting dog disciplines.
Regarding the Wildlife and Hunting Companies (AFV) and Agri-tourism and Hunting Companies (AATV) (Article 10), Confagricoltura and Federcaccia appreciate the changes aimed at enhancing the agricultural and tourism role of these companies and at creating an agri-food supply chain for game meat.
Regarding wildlife control (Articles 12 and 13) , Confagricoltura and LiberiAgricoltori advocate for a simple, efficient, and effective national system for compensation, based on uniform criteria and a principle of fair compensation. LiberiAgricoltori requests that this be seen not as aid, but as compensation, with simplified procedures for authorizing inspection and the marketing of slaughtered animals. It then emphasizes how the participation of farmers is essential, thanks to their in-depth knowledge of seasonal cycles and local ecological balances. The Province of Belluno, through Commander Oscar Da Rold, highlights the growing expertise of the hunting sector, particularly in the Alpine wildlife area, where selectors and inspectors, through specialized training, are becoming an invaluable resource for the Public Administration in monitoring wildlife populations. It also suggests legitimizing the use of weapons of calibers other than .22 by provincial police forces and services to increase the effectiveness of interventions. The government's special commissioner, Giovanni Filippini, also commented on the controls carried out by hunters during the swine fever emergency, explaining that the "depopulation" of wild boars, necessary to prevent the spread of swine fever, is carried out by hunters who are "experts and knowledgeable about the area," through controls carried out throughout the year, including within the parks.
General Simonetta De Guz, commander of the Forestry and Parks Protection Command , emphasizes the work of the Carabinieri Forestry Corps in protecting against biodiversity crimes and preventing environmental crimes and supports the direction of the law, which is intended to update the current regulatory framework by balancing the needs of protecting warm-blooded wildlife with sustainable management of hunting activities, recognizing that farmers and hunters contribute to ecosystem balance.
Regarding huntable species and hunting seasons (Article 11) , the ANLC suggests introducing a maximum of 15 days of scheduled hunting mobility throughout the country for migratory game, overcoming rules perceived as obsolete given the decline in hunters. Another proposal calls for 30 days of nationwide hunting mobility for migratory game.
Environmentalists against regardless
The environmental associations that intervened—ENPA, LIPU, Legambiente, WWF, and those that provided contributions like Bearsandothers, as well as 47 others, virtually all of them, that have developed a single document—expressed strong resistance , raising concerns about every aspect of the law and the threat of violations of European directives on the conservation of wild birds, for example, and Italy's international commitments. To clarify, this is the document's conclusion: "Bill 1552 does not modernize, but deregulates. It does not protect, but sells off. It does not balance, but imposes. It does not solve, but increases problems. The Italian Parliament has the historic responsibility of rejecting a bill that undermines the foundations of coexistence between humans and nature, compromises the future of biodiversity, and creates dangerous loopholes in our legal system."
Bearsandothers – Animali Liberi ODV, a recent activist movement for the protection of wildlife, particularly bears , considers the renaming and scope of the law (from "protection" to "management and protection"; Article 1) absurd, as humans are part of nature and should not assume the role of regulator. LIPU and Legambiente maintain that hunting is a private recreational activity, not a scientific tool or one of public interest for conservation . Legambiente also complains that the environmental and scientific worlds have not been involved. Bearsandothers deems the opening of inspections to agricultural operators "barbaric," calling for a strengthening of the veterinary system and judicial police units. LIPU points out that entrusting inspections to armed private individuals, including security guards, is already the subject of European infringement procedures and leads to a "privatization and arming" that creates conflicts of interest and does not solve the problem.
LIPU states that trapping birds with nets is prohibited by the Birds Directive and that the bill does not mention the necessary exemptions. Furthermore, it emphasizes that live decoys are a source of disease transmission (for example, avian influenza) and are linked to illegal trafficking.
LIPU also denounces the elimination of the maximum limit for the first ten days of February and the dilution of the binding opinion of ISPRA (Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) as a violation of the Birds Directive (pre-nuptial migration). Bearsandothers fears an "uncontrolled liberalization" of calendars.
LIPU views the (supposed) expansion of hunting zones as a "direct threat" to wildlife and public safety , reducing protected areas and violating European commitments to extend protected areas to 30% of the territory. It criticizes the view of protected areas as "disturbing factors" and the possibility of hunting near areas frequented by hikers.
Bearsandothers sees the expansion of ATCs as a way to increase the presence of hunters in the woods and the limitation of membership as a "ploy" to favor pro-hunting interests, excluding environmentalists. LIPU calls the ATC system "failure" and the introduction of ENCI "unmotivated ," criticizing the lack of monitoring the effectiveness of interventions and the promotion of "hunting nomadism" to the detriment of the hunter-territory bond. On AFV and AATV, Bearsandothers believes that transforming wildlife management into a business leads to the "commercialization" of wildlife, which is "the State's unavailable asset ." LIPU views the possibility of profit and operating without time limits as a "privatization of wildlife" in favor of a deregulated hunting industry.
LIPU criticizes the lack of measures to strengthen the fight against poaching and illegal wildlife trafficking, noting that current sanctions are often ineffective. It also notes that the introduction of an administrative penalty for obstructing control activities, when these are in the public interest, could decriminalize the conduct, which would otherwise fall under the offense of disruption of a public service . Bearsandothers calls for a clear definition of the role of eco-zoophilic guards.
You May Also Like ..
Finally, many environmental and scientific associations express concern about the marginalization of ISPRA's binding opinion in the decision-making process , viewing it as an exclusion of science in favor of vested interests. ISPRA itself emphasizes that the ability of Regions to deviate from technical opinions without a solid scientific basis could limit their technical and scientific input. These are all points of view and considerations that are overwhelmingly unfounded: does it seem possible today to argue that hunting associations or agricultural confederations do not rely on scientific consultants or do not conduct research and investigations? The intention is always the same: to discredit an "adversary" as much as possible by all means, legal, but especially illicit and specious.
The disinterested “scientific world”?
ISPRA itself, while raising some concerns, recognizes that the profound transformations in the wildlife and social landscape make some changes to the original framework of the legislation understandable and, in part, appropriate . For example, the extension of jurisdiction for wildlife monitoring at airports and the use of optical and optoelectronic instruments for ungulates are considered acceptable or acceptable by ISPRA. The non-hunting scientific community had every opportunity to present deductions or considerations, but they did not. I believe not even after urging from the anti-hunting community. The only full professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Sassari, Marco Apollonio , produced a document presented to the committees—it is unclear whether on his own initiative or at someone's request. Apollonio criticizes the insistence on live decoys, considering it "unacceptable and unjustified from a technical standpoint." Regarding wildlife monitoring, he suggests the presence of a public official to prevent abuse (while ISPRA recommends expanding the range of assistants to include qualified professionals from outside the hunting world) and criticizes the elimination of ISPRA evaluation for training courses.
ISPRA recommends further checks to ensure consistency with EU guidelines and expresses concern that regions may modify the list of huntable species without adequate technical advice. However, Apollonio finds it "illogical" to postpone hunting due to climate change, which instead brings forward spring migrations. He argues that expanding ATCs to provincial areas disrupts hunters' ties to the territory , encouraging "irresponsible" behavior. While acknowledging the protective role of AFVs, he raises concerns about the conversion of AFVs into AATVs, which are less advanced and more consumer-oriented in management, with potential negative consequences. While viewing this business model as a resolution to hypocrisy, he advocates for more stringent limits on AATVs due to their questionable environmental/educational value and the risk of "wildlife pollution." Finally, he criticizes the exclusion of hunters (with field experience) from the wolf census organized by ISPRA due to "ideological bias."
