Al Senate of the Republic The examination of the amendments to the bill 1552 for the reform of the law was concluded on 17 September. 157 / 92 law 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 ordinary procedure: that is, after the committee discussion and vote, it goes to the Senate. If approved, it moves to the Chamber of Deputies, where the procedure repeats. If the text is amended, it must return to the Senate to approve the amendments, until both chambers approve the exact same text. The text is then promulgated by the President of the Republic and enters into force on the fifteenth day following its publication in the Senate. Official Gazette. Timing? The Senate has juggled 2084 amendments, hearings, and mergers with other bills already presented regarding wildlife, yet the Five Star Movement and the Democratic Party will undoubtedly obstruct in an attempt to block what is being considered—wrongly—an "unprecedented hunting deregulation." Most of the amendments come from the Five Star Movement itself, which has submitted over a thousand, 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 "for the abolition of hunting, the protection of bears and wolves, the increase of protected areas and the ban on hunters' entry into private property".
Since its first presentation the reform (here our article) 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 of this kind, for example on Everyday occurrence, here's how Elena Tubetti of Fratelli d'Italia, the rapporteur of the measure, responded: The Senate is not discussing the possibility of shooting on beaches or at private beaches; poaching will not be encouraged in any way, as 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 law 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 opinions, as well as to support the abolition of hunting. In Italy, the right to express them is guaranteed, and it is legitimate to engage in activities to support one's positions. However, it is essential that no one tries to raise unfounded alarms. publishing news that has nothing to do with the spirit and purpose of the law, much less with the reality of 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 is also the protagonist of some distinctions: reiterates the centrality of safeguarding social and public hunting, opposition to transforming Wildlife and 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 text of the law in its entirety, as regards temporary capture and ringing (Articles 4, 5), ANLC suggests the use of microchips as an alternative to the identification ring and proposes to allow the capture of birds for the replenishment of breeding stock and for fairs and festivals. With regards to the protected areas and state maritime property (Article 6)ANLC, Italian Hunters, and Confagricoltura contest the exclusion of state-owned maritime property from hunting programs, arguing that it would preclude hunting waterfowl in valley areas managed by hunters, and that distance regulations already exist. The Veneto Hunters' Association proposes reintroducing state-owned areas into wildlife and hunting programs 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 hinder wildlife and hunting management along the coast. The Hunting World Steering Committee and Confagricoltura emphasize the need to clarify that the hunting ban on state-owned maritime property does not apply to valley areas or other wetlands already managed by hunting.
With regard to the proposed new structure of the Hunting areas (Article 9), the Italian Federation of Sporting Weapons and Sports Dog Disciplines (FIDASC) and ANUUMigratoristi propose replacing the ENCI representative with one for sporting dog disciplines.
As for Wildlife and hunting companies (AFV) and Agri-tourism and hunting companies (AATV) (article 10), Confagricoltura and Federcaccia welcome the changes aimed at enhancing the agricultural and tourism role of these companies and at creating an agri-food supply chain for game meat.
With regard to 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 inspections 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 preparation of the hunting sector, particularly in the Alpine wildlife area, where selectors and inspectors, through specialized training, become 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 Province of Belluno also commented on the inspections carried out by hunters during the swine fever emergency. extraordinary government commissioner, Giovanni Filippini, who explains how the "depopulation" of wild boars, necessary to prevent the spread of swine fever, is carried out by "expert and knowledgeable hunters of the territory", through the checks carried out throughout the year, even within the parks.
The general Simonetta De Guz, Commander of the Forestry and Parks Protection Command, highlights the work of the Forestry Carabinieri in protecting biodiversity from 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.
On huntable species and hunting periods (article 11)The ANLC suggests introducing a maximum of 15 days of scheduled mobility throughout the country for migratory game hunting, overcoming regulations perceived as obsolete given the decline in hunters. Another proposal calls for 30 days of nationwide mobility for migratory game.
Environmentalists against regardless
The environmental associations that took part, namely ENPA, LIPU, Legambiente, WWF and those that provided contributions such as Bearsandothers, but also 47 others, practically all the acronyms, that have drawn up a single document, express 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 doesn't modernize, but deregulates. It doesn't protect, but sells off. It doesn't balance, but imposes. It doesn't solve, but increases problems. The Italian Parliament has a historic responsibility to reject 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, especially bears, considers the renaming and the purpose of the law (from “protection” to “management and protection”, Article 1) absurd, since Man is 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 laments the lack of involvement of environmentalists and scientists. Bersandothers deems the opening of inspections to agricultural operators "barbaric," calling for a strengthening of the veterinary system and judicial police units. LIPU emphasizes that entrusting inspections to armed private parties, including security guards, is already the subject of European infringement procedures and leads to a "privatization and arming" that creates conflicts of interest and fails to solve the problem.
LIPU declares that the capture of 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 then denounces the elimination of the maximum limit for the first ten days of February and the devaluation of the binding opinion of ISPRA. (Higher Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) as a violation of the Birds Directive (prenuptial migration). Bearsandothers fear an "uncontrolled liberalization" of calendars.
LIPU sees the (supposed) extension of hunting areas as a “direct threat” to wildlife and the safety of citizens, reducing protected areas and violating European commitments to extend protected areas to 30% of the territory. He criticizes the view of protected areas as "disturbing factors" and the possibility of hunting near areas frequented by hikers.
Bearsandothers see the expansion of ATCs as a way to increase hunter presence in the woods and the limitation of membership as a “ploy” to favor pro-hunting interests, excluding environmentalists. LIPU defines the ATC system as "failing" and the introduction of ENCI as "unmotivated", criticizing the lack of monitoring of 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 activity leads to the "trading" of wildlife, which is "an unavailable asset of the State"LIPU sees the possibility of profit and operating without time limits as a “wildlife privatization” 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 sanction for obstructing control activities, when these are of public utility, could decriminalize the conduct which would otherwise fall under the crime of interruption of a public service.Bearsandothers calls for a clear explanation of the role of eco-zoophilic guards.
Finally, many environmental and scientific associations express their opinion concern about the marginalization of ISPRA's binding opinion in the decision-making process, considering it 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 technical and scientific input. These are all points of view, 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 "opponent" as much as possible by all means, legal, but above all illicit and specious.
You May Also Like ..
The disinterested “scientific world”?
ISPRA itself, while raising some considerations, recognises that the profound transformations in the faunal and social framework make some changes to the original framework of the legislation understandable and partly appropriate.For example, the extension of jurisdiction for wildlife control 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 pressure from the anti-hunting community. The only full professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Sassari, Marcus Apollonius, it is not clear whether on his own initiative or invited by someone, produced a document presented to the commissions. Apollonio criticizes the insistence on live decoys, considering it "unacceptable and unjustified from a technical point of view." Regarding wildlife control, he suggests the presence of a public official to avoid abuses (while ISPRA recommends expanding the range of assistants including qualified professionals from outside the hunting world) and criticizes the elimination of the 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. Apollonio, however, finds it "illogical" to postpone hunting due to climate change, which instead brings forward spring migrations. He argues that the expansion of the ATCs to provincial areas causes the hunter to lose his connection with 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 possible negative consequences. While viewing the business form 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 organized wolf census from ISPRA for an “ideological prejudice”.
