THENational Animal Protection Authority declares himself unrelated to the referendum proposal appeared in the official gazette asking for the cancellation of the entire law 157 of 1992 on the protection of wildlife - and only secondarily on the concession of hunting activities - and thanks to which it was possible also protect animals without any defense and today all considered as unavailable assets of the State on which there is the priority obligation of protection. The referendum question, probably born with a goal that unites many Italians, namely the abolition of hunting, intervenes with carelessness and dangerous superficiality, deleting all the legislation for the protection of wild animals which was created with a shared work between the parties also for the obligation to transpose the European directives and not on the articles concerned.
"It would be a real disaster for wild animals and biodiversity, it would go back decades, when wild animals were considered res nullius, nobody's property, and anyone could capture them, hold them, sell them, and so on. “Moreover, in a complex political framework, the presence of the framework law 157 of 1992 guarantees a certain territorial uniformity even in a hunting manner. If it were to lapse, nothing would prohibit the regions from autonomously legislate on the subject, probably increasing the species and times. An unsustainable situation which, moreover, would expose us to severe sanctions by the EU, as a law transposing EU directives would be canceled.
The life of wild animals cannot depend from superficiality, banality, the desire to appear as individuals or associations. The future of the wild is linked to the complex and serious work of sharing, preparation, with in-depth analysis, social, political and scientific evaluations. Enpa defended law 157 of 1992 with numerous and continuous legal actions - for example against hunting calendars - and institutional ones, to adapt and increase the safeguards on wild animals in compliance with EU requests. Therefore, our association does not intend to support the proposed referendum question, which removes safeguards and protection for wildlife, puts the lives of animals at risk, biodiversity, and it is against European directives. The referendum is a precious tool of democracy and cannot be reduced to a dangerous improvisation.
Hi, I am a Hunter (but only of wild boars) I do not know if I will be able to go hunting because my pathology does not allow me so much, but this does not mean that I have to condemn the hunters or all the people I work in this sector , I feel compelled to express my opinion. ENPA did not randomly decide that it does not participate in the referendum ... having made its clear assessments, I would just like to add that the closure of the hunt also causes damage to animals because there are poachers who could have more freedom knowing that in the countryside there are no hunters, agriculture, the animals themselves, we keep in mind that a wild boar gives birth from 1 to 12 cubs (and they must feed) what it takes and controls the hunters and, controls that are not disturbed by environmentalists, because 'could bring damage (HUMANS sooner or later) there would be many other reasons to list but it is not my part to explain them thank you for your attention. goodbye |