Paolo Antognoni, number one of the Regional Federcaccia of the Marche, commented on an article that appeared recently that reported the statement of the environmentalists and animal rights activists of the Marches. The piece was about the wolf and according to the hunting association it was the usual "fruit salad" of partial information passed off as truth, all for to put hunting and hunters in a bad light. Here is the answer on the matter: "Dear Director, I read with interest the article that appeared this morning in the newspaper directed by you and dedicated to the wolf question, or rather, to the position on this issue of environmental associations - but perhaps it would now be more accurate to define them animal welfare - which obviously have a legitimate but certainly biased vision of the wolf, as well as other issues concerning fauna, territory and environment.
Having brought up the hunt as always, I feel compelled to intervene, hoping that in the interest of citizens, as well as for ethical duty, it will also reserve the same space for us. First of all I think it is appropriate to clear the field from the great misunderstanding created in public opinion by art, that hunters are interested in the reopening of wolf hunting and that those who suggest to manage the species ALSO through sampling are thinking of this. The wolf is not a huntable species, in all likelihood it never will be again, but what matters most is that no hunter cares about it.
"Let's save the wolf from shotguns", "No to wolf hunting" and so on, slogans have succeeded that serve to raise the attention of a public opinion that is actually very distracted and uninformed, pushing it to influence the decisions it will have to take. I deserve the political class. A successful "advertising campaign" by protectionist associations, we admit, but based on false assumptions. It should be added that if the decision to take is ever reached, but let's say without false hypocrisy to shoot some specimen of the wolf species (1 or 2? These are the numbers we are hypothetically talking about) it would certainly not be a hunter to press the trigger. Forest police officer, policeman, park ranger, Col Moschin marksman…. We don't know who the authorities would turn to and frankly we don't care. But certainly it will not be the retired Mario Rossi, holder of the hunting license since 1968. Probably, given how things work in Italy, he will be called some foreign "expert", perhaps French, a country like us member of the EU where the wolf is equally protected, but where every year a certain number of specimens considered dangerous or excessively confident are killed without much controversy.
Having said that, which seems to me a remark of no small importance, let's come to other accusations leveled at the category. We do not deny that poaching is a present phenomenon, on the contrary, we are the first to fight it and report it alongside the police. Here too, however, the reconstruction of the Alliance of Marche's environmental associations is biased and it seems that our woods and our countryside are transformed after sunset into battle changes populated by raiders and special departments devoted to a fight to the death with wild species. I think a little sense of reality wouldn't hurt. More than the wild boar jokes, then, to cause the movement towards the plain and the inhabited centers of the ungulates and consequently of the predators, it would be more correct to identify as the cause the search for the former - and consequently the latter - for greater and easier sources of food, as any wildlife technician can confirm. Finally the reference to hunting accidents, which has nothing to do with the question under discussion but that for anti-hunts "it always suits us".
The data reported are once again inaccurate, we do not know whether deliberately or due to a wrong choice in the sources. The data provided by ours and by the other hunting associations together with the CNCN at the end of the season and not contested by anyone, simply because they are true, are a little different: 12 deaths have been ascertained during the 2018-19 season (from 1 September 2018 as of January 30, 2019), with a decrease of 33% compared to the previous one. For greater clarity, the fatal accidents involving hunters were 10 (83% of the total), while those involving non-hunters were 2 (17% of the total). During the same period, 50 people were injured, with a decrease of 17% compared to 2017-18. The injuries of the last season involved for 74% of the cases hunters (37 injured) e for the remaining 26% of cases not hunters (13 injured). Even a single death while hunting remains unacceptable, we are the first to say it, but perhaps it is good to remember that any human activity, even the apparently safest one, carries a percentage of risk that can be lowered, but not completely eliminated. We do not want to lower ourselves to the game of "he is worse than me", but just look at skiing, hiking or mushroom picking. In conclusion, dear Director, I reiterate the hope that our voice will also be heard in this discussion, and I thank you for the attention you have granted me ”.
Whoever shoots with a somewhat powerful compressed air weapon cannot even if he shoots against an embankment. Whoever shoots a wild boar is free to shoot where the animal goes but if he misses the target the bullet can hit anyone. So now there are wolves that exterminate wild boars and herbivores so the vegetation is no longer at risk