Poorly concealed anger
One might say that here we go again. The usual animal rights and anti-hunting groups have not digested the outcome of the ruling of TAR of Milan with respect to their appeals against the 2024 hunting calendar, a ruling that essentially rejected their requests and confirmed the legitimacy of the remaining calendar in terms of timing and methods, allowing us to exercise hunting in compliance with the rules approved in July. And the logical consequence, for them, the anti-hunters, was to appeal against this ruling to the Council of State, which they did by filing an appeal on November 7. We must say that the overall reading of the appeal gives the idea of ill-concealed anger against the Judges of the TAR of Milan. We still start by contesting the fact that hunting can exist after the modification of Article 9 of the Constitution which deals with animal welfare, and therefore questions the legitimacy of all the laws that regulate hunting itself, both national and regional.
The difference between hunting and control
There is then a whole part of dispute over the fact that hunting can be a traditional activity, considering it to have been almost the prerogative of the lords until a few decades ago; as well as the difference between hunting and species control, as if to say that the former should not exist while control can exist. After having questioned in fact every consideration issued by the TAR Lombardia and reiterated that the truth belongs only to ISPRA, forgetting that ISPRA itself in the remission of the opinion reiterated in the premises that "it is a technical opinion from which the Regions can depart by giving reasons", the requests of the animal rights activists are that everything be closed immediately, rejecting the hunting calendar. Or alternatively that the Council of State close the January hunts not only because of the conflicting dates between the ISPRA opinion and the Regional calendar, but also to avoid causing disturbance caused by shooting to any animal species. We will see what happens, also because not only in Lombardy have the animal rights appeals been rejected by the TAR; we would also like to understand if the ungenerous criticism of every evaluation of the Milanese judges will find support in the Roman judges of the Council of State. We obviously hope not.
Amendments to be considered
As has now become customary for some years, amendments have been filed to the second regional ordinance law 2024, aimed at modifying the rules of law 26/93 on hunting. There are more than ten of them, but from reading them, some proposals appear to be particularly shared by several signatories, and also suggested by the hunting world, and others more on a personal level perhaps prompted by individual peripheral hunting entities. Among the most shared, and certainly important, is the one that would allow the admission to the Alpine areas or Districts of relatives in a direct line beyond the first license, given that those are already admitted today. To remedy a current absurd situation that does not allow a child to be brought along hunting in the same places and in the same forms of hunting practiced by the father, because he holds a license from a few years ago. Then there are amendments that intend to charge additional fees for the services provided to those who collect a significant number of ungulates, from the rest cells to the costs of the retrievers, today volunteers with only costs sustained at a personal level and now employed all year round. Another amendment asks to be able to allow the collection of foxes in the ZRA, currently precluded.
The floods of the rivers
Extremely important, and we have seen the discomfort of the first days of last year, the amendment that would allow dog training for members even on open hunting days on all days allowed for hunting, without the obligation to carry a weapon. Another important amendment concerns the flooding of rivers that, once back in the riverbed, the land with the remaining stagnant water, can be allowed for hunting. We instead consider dangerous, although understandable in the request, the one that would allow additional sanctions to each ATC or CA for cases bordering on poaching, today without regional administrative sanctions. Not that we cannot think of something that could tangibly impact these behaviors, but we believe that they should be possibly reasoned and encouraged at a regional level, equal for all ATC and CA and not left to free and different initiative. All these amendments are now being analyzed by the Agriculture Commission, chaired by Floriani Massardi, who will not fail to use common sense in the evaluation and continuation of the approval process of the Council. (Source FEDERCACCIA LOMBARDIA – CACCIAPENSIERI)
You May Also Like ..
