Once again like Italian Federation of Hunting, we are forced to ask to be able to respond through the pages of his newspaper to the contents of two articles by Jacopo Zuccari, which appeared in the edition of Sunday 29 and that of Monday 30 September. We will limit ourselves to responding specifically to what involves us as hunter citizens, even if in reality, many other claims reported would be questionable. The articles had as their theme the bill presented by the regional councilor Federico Talè aimed at containment of wolves, reporting respectively the reactions of the regional councilor Sandro Bisonni, of the Greens, and a joint note of the various environmental-animal rights associations of the Marches.
In his words, as reported in a quotation mark in the article cited, Bisonni speaks once again of "hunting" the wolf, generating in less informed readers, the idea that we want to reintroduce the wolf among the huntable speciesthe. It is pure academia to think that this can happen in Italy, for an internationally protected species like the wolf. In the case we would therefore speak of "sampling", not hunting. The distinction may be overlooked by many, but it is fundamental. In any case, what really matters, to quote what was already said a few months ago on the subject and for similar statements, by the regional president of Federcaccia Paolo Antognoni "No hunter cares that the wolf is huntable".
Combining "wolf" and "hunting" only serves to worry and indign the public opinion so that it influences the decisions that politics will have to take on the matter. Hence, a successful "advertising campaign" by protectionist associations, however, devoid of any real substance. Above all because, this is never said, if it really came to the decision to take one or two specimens (these are the numbers we are hypothetically talking about) it would never be a hunter to do it, but some belonging to the State Corps. And let's move on to the note of animal welfare associations. The reasoning that makes them affirm the impossibility of establishing without DNA examination whether or not it was a wolf that preyed on a sheep is definitely twisted., but at the same time makes them practically certain that packs of wild dogs are the culprits of predation. And not only. These dogs obviously for the overwhelming majority have been abandoned by hunters and breeders, and they know everything: from the breed to the attitude, therefore hunting or guard, and even their past, beaten and abandoned because they are unsuitable for the purpose.
It seems superfluous to emphasize that we are faced with a strongly flawed argument from a particular ideology, definitely damaging to two categories of people. It would therefore be time for various animal rights activists and protectionists to stop deliberately confusing and maybe even for the journalists who report their rants to worry about deepening the question (ethical duty) and explaining to their readers how things really are. Or at least, offered both versions. Today, however, a new attack on the category of hunters. As far as we are concerned, we are tired of suffering slanders and attacks without reason and in the future, when other occasions arise in which the extremes are repented, we will not hesitate to sue them. But you know: speaking of nature, to be right it is enough to speak ill of hunters and, in this case, of those who, in order to defend themselves and their work, ask only for respect and protection. Thanking you for your attention, we cordially greet you, trusting us to grant us the necessary space to respond to what can be considered, to be good, only biased arguments.