In a rational context (not only emotional or, worse, speculative), the whole territory should be monitored and, consequently, "managed". Globally (it's fashionable, isn't it?). Including, therefore, all components. Including wildlife. With the (active and technical) involvement of all interested categories, coordinated by the institutions. What is the sense, in fact, of "protecting" - in a negative or passive sense, that is, not by "controlling", a certain species, especially if it is invasive, in a limited territorial nucleus (park, oasis, biogenetic reserve, etc., obviously, for some, a "sancta sanctorum", for others an ... absurd, useless, wasteful and dangerous inertia), thus making vain also the "control" carried out externally, with the related expenditure of energy and resources?
There is no shortage of examples. I will mention one that I have fully experienced personally. In the second half of the last century (it is not an eternity!), Coming from the Triglav National Park (Slovenia, then still Yugoslavia) it broke out in the far North East and precisely in the "Tarvisio Forest" (and consequently in the territory managed by the Reserve hunting by law of Tarvisio / Malborghetto) the sarcoptic mange of the Chamois, which decimated the species (90-95% of the population died), without us hunters being able to intervene effectively. The epidemic affected three countries: Austria, Slovenia and Italy and, more precisely, Carinthia (Karawanken), Slovenia (Triglav) and Friuli Venezia Giulia (Julian and Carnic Alps).
The interest of the State Forestry Corps, which managed the “Tarvisio Forest”, of the hunting reserve, of the Universities of Ljubljana, Vienna, Padua and Turin, was immediate. Three trends immediately emerged: for the Austrians, identifying and isolating outbreaks and creating scorched earth all around (to prevent or attempt to prevent the spread of the epidemic); for the Slovenes, to shoot down every suspect everywhere; for Italians, let nature do it! Result? The Austrian intervention was extended over the entire territory concerned; ditto for the Slovenes (the killings, among other things, were appropriately monetized); from us, it is forbidden to intervene beyond the normal withdrawal and limited to the reserved territory. Indeed, it is better to reduce the normal withdrawal too! I wonder why!
Even today in our country the chamois struggles to recover completely. In Austria and Slovenia the situation seems normalized. In any case for us, Tarvisian hunters, in addition to the bitterness in the mouth for not being able to offer all the necessary support (and immediately offered!) In the circumstance, a very bitter to see the destruction of a population of over two thousand Chamois, after so many sacrifices and renunciations to collaborate in the quantitative and qualitative growth of the population |.
Alongside this event, in the search for possible causes and remedies of the epidemic, there were those who were convinced (and not out of prudence) that possible vectors could also be the vast plans in the act of repopulation of Marmots.
But that is not why, after the preamble, I am going to argue that even the Marmot, like it Ibex, should be promptly reinserted in the list of huntable species.
I repeat, all wild animals, in my opinion (and not only mine) should be "managed", throughout the territory.
Throughout Slovenia, for example, you can catch the Bear and the Lynx, in Austria the Cedrone and the Black Grouse singing, in spring, as well as the Francolino di Monte, in Switzerland the Ibex and the Marmot. And U.S? We do not! We are watching. At least they called us to thin out the Montecristo Goat!
The Marmot (already known at the time of Pliny, who called it "Mus alpinus"), has always been hunted in the mountains: for meat, fur and fat. The meat is good, like all game meat. Specifically, it had to be treated to limit the residual flavor of the den; fur was highly sought after for obvious clothing reasons; fat was (and apparently is), among other things, at the center of a big deal: in Switzerland in 1946, as many as sixteen thousand Marmots were killed for their fat, the "Mankeischmalz", widely used in folk medicine, but also advertised for its therapeutic powers, in bronchial and pulmonary affections and for its antirheumatic virtues! Perhaps the magical power of Marmot fat was linked to the fact of the animal's life in the den, managing to survive the cold, hunger and humidity. The fact is that a short time ago, when asked why marmots were still being killed in the Austrian National Park for which he was responsible, he justified the event with the need to satisfy the demand for fat!
As regards the "management" of this wild, we must also keep in mind that the Marmot is a rodent and, as such, subject to sudden population growth, favored by community life and strong sociability, by continuous contact. Two or more, up to seven chicks per year: the growth of the colonies is guaranteed. But the rapid spread of possible diseases is also guaranteed, such as bubonic plague (and sarcoptic mange? And sylvan anger?), Still favored by winter hibernation and therefore by close coexistence.
This rapid succession of increases and decreases in the population has a fluctuating impact on the feeding of the Eagle, the main predator of the Marmot. That in the lean periods it will inevitably unleash on the grouse, on the variable hare or on the white partridge!
Two famous scientists, Frank and Zimmermann, have argued, in this regard, that "the death of individual animals occurs all the more suddenly and simultaneously, the higher the population density". Which should therefore be "managed".
Based on all these considerations, in particular the limited longevity of individual animals, the decrease in the birth rate as a function of density and mortality during the winter, factors that make the Marmot population fluctuating, and, consequently, extremely negatively impacting the grouse, in addition to the damage to the meadows-pastures in the construction of the dens, which infuriate the shepherds on the mountain pastures so much, it is not clear the reluctance of the re-insertion of the Marmot in the list of huntable species, hoped for and justified also by that illustrious technician who is Doctor Marco Giacometti.
I close by quoting what was written by Prof. Mario Spagnesi and Dr. Silvano Toso, of the INBS "A.Chigi" ("Recent evolution of the faunal-management situation in Italy" - Proceedings of the II ^ national meeting of game biologists-1991): "It seems to us that the possibility, urged by the hunting world, of a new inclusion of the Marmot in the list of huntable species should be evaluated, which should be taken into consideration only if it were possible, in management practice and not only from the point of theoretical view, a conservative sampling and in any case dimensioned to the density and dynamics of local populations ".
Good luck!
Goffredo Grassani.
Dear Grassani as a hunter, I fully agree with what you said, but unfortunately it seems that only we hunters see the evolution of what happens in nature.
Almost none of those opposed to hunting, including politicians who present proposals for hunting laws, know the meaning of Agro-Forest Density, worse still the Biotic Density of a species.
For years I have been saying unheard that the Marmot and the Ibex should be included in the selection hunt with the withdrawal of even just a few animals but we must start, (as happens in nearby Switzerland!)
That the Eagle and the Wolf on the Apine arch have now reached the maximum of their DAF, which should include the Alpine Gracco and the Raven among the huntable species, how much damage are these species causing to the typical Alpine?
We must willy-nilly put hand to 157/92, now obsolete law for the present times, and adapt it to the current situation of wildlife.
Unfortunately we are hunters and if we make sensible proposals to modify the list of huntable species we are biased.
Good health
Ferdinand Ratti
Italcaccia provincial chairman Como - Lecco