The eradication of the mouflons atGiglio Island is holding the bench again. GiglioNews reported the words of Stephen Feri, Vice President of Tuscan Archipelago National Park. Here is what he said: “I also carefully read the last article concerning the complex affair linked to mouflons. I will not enter into the merits of the requests, legitimate however, that the councilors make to the Mayor about the involvement of the citizens they represent through the methods they consider most useful to the island community, but I take this opportunity to write some reflections on the subject, trying to explain the reasons why, as administrator of the park and as a Gigliese, I am in favor of the eradication of this species from the Isola del Giglio.
A necessary premise: I am not a biologist and I have not the slightest intention and claim to slip into mess that has been unleashed among scientists of the type if the chicken or the egg was born first, but I am lucky enough to manage the park by collaborating with highly trained employees and professionals who have largely convinced me of the methods we have implemented and of the need to achieve the goal and of the fact that even if, as often happens, the scientific world wonders (it's their job) there is now a broad and I would say majority and consolidated line of thought on the issue.
My conviction did not arise from yesterday or even from the beginning of this life project called "Let's go Giglio", but from much further away.
As someone remembers, I had the opportunity to exercise the role of administrator of the Municipality of Isola del Giglio by 2004 to 2009 as councilor for the environment and city councilor. During that period, thanks to the mayor of the time, Attilio Brothel and also to our majority group leader, the councilor Armando Schiaffino, I also had the opportunity to be appointed for the first time within the board of directors of the Park Authority, precisely as a municipal councilor representing the municipality of Isola del Giglio. This office lasted from 2007 to 2009 and ended with the end of my administrative mandate.
Already at that time the topic of "mouflons" was very popular and our administration was very much solicited by local farmers. As a councilor for the environment, I was soon interested in it. Due to the free presence of the mouflons we received a lot of solicitations, some also quite colorful, and, as a municipal administration, we also shared them with the park, even through myself.
I remember how all "our" municipal administration of the time welcomed the approval of the resolution no. 34/2007 of the Board of Directors of the Park Authority, concerning: “interventions for the eradication of the mouflon population in the protected area of Isola del Giglio”. Beyond personal opinions, therefore, it is good to know that since 2007 there has been a known act that aims at the eradication, by killing, of the mouflon from the park territory. From 2007 many things have happened to date and several mouflons have also been killed.
The park, following that resolution and the consequent eradication plan, carried out control culls in the protected area and at the same time the territorial hunting area (ATC) prepared plans for the culling of the mouflon that hunted the species with the form of selection. In fact, the Mouflon is one huntable species and in fact, to give an example, the Tuscany region in the current year has authorized hunters to kill 677 mouflons. To return to Giglio between killing in the park and outside, carried out both under control and hunting, between 2009 and 2020 over 87 animals were killed.
The killing took place under the sunlight. This explains some things: the first is the answer to why the mouflons are not proliferated in an abnormal way and consequently some damage was limited; just think of adding to the current number those killed and those captured, plus all those who would have been potential new born.
Another thing that explains is why among those opposed to eradication there could not be only those who rightly and legitimately care about the fate of the animal, but also subjects who might have an interest in continuing to hunt them or someone could find themselves aligned with them. that he may have received compensation for damage to crops, compensation that, however small, could obviously still be useful.
Until before the life project, so reviled and mistreated, we "floated" therefore in a situation that evidently made everyone (or almost) happy, because with a little slaughter a year the mouflon population was limited, someone had the satisfaction of hunting them and at the same time the animal remained on the island.
From here it is understood that if, for example, at the Giglio today there are 40 mouflons, assuming that they are all culled (and it will not be so) I would have 40 culls. If, on the other hand, 10 are killed a year, for 15 years, which is more or less what happened, 150 mouflons are killed and then the usual 40 are always left so we can say that they are there and that we all love the their presence.
It is clear that this must end and must end not only quickly, but also taking into account the real possibilities for action. Thinking of leaving the mouflon on the island even if in a fenced area I am opposed to the following reasons:
it is from a fenced area that the problem comes and it is likely that once a new enclosure has been built, with the passage of time it will end the other with a new outflow of mouflons.
the park is not a zoo: we have all learned that the mouflon did not swim to the Giglio, I think we can agree on this. How can a national park be the promoter of a project that aims to educate residents and tourists by showing a species that has nothing to do with the island and that, if left free, causes damage? Let's imagine, and it is a provocation, if instead of mouflons, zebras or giraffes or ostriches had been imported; today should we have, as a park, the goal of telling these species to the rest of the world and how they have adapted to the lily? I believe this is culturally wrong. Indeed, one aspect that I consider positive of all life (which also deals with pine forests and figs of the Hottentots) is that it is a project that tries to recreate the bases for the conservation of habitats and I believe that they are the original habitats and those who live there (excuse the pun) that should be told to the rest of the world.
Those who believe that the mouflon can be left in the wild thinking only of fencing the vineyards, it means that one imagines an island, in a few five years, with hundreds of mouflons walking around and crops closed behind very high nets. Even this, very questionable and very harmful for spontaneous vegetation, is not feasible. I add, for further information purposes, that a few years ago (2018) the park and municipality of Giglio were affected by the Prefecture of Grosseto about the problem that arose due to the presence of rabbits and the use of trapping laces by some citizens. Beyond the specific and complex question, the occasion was useful to address the issue of fences, so as to provide a legal and non-bloody alternative for the defense of the vineyards and to create an agreement also aimed at administrative simplification for the installation of the networks. Both the municipality and the park proposed to install nets useful for containing both the mouflon and the rabbit and therefore nets having adequate heights. The Superintendency limited the maximum height of the nets to 80 cm above ground and that was the maximum we managed to obtain (I also attach the minutes of the last meeting). This means that at Giglio it is realistically conceivable to install exclusively nets for the containment of the rabbit, but not to contain the mouflon and this means that thinking of letting them free and then imagining, as nostalgic islanders to celebrate the hard work of farmers, well these two do not they are activities that are compatible with each other.
To end this situation as soon as possible, even in the interest of the animals, we need to continue, as we are doing, with the catches instead of the killing and with the delivery of the mouflons caught to the subjects who have returned and will be available to receive them outside the island, in obviously suitable places. If we are able to do this, by limiting the killing to residual and non-catchable animals, I believe we would have done the best that can realistically be done in the interest of the animals and the island. In this sense, I would like to thank the "Irriducibili" animal rights group and in particular Mr. Torlai with whom we shared the idea of delivering the garments captured off the island, first in Elba and now in Giglio, aware and respectful of their respective roles , goals and sensitivity.
Imagining a path different from this one, again in my humble opinion and due to the experience I have had so far in the field, I believe that it will do nothing but make that floating situation persist described above or will lay new foundations so that this can be repeated in the near future ”.