Sterile controversy
We have had the opportunity to read a recent press release signed by some regional environmental associations, apparently committed to re-proposing the sterile controversy between hunting and environmental conservation in an instrumental way. The theme, this time, concerns the new Integrated Plan of Migliarino Park – S. Rossore – Massaciuccoli; the accusation is that the hunters cannot be involved in defining the new boundaries of the park. We want to remind you that only thanks to our work, today the conditions are being determined for discussing a problem that is not the only example in Tuscany and at a national level, which risked remaining "under wraps" and destined to explode perhaps when the time was up. We have therefore exercised a democratic right, that of active participation and proposal, which certainly does not hand us the burden of the decision (as one would have us believe) but rather that of participation in the confrontation and the representation of legitimate interests. We are fully committed to this.
The scientific documentation
We have done it in recent days in our assemblies attended by hundreds of hunters, in the presence of many citizens and public administrators and we will continue to do it in the coming weeks, in transparency, in the light of the sun and with reasoned and verifiable proposals. It must be reiterated that hunting is not the cause of the reduction and extinction of many species, as a reader who is perhaps not too expert in ornithological matters would like to have believed. The substantial existing scientific documentation is in fact sufficient to discover that the species being hunted are almost entirely in good health, while those linked to certain specific environments, which are disappearing or degrading, are not so, regardless of whether they are being hunted. And this is because the real, well-known causes are certainly not due to hunting but to the loss and degradation of certain types of habitat.
Unjustified accusations
In this, hunters contribute with their work, at no cost to the community, to the management and conservation of many areas. Complaining about the transfer of public goods to a corporation that pursues private interests seems to us instead much more inherent in the state of certain Oasis, established on public land, managed (if this happens) only against public funding and then be barred from free access unless upon payment of a ticket to the environmental association on duty. Having said this, we therefore believe that before launching anathemas and unjustified accusations, it is necessary to look inward and consider that the democratic exercise of the representation of interests and even conflicting positions is not a bad thing for the environment and for the general interest ( source: FIDC).