The latest regulatory changes
The recent amendments and additions approved by Parliament at theart. 19 of law 157/92, will in all likelihood open up new scenarios. Meanwhile, in addition to the "ordinary" control, the new paragraph ter introduced the extraordinary national plan for wildlife control, lasting five years, which must be approved by decree of the Minister of the Environment, in concert with that of Agriculture, within 120 days from the entry into force of the law (countdown started on 1st January). This is the acknowledgment, finally translated into law, of the need to get a handle on a situation of profound gravity to which politics had so far seemed deaf or guiltyly insensitive, probably more out of "fear" of ferocious controversies by animal rights activists (the new crusaders of our time), and not out of the conviction that wild boars & company should be left to proliferate without brakes. Certainly, to obtain the five-year plan it will not be enough for it to be written into law, but it will have to be drawn up, approved and, finally and above all, implemented.
Animal slaughter
Also in terms of ordinary control, however, some significant innovations have been introduced: the containment of fauna is also permitted for the protection of public safety, it can also be carried out in urban areas, it is entrusted, among others, to authorized hunters registered in the ATC and CA territorially competent and, finally, the slaughtered animals can be destined for food consumption once their negativity to pathologies has been ascertained. On the subject of urban areas, in particular, in recent weeks clouds of dust have been artfully raised by many media, railing against the "wild hunt" in the middle of inhabited centers, which would now be possible thanks to the changes approved by Parliament.
Wild Hunt
A huge idiocy, given that the control of wildlife is not hunting, but an activity established since 1992 and which in the last thirty years has found frequent application in many Regions and for different species, for example those defined as opportunistic and invasive, both native and allochthonous. If anything, indeed, the silly propaganda we have witnessed against "wild hunting" - what hunting it is not - risks giving way to some deranged or imbecile who, believing it true that wild boar can be hunted freely on the streets of Rome or Genoa, start chasing them or ambushing them with bows, crossbows, various tools or (God forbid) with firearms. Should accidents caused by such subjects ever happen, why not charge the moral, intellectual and political responsibility of those who instigated them, just to slander the hunters (who can do nothing)? It would be a disruptive accusation, naturally to be deposited in the appropriate offices, destined to cause a stir. In short, at least for once, the fuss would be raised by hunters and hunting associations. It would seem to us a great achievement (source: ANUU).
You May Also Like ..
