The two associations also defined hunting "A hobby shared and lived only by a limited part of citizens". For this reason, the decision of the public administration would weigh on all the Valle d'Aosta and it would have been preferable to eliminate the regional contribution and introduce a particular participation. In practice, according to their point of view, hunters should pay for each culled animal, taking as reference the intrinsic commercial value.
The economic contribution for abatement should also be modest. The criticism of the law does not end there. In fact, Legambiente and Pro Natura believe it was it was a mistake to eliminate the obligation of a five-year review of the wildlife-hunting plan. The document was deemed essential for the investigation of the conservation status and living conditions of the animals. Abolishing the revision was a move that was not liked, as a symptom of a superficial approach to the question of wildlife conservation.
You May Also Like ..
