A discussion that has been going on for some time
On the rule relating to wildlife control there is a lot of discussion and also a lot of confusion. First of all, anyone who reads the text carefully sees that hunting is not open in any area where it is prohibited today, neither in the city, nor in protected natural areas. Already with the laws in force it is possible to carry out wildlife control activities in these areas, in the national and regional parks alone in 2021 over 16.000 wild boars were killed or captured and then slaughtered. Another clarification is that the law modifies law 157/92 (which concerns wildlife) and not law 394/91, which concerns protected areas whose articles concerning the control of wildlife remain in force. My analysis therefore concerns the effects that this amendment has outside the parks. The standard contains some positive aspects and some critical points.
The hunter question
The ambiguous wording requiring "ecological methods" before using trapping and killing for wildlife control has been removed. When the legislator wrote this provision perhaps he was thinking of "non-bloody methods" but as it was written he did not mean anything. It is also positive that "road safety" has been included among the reasons for the interventions. Too many accidents, even serious ones, mainly caused by wild boars, but not only. Instead it is useless and even harmful to limit the possibility of control interventions only to hunters, moreover "local" for two orders of reasons. The first is that the provision concerns all wildlife, not just that hunted and while a hunter may possess the know-how for control operations involving huntable species (wild boars, deer, fallow deer, moufflons, etc.), obviously nothing knows how to intervene on other species, especially alien ones (grey squirrel, raccoon, parakeet, etc.). For this reason the help of specialists, who are not necessarily hunters, and even if they are perhaps not "local", is essential for the success of the actions.
A decisive contribution
The second reason is that given the growing problem of invasive/alien species, more and more companies specialized in their control are forming. Many parks have entered into long-term contracts with private entities, it is true that, as I said before, the rule concerns the external territory, but it is a truly useless limitation. Another thing that I do not judge positively is the fact that a course is not necessary to enable hunters for control operations. In fact, hunting is one thing and control another, even if the tool can always be the firearm, control presupposes knowledge of different problems. However, the intention to better regulate this matter is positive, I hope that we can still intervene on the law, correcting the things I have highlighted and adding others. We as Federparchi, if the institutions consult us, are available to give our contribution (Giampiero Sammuri, president of Federparchi).