The reality of the facts does not change
“The recent amendment of art. 16 of Law 157/92, approved as part of the 2026 budget, has caused considerable uproar in the hunting community, with interpretations of the new legislation often biased or imprecise. To be precise, a new type of wildlife hunting enterprise has been introduced: the for-profit one, whether individual or collective. It should be immediately clarified that formally, the reality remains unchanged: the maximum percentage of agricultural and forestry land allocated to private organizations remains at 15%; hunting organizations, as currently, hunt according to the hunting calendar; and, as already established, companies must implement environmental restoration and improvement measures. So why is our association strongly opposed? Because it completely changes the approach to the harvesting of wild fauna.
The beginning of the commodification of fauna
This is the beginning of the commodification of wildlife, currently a state heritage that cannot be disposed of. We firmly believe that modern hunting must be respectful of the environment and wild populations, and that hunters, whether registered with an ATC or an AFV, must give more than they take, contributing their own resources, both human and financial, in order to conserve a resource that legislators wisely defined in 1992 as a state heritage that cannot be disposed of. When a natural resource officially becomes an opportunity for profit—there are a thousand examples around the world—uncontrolled exploitation begins, to the detriment of all. It's no coincidence that the Birds Directive prohibits the sale of most huntable species: because it's so tempting to make money by counting on the autumn arrival of ducks, wood pigeons, or woodcocks.
Expectations placed in the regions
Now that the omelette is over, we hope the regions will strictly regulate these for-profit AFVs, and where there are no regional concession fees for them, let them be reintroduced. We will monitor the implementation of the new Article 16 to prevent a shift that evidently aims to lead us to private hunting: this is the first step!! And finally, one last but significant question: with all the need to update and modernize Law 157, with all the promises made, after three years, does this majority feel the urgency to approve this amendment alone? Remember that in thirty years of Law 157, no region has reached the fateful 15%, and there are still thousands of square kilometers of more desirable land that, now that there's money to be made, can be made.
Underrated aspects
We would also like to point out that, as often happens with reforms that aren't reforms at all, but rather hasty, spot-on measures, not all aspects are considered. To date, in many regions, it's possible to forcibly incorporate into private land schemes the land of owners who either oppose the scheme or are untraceable, up to approximately 10% of the total area of the proposed scheme, depending on regional regulations. How could a person be forcibly involved in another individual's sole proprietorship? All things considered, it's as if a craftsman were to set up his workshop on property that isn't his, without the owner being able to object. This point isn't a minor detail; reconstructing the mosaic of ownership in Italy, especially in hilly and mountainous areas, has always been a serious problem.
You May Also Like ..
