Hunting bill, 46 associations ask for a stop: "Minimal changes"

“Extension of the hunting season even in full migration, relaunch of the capture of birds by live decoy, hunting in state-owned areas, devaluation of science and the opinions of Ispra, increased risk for people and much more: the hunting bill presented to the Senate by the majority parties is a brutal attack on nature, in violation of the Birds Directive and the Italian Constitution. Nature no longer belongs to citizens because they will no longer be able to”. This is how 46 environmental and animal rights groups commented on the new hunting bill presented to the Senate by the government majority and still in the definition phase. For this reason, the associations – from the WWF to Legambiente; from ENPA to LIPU; from the Association of Italian Nature Photographers to the Ornithological Society – are asking for the opening of a discussion table and a meeting of political forces of all sides.

In truth, for months they have formally asked the Minister of Agriculture Francesco Lollobrigida, the first supporter of the Bill, for a meeting to open a discussion table, without receiving a response. And if on the one hand the minister speaks of "a more modern and responsible management of wildlife", the associations reply that the vision that inspired the Hunting Bill "is outdated, regressive and minority of nature and animals, conceived for the exclusive use and consumption of the hunting world, imposes a distorted vision of hunting, indicating it as a tool for protecting biodiversity. This bill is not only serious and unacceptable in contents , but it is also incompatible with the will of the majority of Italians, who want more protection for the environment, more security, starting with who can access their properties, more animal welfare, more respect for common goods".

The legislative process

According to the associations, the text of the bill presented to parliament almost entirely follows the ministerial draft. "The changes made are minimal and completely insufficient to mitigate the severity of the measure. An emblematic example is the case of hunting on the beach : the possibility of hunting in state-owned areas is maintained, explicitly excluding only the maritime state-owned area. This means that, without the mobilization of associations , it would have even gone as far as allowing rifles on the seaside”.