The online campaign for the two referendum questions on hunting closed with 109.861 and 109.125 signatures, numbers still far from the 500.000 signatures required for each request. For the hunting community, this data calls for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between citizens and hunting, avoiding simplifications and unnecessary alarmism.
The signature collection for the two abrogative referendums on hunting promoted by the association Respect for All Animals has concluded. At the close of the process, the Ministry of Justice platform had received 109.861 and 109.125 online signatures for "Ban hunting in Italy – art. 19 ter" and "Let's ban hunting – art. 842," respectively: approximately one-fifth of the 500.000 signatures needed to reach a quorum. The overall picture will need to be completed with paper signatures, the national data for which is not yet available; however, at present, each of the two online referendums is significantly below the required threshold.
The Hunting World Control Room , which includes the recognized national hunting associations – Federcaccia, Enalcaccia, Arcicaccia, ANLC, ANUUMigratoristi, Italcaccia – and the CNCN – National Hunting and Nature Committee, believes that this data deserves to be considered also in light of the debate that has developed in recent weeks around the perception of hunting, especially following the publication of a survey according to which there is a significant presence among Italians of positions in favor of abolishing or limiting it.
Of course, polls and signature collections measure different dimensions : the former detect the opinions expressed by respondents when questioned on a topic, while a referendum collection also allows us to observe the actual willingness to translate those opinions into a concrete act of participation.
It is precisely the gap between these two levels that, according to the hunting community, offers further and important food for thought . The strong critical response recorded by the survey does not appear to be matched, at least in the available online data, by an equally intense mobilization, despite the signature collection taking place at a time of particular public and media attention on the issue of hunting, fueled both by the dissemination of the survey results and by the heated debate on hunting law reform underway in Parliament. This circumstance, for the Steering Committee, calls for greater caution in portraying hunting as an issue capable of generating widespread social alarm in Italian society, one that citizens are willing to address directly.
The Ipsos survey and the referendum collection offer two different and complementary perspectives. However, the signature data invites us to read the opinions that emerged from the survey within
"A more complex picture: despite critical positions toward hunting, the issue does not seem to translate into real concern among citizens," says Maurizio Zipponi, President of the CNCN , on behalf of the Steering Committee. He continues: "This does not mean avoiding the debate, but addressing it without simplifications and without transforming pseudo-surveys into a comprehensive representation of the relationship between citizens and hunting: responsible hunters are the first environmentalists in our country."
For the Steering Committee, reducing the hunting debate to ideological opposition risks distracting attention from the concrete issues surrounding wildlife management and the relationship between biodiversity, human activities, and the environment . Public debate must instead develop on the merits, starting with data and scientific knowledge, avoiding simplifications, alarmist interpretations, and narratives that fuel fears rather than foster a true understanding of the issues.
Modern, effective, and responsible wildlife management , capable of combining biodiversity protection, safety, agriculture, animal health, and land conservation, requires planning, monitoring, accountability, and collaboration between institutions, the scientific community, local communities, farmers, hunters, and associations. It is on this basis—and only on this basis—that the debate on hunting should be measured.
Taken from Federcaccia.org
