Obstruction hunting: France 12 gauge Strikes Back
01.07.2010 strange country France. You can find both forms of thinking more 'open and progressive side by side with the more conservative' boorish. Intellectuals and artists' open, innovative, provocative, with peasants trinariciuti the worst kind. And this cameo legislative and 'son of the second race, and woe to those who disturb the hunter! But I am more 'raises problems that the measure rather than those it intended to solve (01/07/10)
A decree of the Ministry of Ecology (yes, no hunting, ecology, you read that right ...) of 4 June 2010, published in the Journal Officiel of June 6, 2010, created the "contravention
obstruction in an act of hunting fine of "fifth-rate" of between 1,500 and 3,000 €
will punish 'all acts of obstruction involving the real impediment to the conduct of the hunt. According to article L. 
420-3 of the Environment, and 'defined
act of hunting
" any voluntary act related to the research, followed or the expectation of wildlife was directed towards or resulted in the capture or death of that .
The previous phases, so 'as the search for the game by an officer, are not acts of hunting and therefore not included in this curious form of "protection". In essence, "disturb" a hunter before I started to hunt or batters during a stop to the wild boar are not among the violations sanctioned by the law. The same goes for the finish a wounded animal, with dogs chasing a wounded animal blood, go to check the killing of an animal (with ungulate hunting by stalking) and training of dogs or their competitions.
According to the French parliamentary opposition the decree and 'ridiculous
. With the current state of the French government has nothing better to do than worry about "protecting" the hunt as if it were a fundamental right of the individual. This decree, according to some, does nothing but defend the rights
medieval nobles engaged in the hunt when they could not find any obstacle to their enjoyment
and disturbing act was punishable.
Even in France, and 'power to prevent landowners hunting on their properties'
. This' legal nonsense that undermines even one of the fundamental principles of our society ', namely the protection of property' privacy. Now this legalized abuse is further strengthened:
the owner of the land can not 'exert any pressure against the invaders armed with two goals that they can always sue him for "obstruction" . In addition to the insult, the damage. would be more 'appropriate notice by the opposition left, which the government shows the same attention to protection of social rights and labor, rather than those of local ammazzasette. Harsh criticism even environmental groups, who note that there are already 'rules in this regard and that the episodes feared by hunters (always prone to exaggeration, that their adventures, their Carnieri or alleged abuses of which they are victims) of animal rights raids against hunting in the race are in fact close to zero. Hunters Italians have not lost this time in praise enlightened measure, as if the practice of their activities' was constantly hampered by bands of eco-terrorists! The victimization of local and shotguns' usual pathetic. Do not confuse the fact " concrete acts of obstruction
" with the growing aversion to the social marginal phenomenon. It 'you can' confuse the manifestation of its disagreement with the "actual obstruction."
in Italy had also attempted to introduce the concept of "disturbing the hunt." The Lombardy Region, notoriously prone to the wishes of his hunters ultras, he had the bright idea to introduce the concept of "disturbance to hunting." A clumsy attempt this the Court replied: Reg Lombardia - failure to hunting also using tools to removal of the game - the prohibition in the 51, fifth paragraph, Lombardia 26/93 Rule Act (as posted by art. 24 LR 7 / 02) - head of the constitutional right to assemble peaceably and to express freely their ideas - Withdrawal administrative penalties imposed.
Court of Milan, the Chamber Civil Judgement No 6309/05 of 10 May 2005 (lodged on 05.31.2005)
De Filippo et al. against the Province of Milan Abstract:
"In case you are facing a radical conflict between the conduct of the undisturbed-even legitimate-hunting, guaranteed by national law and regional needs as opposed to express freely and effectively thought that these adverse activities, including through public events, as guaranteed by Articles. 21:17 Constitution (which makes the possibility of a ban on "proven reasons of security and public safety").
Now, the conflict between two rights such, what has constitutional guarantee is intended to prevail, provided that the exercise is likely to lead to a simple weakening of the opposite, it may suffer a temporary compression, because not only limited in time but in space, then expand again in full, without any legal substantial harm. " In practice the principle introduced by the legislature had 12-gauge short-lived for most cases' common manifestations such as anti-hunting on opening day. The protection of the alleged" right "to hunt because mussel - and falls apart - against the much more 'important right of citizens to express their ideas in public with a demonstration. E se la manifestazione, colorata e chiassosa, si svolge in campagna, tanto peggio per i cacciatori. Non sara' certamente una norma insensata come quella francese a "salvaguaradrli". Per non parlare delle possibili "perversioni" dell'uso di tale norma francese
. Dato che la caccia si svolge in un ambiente condiviso con altre persone - ad esempio escursionisti, ciclisti, cercatori di funghi, birdwatcher... - fino a che punto la loro sola presenza potrebbe essere intesa come "ostruzione" alla caccia? La famiglia che fa una scampagnata e si trova faccia a faccia con un gruppo di cacciatori, deve alzare le tende per non "ostruirli"?
O solo se si puo' dimostrare che la famiglia in questione non si trova casualmente in campagna, ma ha deliberatamente inteso recarsi in quel luogo presumendo la presenza di cacciatori al fine di "fare ostruzione"? Interessante processo alle intenzioni... Come si vede il provvedimento e' una emerita idiozia. Non stupisce quindi che abbia fatto sognare tanti cacciatori nostrani, che vi ci sono rispecchiati.
Fonte: Tutelafauna
The incredible number of 92 slaughtered animals is impressive, as well as their distribution. 33 in Kruger National Park, 18 in Northern Province Ovets and 12 in Gauteng Province. The Eastern Cape Province closes the list with "only" two animals killed. The provincial protected areas have lost 32 rhinos, 27 private parks. Among the animals killed up to four blacks 
a mongrel dog yorkshire 
. 