PRESS
the stray IN THE PARK OF ABRUZZO
COMMENT TO THE RESULTS OF RESEARCH
In recent days, the report is circulated on the Internet on a Research on stray dogs in the Abruzzo National Park, prepared by the technicians of the Park; research emerged, we have reason to believe the little known event with Bear attacked by a pack of dogs in December in the valley of Sagittarius (City of Villalago), on the edge of the National Park.
An exemplary report, which is based on official archival data on the damage to farmers repaid during the period 2004-2009, but also a report suffers from a fundamental premise, the premise that we can only consider "political" in the sense of protection policy of the Park, and which is given here: "From Data relating to compensation to be paid to farmers by the Park in past years clearly shows an exponential increase of the amounts paid, and this trend is not accompanied by either increase in the numbers of wild predators (primarily wolves) or by an increase in domestic in the composition of the diet of predators, as is clear from the droppings of wolves, which shows that the servants appear with relatively small percentages.
E 'well-known fact to all those who deal with wildlife that at least the presence of wolves has been steadily increasing, so that the Park Board last year have shown di 60 lupi nell’area del Parco (contro la decina, sì e no) del 1970. Sessanta Lupi che, per chi è a conoscenza dell’impatto predatorio di questi animali, non è cosa da sottovalutarsi, e rende ben comprensibile l’aumento esponenziale dei danni agli armenti domestici, essendo essi, nonostante l’aumentata presenza di cervi e cinghiali, sempre e comunque il punto più debole della catena alimentare. E ciò non concorda, ed è anzi in antitesi, con i risultati della ricerca!
Per quanto riguarda la presenza dei cani randagi o inselvatichiti, almeno lo scrivente può dichiarare che in trent’anni di assidua frequentazione delle montagne del Parco solo in 2 (due!) casi ha osservato cani in situazioni tali da poterli definire cani randagi o “inselvatichiti”. Nelle stesse relazioni del servizio di sorveglianza del Parco non credo esistano molte segnalazione di questi cani, che all’epoca della mia presenza nel Parco mai si parlava, perché mai ne venivano avvistati. E non c’è ragione di credere che dopo quell’epoca vi sia stato un boom di questi animali!
Non è con queste premesse che si fa chiarezza sul problema del rapporto tra Parco ed allevatori. Non è negando certe realtà per comodo e difesa “di principio” della fauna predatoria del Parco che si difende questa fauna. La verità dei fatti deve be the basis of any serious research, otherwise it is always altered by the simple fact of departure, which would affect all the others, and thus affect the whole research. Such research to be credible was first made by people super-partes and in any event, even if it proves true for the operators of a National Park should always rely on the principle that it is not saving on repayments that save bears, wolves and other predators, but ALWAYS pay the damages reported, whether they were caused by bears and wolves or dogs, because these reimbursements, even though "inflated" in some cases, must be seen as contributions towards activity essential to the survival of predators and the maintenance of biodiversity of pastures and forests of the park. Claim that they (farmers and pastoralists) to "pay" in fact for these continued not only unfair, it would also be undemocratic and illiberal.
Murialdo, January 15, 2011 ; THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
F.to Franco Zunino
0 comments:
Post a Comment