Shutterstock
Penalties
The document clearly defines the actions that fall under the definition of ‘illegal hunting’. Namely: hunting without hunter status or without a valid permit to do so; the unlawful use of hunting weapons; the use of prohibited types of weapons (bows, crossbows, etc.) and ammunition; as well as devices (night-vision goggles, thermal imagers, etc.).
Poaching will also be deemed to include the pursuit of wild animals using vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as the hunting of animals not specified in the licence, those protected by law, and so on. The definition of ‘poaching’ also extends to the transport, storage, sale and other distribution of game or products derived from it, obtained as a result of illegal hunting.
Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences and the Criminal Code provide for stricter penalties for breaches of hunting regulations and poaching. If an individual causes damage to Moldova’s hunting fund amounting to more than 10,000 lei, they may face a fine of up to 42,500 lei, unpaid community service or imprisonment for up to three years.
In a comment to Logos Press, Oleg Ciocoi, chairman of the Republican Council of the Moldovan Hunters’ Society, noted that the members and administration of this organisation consider the tightening of penalties to be appropriate and welcome it. This is because the legal provisions currently in force left poachers with many ‘loopholes’, allowing them not only to reduce the amount of fines but even to retain the weapons used illegally.
On the other hand, as the chairman of the Hunters’ Society points out, the current regulations regarding penalties do not clearly distinguish between breaches of hunting regulations and poaching – ‘offences with differing degrees of severity’. For example, the same penalties may be imposed for failing to wear high-visibility (‘signalling’) clothing during a group hunt and for the illegal killing of animals. In this regard, Oleg Chokoy believes it would be useful to include references in the aforementioned codes to the law on hunting and the protection of hunting grounds (where, in particular, the concept of ‘poaching’ is clearly defined, point by point).
Licence
According to the head of the relevant organisation, the hunting community’s greatest concern was caused by another provision of the draft law — the introduction of a state hunting licence (both physical and electronic). This service will cost a hunter 660 lei – both upon initial issue and upon mandatory renewal (every five years).
‘In this regard, it is worth noting that the legislation provides for a rather complex procedure for preparing a candidate to obtain a hunting licence. The hunting organisation – in this case, our association – compiles the entire necessary set of documents for the applicant: identity documents, medical certificates, proof of practical training and participation in shooting practice sessions, as well as evidence of knowledge of hunting regulations and the ability to handle firearms safely. It is the hunting organisation that effectively carries out all the work involved in preparing the future hunter. After that, the state authority merely issues the relevant document,” explains Oleg Ciocoi. “In this regard, the economic justification for the licence fee is completely unclear.” As one of her arguments, the author of the bill (MP Veronika Brichag) refers to the procedure for obtaining a licence to acquire and possess firearms. The fee for this document is also 660 lei. But we are talking about actions that are entirely different in nature. Moreover, the renewal of a firearms licence after five years is carried out free of charge.”
In principle, hunting is an expensive hobby. Those who take it up are presumably able to pay for both firearms and equipment, as well as the associated government fees. This includes the hunting licence, a sort of ‘state tax on a harmful habit’. The problem is that the mechanism for issuing these licences requires the creation of a dedicated department within the Environment Agency.
According to a spokesperson for the relevant organisation, it has provided the government body with the data on hunters required to set up the necessary electronic database. The annual inflow and outflow of hunters is around 300–400 people, meaning that updating this database is a minor task and not labour-intensive. However, even the relatively substantial fee for a licence is unlikely to cover the costs of maintaining the authorised staff.
‘If we were talking about setting up a commission tasked with assessing hunters’ qualifications before issuing a hunting licence, then the operation of this system would be justified,’ believes Oleg Ciocoi. ‘But if it is merely a matter of issuing yet another document with a large but pointless number of security features, then a completely different situation arises, along with the logical question: what is the point? The hunting licence issued by our association costs 10 lei. And another question, which I believe is logical, is this: in the long run, will anglers, mushroom pickers and other users of Moldova’s natural resources also have to obtain this expensive state licence?”
This story was translated with the assistance of artificial intelligence.The translation was also reviewed by the Logos Press editorial team.
Follow our updates
Have information for the newsroom? Share it with Logos-Press
Comments
0No comments yet. You can start the conversation.
Comments are open to readers with a Logos Press account.
Sign in to comment