The TSJ of Castilla y León nullifies the Plan of Conservation and Management of Wolf – CazaWonke – Hunting and Safaris, your daily hunting.


El TSJ de Castilla y León anula el Plan de de Conservación y Gestión del Lobo - CazaWonke - Caza y Safaris, tu diario de caza.El TSJ de Castilla y León anula el Plan de de Conservación y Gestión del Lobo - CazaWonke - Caza y Safaris, tu diario de caza.

The First Section of the Room of the Contentious-administrative of Valladolid of the Superior Court of Justice of Castile and Leon, was overturned in its entirety, the Plan of Conservation and Wolf Management in the absence of technical reports or scientific “independent” to support and advise the establishment of measures of control and achievement hunting that is available to them in the decree that 14/2016, which was in force after having been repealed in part also the previous, 2008, reports Ical.

The basic foundation of the judgment is that the decree does not adhere to the procedure due. “The ruling is part of an ongoing neglect of the Board to the environmental regulations, rejecting as much background as forms, and therefore neglecting the conservation of biodiversity”, according to Ical, the Association for the Conservation and Study of the Iberian Wolf (Ascel), who introduced the contentious administrative appeal. In this situation, the judgment is “not an exception”, because it sum the partial cancellation in may of the Decree 32/2015, whose judgment is echoed in these cars.

However, the sentence does not point to a mere defect of form, but that takes literally collected facts in the demand of Ascel. In this regard, “does not consist of a technical motivation enough, and after that justifies the content of the Decree” neither studies, “previous, serious and rigorous of its impact on the natural environment”.

The ruling also argues that it is not observed “in what have been the traces of herds carried out”, referred to in the Decree, nor is there a pre-check of the populations, “even makes reference to a prior study of its impact on the species”. The court also missing a “diagnosis of the population or census of the latter, in spite of multiple references to them are made in the provision contested”.

Source: .abc.it is