[ad_1]
This summer the people of Solothurn were paddling en masse across the Aare near Solothurn. Also through the two protected areas between Lüsslingen-Solothurn and Feldbrunnen-Flumenthal. There are reserves of aquatic and migratory birds of national importance. And no rowing would be allowed there. A national regulation provides the basis.
Literally SUPs are not mentioned; However, one section can be interpreted to mean that SUPs are among the prohibited devices in protected areas. This was not officially known until now. The canton planned to communicate this in 2021. For example, Emmenpark AG, which only started renting SUPs this summer, received a special permit until mid-September 2020.
As is well known, things turned out differently; The ban was known in mid-September. What caused strong and numerous critics. And to the discussions that were no longer just about the question of whether SUPs represent a problem for birds or not.
Review: Office decided spontaneously and without help
Cantonal hunting and fishing administrator Marcel Tschan explains how the premature and very surprising ban came about: “The legal basis for the ban is provided by the federal government, the canton is obliged to implement it.” Tschan also mentions the ordinance on nationally important migratory and waterfowl reserves listed at the beginning. There it is mentioned that kite boards and similar devices are prohibited in reservations. The federal government decides what should be understood by “similar devices,” Tschan said.
The Federal Council had already explicitly counted SUPs under this term in May. And so it confirms what the Federal Office for the Environment had previously interpreted. The canton is now implementing the ban. And: “We originally did not want to implement the ban until next year, and at best in a weakened way. There should be extensive information and communication in advance, ”continues Tschan.
But: Meanwhile, more and more SUPs were playing in the Aare, new SUPS in the lower section of the Aare (Feldbrunnen-Flumenthal) were also rented from another supplier – Emmenpark AG. This is officially considered “commercial use”; this requires a permit in a protected area. Tschan said: “We couldn’t wait any longer and implemented the applicable federal law.” It could not be an unauthorized action, as is accused the administrator of hunting and fishing. “The procedure was agreed within the office.”
Criticism: the police did not know
Apparently the ban has not yet been properly discussed with the Solothurn canton police. Among other things, it would be in charge of the controls of the affected sections of the Aare – and of correcting or even penalizing people who row in the protection zones. Agreements on how exactly it will be controlled and fined are still being carried out; it is not yet clear what exactly a SUPer threatens in the protection zone.
“Coordination and consultation with the police, of course, was planned from the beginning,” Tschan said. “Since we now had to act faster than planned, this advance coordination was no longer possible.” The meeting between the Office of Forests, Game and Fisheries, the Office of the Environment and the police is scheduled for October.
Review: A SUP jetty was only built in summer
Therefore, the canton already knew about the upcoming ban in the summer, the summer in which the walkway was also built at TCS Camping in Solothurn. A jetty that is also used by SUP players, among others. Even if they are not allowed to row at all in this section. A contradiction? Tschan notes that the jetty is used for water sports and for the safety of “all users”; including canoe, kayak, and rubber boats.
Criticism: lobbying for the hunting law
As mentioned, there is no direct connection between the hunting law and the communication of the SUP ban in the canton. The canton is still accused of banning the pressure for a “yes” in the vote next Sunday. The connection: With the revision of the law, SUPs are explicitly mentioned in the regulation mentioned above. The example of Solothurn after the Federal Council and Bafu decision shows that a ban can already be communicated today. Opponents of the law now believe that only the new hunting law will bring a ban. The canton, on the other hand, also stated that if the hunting law were “yes”, one could imagine adapting the SUP ban; then it would be indicated in said sentence that the cantons are empowered to dictate exceptions. The fact that this statement is made so shortly before the vote is seen by some as “blackmail”; the objective is to bring the votes to “yes”. Tschan “firmly rejects” this accusation: “Building a connection to the vote on the hunting law from this does not correspond to the facts.”
The canton also says: “We too consider the current solution to be unsatisfactory.” They are discussing and examining special regulations for SUP, “and not just from this week.”
