How so?

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

Well, the pros and cons of hunting in France is an issue which surely is best debated by the French, is that not so? So why is the EU trying to overstep its mandate in this way? Am I the only person left who remembers the principle of subsidarity?

Sure, subsidiarity is a great thing, but it's not only about the EC:

• Migrating birds have a bad habit of ignoring human-made borders, so some cases, it might not make sense to protect one bird species in one country if it is free for all in the next.
  
• And the restrictions (at least those that generate controversy in France) are seldom outright banning but rather smaller date ranges for the open season.
  
• The palombe (wood pigeon) may be thriving in Sweden but the population was dwindling in France, and the traditional hunt was actually very efficient in thinning out the numbers.
  
• Not all hunting regulations are actually EC imposed, many are decided at national level, but our governments have taken the bad habit of using the "EU made me do it" camouflage; and this extends way beyond hunting...
  
• And last, this is not really about hunting, after all: the CPNT name is "Chasse, Pêche, Nature et Traditions" ("Hunting, Fishing, Nature & Traditions"). As I explained above, it is firstly a reactionary expression of resentment against the urban population (whose values and life styles are different): life was better "before", when men were real men, women were real women, France was white (save for the Colonies), church was Catholic and furry little creatures in the woods were, err, furry little creatures in the woods.