In recent years, the presence of wolves in Italy has returned to the center of public debate, often heated and fragmented, oscillating between alarmism, calls for drastic interventions, and romantic visions of wildlife. But beyond the words, there is an objective and incontrovertible fact that can help us understand the true condition of the species in our country: the number of wolves found dead each year.
Our new relationship “Wolf mortality in Italy between 2019 and 2023"allows us to observe this phenomenon for the first time through official data collected extensively across the country. This complex effort, built over a year and a half of work and over sixty requests for Generalized Civic Access, has enabled us to obtain information from regional and national bodies, animal health institutes, veterinary services of local health authorities, ISPRA (Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection), and other technical bodies.A high, constant and increasing mortality rate
The picture that emerges is clear: between 2019 and 2023, 1.639 dead wolves were found in Italy, increasing from 210 cases in 2019 to 449 in 2023, or more than one wolf death every day. This figure has more than doubled, certainly reflecting an overall increase in the population, but also raising important questions. Such a high number indicates constant and increasing pressure, linked to anthropogenic factors that profoundly impact the wolf population. Furthermore, the overall mortality described in the report does not represent the entire reality: a significant portion of wolf deaths are never found because the carcasses can be consumed by other animals, decompose rapidly, or remain in inaccessible or remote areas. This means that the reported numbers, while impressive, most likely represent only a small portion of the true phenomenon.
Analyzing the causes of death, we find that over 70% of known cases are directly or indirectly linked to humans. Road and rail accidents account for the largest share of confirmed deaths: over 978 wolves were struck during the five-year period analyzed. This data highlights the tangible impact of land fragmentation, the expansion of infrastructure, and the lack of adequate ecological corridors on wildlife.
Alongside these investments, the impact of poaching is also striking, resulting in the confirmed deaths of at least 210 wolves during the period under review. This significant number, however, as already noted, represents only the visible part of the phenomenon, as many carcasses of illegally killed wolves are never found, having been intentionally hidden or ended up in inaccessible places.
Several studies suggest that the actual number of wolves poached could be up to three times higher than documented cases, suggesting up to 600 animals were killed illegally in Italy during the period analyzed.
It's important to remember that poaching isn't just a serious crime against a protected species: it's also a sign of social contexts in which the presence of wolves is perceived as a threat or an obstacle to human activities. The high frequency of animals poisoned, injured by firearms, or found in suspicious circumstances confirms that in some regions, the conflict between humans and wolves has never truly subsided: in Lombardy, poaching is the cause of death for over 33% of carcasses found, and in Calabria, 28%.
The consequences of these killings go beyond the loss of individual animals: poaching profoundly alters the social balance of packs, interferes with reproductive and dispersal processes, and can thus foster hybridization, making the species' territorial presence more unstable and risking altering its genetic integrity. It is therefore a phenomenon that impacts the population as a whole and must be addressed not only as a legal issue, but as a concrete threat to the conservation of the species on a national scale.
A gray area
One of the most significant and problematic aspects concerns the percentage of deaths classified as "undetermined." This gray area is the result of several factors: a lack of necropsies, delays in recovery, carcasses that are too degraded, or simply the absence of clear protocols. In a country where wolves are the subject of intense media and political attention, the inability to determine the cause of death in such a high number of cases is a warning sign: it means we are often unable to reconstruct what is actually happening in the area, nor distinguish between natural deaths, deaths due to conflict with humans, or other causes. This deficiency has very concrete consequences for the ability to make informed decisions and develop appropriate conservation policies, as it prevents us from fully understanding the main critical factors for the species.
High-Mortality Regions: What the Hardest-Affected Territories Tell Us
The geographical distribution of the data highlights significant differences between Italian regions. Piedmont, Abruzzo, and Emilia-Romagna have the highest number of wolves found dead, with figures exceeding 260 cases each. This reflects not only a potentially greater wolf presence, but also a combination of environmental and anthropogenic variables that may affect mortality: increased vehicular traffic, densely populated areas, the presence of infrastructure, the natural expansion of the species, and, in some areas, social and cultural tensions.
This doesn't mean the situation is better in other regions: where fewer cases have been reported, this may simply be due to the difficulty in finding carcasses. The overall picture is therefore closely linked to the quality of data collection, which varies greatly from region to region.
The root of the critical issues
One of the most significant findings from the report is the difficulties encountered during data collection. In Italy, there is no single, centralized, and standardized system for recording wolves found dead. Each region, each local health authority, and each animal health institute adopts different collection procedures and methods, with varying degrees of completeness and accuracy.
In some cases, the data provided is partial, lacking key information such as the animal's sex or age. In other cases, the agencies stated that they had no information at all, or only a subset of cases within their territory. In some cases, paradoxically, public agencies refused to provide data, as in the case of Tuscany. Sometimes, for the same mortality event, discrepancies emerged between different sources: conflicting causes of death, different dates, inaccurate or inconsistent locations.
This patchwork of incomplete data makes it difficult to build a truly representative picture of the national situation and, above all, prevents the development of effective conservation policies.
This isn't a technical problem, but a structural limitation affecting the very way our country manages wildlife. Without a reliable national archive, every decision, from prevention plans to possible exemptions, risks being made on fragile or partial grounds.
Without data there is no conservation
Monitoring a species like the wolf also means implementing continuous and repeated monitoring over time, capable of providing up-to-date estimates of population size and distribution. The wolf is an extremely mobile species, with a complex social structure and a remarkable capacity for territorial expansion.
Without complete and up-to-date data, it's impossible to base public debate on verifiable facts. At a time when the wolf is at the center of important regulatory decisions, such as the recent move to Annex V of the Habitats Directive and Annex III of the Bern Convention, this lack risks turning conservation policies into an ideological contest rather than a rational, knowledge-based process.
Building trust through transparency and science
As I'm Not Afraid of the Wolf APS, we work to conserve the species and promote real and lasting coexistence between people and wolves. Protecting wolves today requires a balance between them and human activities: livestock farming, agriculture, tourism, and land use. We humans, too, are part of the natural world, no more and no less than other living things. Our needs and vulnerabilities are part of the bigger picture.
Coexistence cannot be based on slogans or top-down numbers: it must be built with responsibility, knowledge, and data-based decisions, as well as listening. We believe it is essential that institutions have consistent and reliable data collection systems that assess the presence of wolves, even in urban contexts, with the necessary secularism, considering the possible medium- and long-term effects, and that are able to intervene rapidly in those critical situations, fortunately rare, that do not reflect the species' typical behavior.
It remains crucial to incentivize and support preventive measures and best practices, which are essential for reducing potential conflict situations. Therefore, technical management must be accompanied by an equally important aspect, which has so far been lacking: clear, timely, and accurate communication. Knowing the data is only the first step. The next, even more important, step is enabling people to understand, interpret, and use it to prevent and reduce conflict. Only in this way can coexistence become a concrete and shared practice, not an abstract principle.
Towards a more conscious management
This investigation reveals a challenge that must be addressed collectively. Safe wildlife infrastructure is needed, such as ecoducts, deterrents, warning systems, and targeted interventions on the most critical road sections. A serious fight against poaching is needed, along with a national system that collects data uniformly, avoiding duplications, omissions, and discrepancies.
And above all, a shared vision of the future is needed: coexisting with wolves requires listening, responsibility, and the ability to develop shared tools. This report is a first step in this direction, but it demonstrates how much work still remains to be done. It is also an invitation to institutions, researchers, local communities, and all those who live in wolf territories to contribute to a broader change. Because wolf deaths are not just numbers: they reflect our relationship with nature and clearly show us where we can, and must, improve.