Hunting bill: calling it "management" isn't enough. It's a cultural setback.

The new hunting bill, currently under consideration by Parliament, is presented as a reform of Law 157/1992, the law that has governed wildlife protection and hunting in Italy for over thirty years. We are not convinced by this bill. We are not convinced by its approach, its political direction, or the potential consequences it could have on wildlife protection and land management.

Wildlife, according to Italian law, it is an unavailable asset of the State. It means that it does not belong to a category, a particular interest, an organized group or a political party. It belongs to the community and must be protected in everyone's interest.
Precisely for this reason, a reform of the law on wildlife should start from science, data, species conservation, conflict prevention, and the protection of biodiversity. This bill, however, goes in another direction. One of the most serious points concerns the role of technical-scientific opinions. The bill addresses hunting calendars and reduces the weight of ISPRA's opinion. This is a huge problem. Decisions about wildlife, hunting seasons, population protection, and conservation cannot be left to political discretion or local pressure.They must remain anchored to sound, independent, and national scientific assessments. The bill also intervenes on hunting periods, This opens the possibility of greater regional flexibility and an extension of the calendar. The reference to the first ten days of February deadline for some postponements is no longer in effect. This is far from a minor change: it makes it easier to extend hunting during extremely sensitive periods for many species. The list of huntable species is also affected. with the introduction of new species such as the greylag goose and the city pigeon. At a time when countless bird species are struggling due to habitat loss, climate change, intensive agriculture, and land use, the policy response should not be to expand hunting, but to strengthen knowledge and protection. The bill on live decoys and fixed posts does not correct a historical criticality: it amplifies it. Live decoys are already permitted, but with limits and restrictions. The proposal maintains the limits for wild-caught decoys, but opens the door to the unlimited use of captive-bred decoys, provided they are ringed, and exceeds the historical limit on authorizations for fixed bird stations. Here too, the direction is clear: no more protection, no more caution, no more stringent controls, but more space for a particularly controversial hunting practice. The issue of protected areas, areas taken away from hunting, and state-owned areas is also a concern. The risk is that, through technical and apparently bureaucratic changes, we will end up reducing the effective areas for wildlife protection over time. It would be a serious step backwards, especially in a country that has included the protection of the environment, biodiversity, and ecosystems among the fundamental principles of the Constitution. Then there is the chapter on wildlife control. The bill expands the number of parties eligible for control plans: hunters, private guards, landowners, land managers, and farmers. It also provides for the possibility of hunting wild boar on snow-covered land.
This approach is extremely dangerous. No one denies that in some situations, control may be necessary. Problems exist: damage to agriculture, road accidents, health risks, and conflicts with certain human activities. But control can't become the automatic response to everything. And above all, it can't be passed off as management if there's no overall strategy. The topic of wolves is often brought up in public debate, but it is not the focus of this reform. Adapting Italian law to the new European framework for the species was a long-awaited step and should be seen as part of that process. The real problem is much broader: it concerns the entire direction this bill intends to give to wildlife management in Italy. And here is the paradox: the text inserts the word “management”, but does not construct a real wildlife management.

Management means, first and foremost, protection: thorough monitoring, reliable censuses, public damage databases, national intervention criteria, prevention, outcome monitoring, evaluation of the effectiveness of control plans, and transparency. It means knowing what is being done, why it is being done, what objectives are being pursued, and what measurable results are being achieved. In this bill, however, we see above all a strengthening of hunting and armed control. More flexibility on calendars. More space for the Regions. More huntable species. More entities authorized to carry out inspections. More tools. More opportunities for wildlife-hunting and agritourism-hunting businesses. Less focus on science. This is not the modern management the country needs. a reform that risks setting back the protection of wildlife, transforming a collective heritage into a terrain of compromise with particular interests. We don't think wildlife should be left unmanaged. On the contrary, we believe it needs more management, real management. Public, transparent, scientific, data-driven, and oriented toward conservation and conflict prevention. A serious law should first ask: which species are truly increasing and which are declining? What needs to be done to improve the conservation status of the former? Where is the damage concentrated? What preventative measures work? Do culling actually reduce the problems or merely shift them? Who collects the data? Who monitors it? Who is liable if a policy doesn't work? Without these answers, talking about management is just a convenient term. A term used to make a setback acceptable.
This is why we believe the bill must be stopped or profoundly rewritten. Common sense is needed. Science is needed. Respect for wildlife, European law, the Constitution, and the public interest is needed.

Politics has a duty to listen to the scientific world and not to transform wildlife management into a concession to the hunting world.
Wildlife is not a problem to be eliminated. It is not private property. It is not a resource to be exploited. It is part of the country's natural heritage.

We demand that Parliament choose responsibility, knowledge, and protection. Not backwardness.