The killing of a first wolf on July 5th in the Marebbe, Braies, and Valdaora areas, and the new decree of August 28th authorizing the killing of a second individual, raise, in light of the documentation acquired by our Association, numerous questions about the ways in which the Autonomous Province of Bolzano is implementing the procedures established for the management of the species.
The first cull did not prevent further predation : in the following weeks, 11 more attacks on livestock were confirmed in the same area. This inevitably raises questions about the effectiveness of the approach adopted and, above all, the wisdom of now proceeding with a second cull using similar methods.
The documentation relating to the first measure also shows that, at the time of the predations, the affected mountain pasture had no electric fences, guard dogs, or other specific livestock protection devices . This is particularly relevant in assessing the need for intervention, especially considering that similar doubts about the adequacy of the prevention measures remain in the new decree of August 28.
There is also a further critical element: the provisions do not limit the culling to pastures or the immediate vicinity of the affected mountain pastures. Instead, the removal is authorized within a very large area, nearly 30.000 hectares , spanning three municipalities. The culling therefore risks being essentially random : it is not the wolf responsible for the damage that is removed, but potentially any wolf within the large area affected by the decree.
ISPRA's involvement also raises some questions. From the documentation acquired by our Association, it emerges that, in March 2026, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano requested a general assessment of the wolf's conservation status and the possibility of proceeding with any removals. ISPRA prudentially indicated a maximum of three specimens whose removal could be compatible with maintaining the population's conservation status, specifying, however, that any intervention remains subject to compliance with all the conditions set forth by the legislation.
National legislation requires that wildlife control interventions be preceded by a specific investigation tailored to the specific case, including an assessment of possible alternative measures and the acquisition of a technical opinion from ISPRA. Alternatively, the Region or Autonomous Province must develop a species management plan, which must also be submitted to the Institute for evaluation.
From the documents acquired regarding the first cull, there is no specific opinion from ISPRA regarding the Fojedöra mountain hut case , nor is there an assessment by the Institute regarding the need for that intervention, the adequacy of the preventive measures adopted, possible alternatives to removal, or the identification of the animal responsible for the predation. Furthermore, there is no management plan for the species submitted to ISPRA for evaluation that could constitute an alternative basis for these interventions.
I'm Not Afraid of the Wolf APS is not opposed in principle to the removal of an animal. Intervention on a wolf actually responsible for serious and repeated damage can be a management tool , but it must occur when adequate preventative measures have been adopted, when possible alternatives have been evaluated and proven ineffective, and, above all, when the removal is sufficiently selective to have a concrete chance of intervening on the offending animal and resolving the problem.
In this case, however, the acquired documentation paints a different picture: specific prevention tools were not present at the time of the first felling, the felling was not limited to the mountain pastures affected by predation or their immediate vicinity, there is no detailed assessment of possible alternatives, and there is no ISPRA opinion regarding the specific intervention.
The fact that, just a few weeks later, predation has continued and a second cull decree has become necessary highlights the weakness of the scientific and management approach of the first intervention, which failed to achieve its objective of preventing further damage. When a wolf is removed without simultaneously ensuring adequate livestock protection measures, the risk is that the cull will become a largely symbolic response, capable of producing an immediate political result but not necessarily reducing the risk of further predation for farmers.
The point isn't to save a single wolf at all costs. The point is to prevent the new regulatory framework from being interpreted as a free pass for generic, non-selective culling. Putting science first means demanding that every intervention be based on evidence, complete, transparent, and verifiable procedures, and a concrete evaluation of its effectiveness. Only in this way can we truly protect farmers, avoiding interventions that don't solve the problem, while simultaneously ensuring proper management of wild fauna.
These are the statements of I'm Not Afraid of the Wolf APS
Opening photo by André Roveyaz and Francesco Guffanti