In recent weeks, for the first time in Italy in over half a century, two wolves have been killed by authorities: one by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano and one in Lessinia, by the Autonomous Province of Trento. Both actions were prompted by a series of predations and supported by a favorable technical-investigative opinion issued by ISPRA, the Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research.
These operations have reignited public debate: while they are presented as urgent measures to protect the livestock sector, they have also sparked criticism for their alleged ineffectiveness in achieving the stated objective of reducing predation in the medium to long term.
Our Association does not hold a principled position against culling: we recognize that, in specific cases and only after all non-lethal measures have proven ineffective, the removal of individual animals can sometimes be used as a management tool. However, we strongly reiterate our position: culling is not, and cannot be, a preventative measure. It is and must remain a last resort , applicable only in the presence of a threat to public safety or serious and repeated damage to the livestock sector , in clearly documented circumstances, and only when, through appropriate preventative measures, everything possible has been done to avoid the occurrence of such situations.
It is also necessary to clarify what "having done everything possible" truly means, defining solid technical criteria, both for the ongoing improvement of prevention measures and for understanding when all alternatives to abatement have actually been exhausted. In this regard, ISPRA's opinion is crucial, both in defining clear parameters and in assessing, on a case-by-case basis, their actual compliance. At the same time, however, this opinion cannot be based solely on the report provided by those requesting abatement measures.
These considerations must also take into account how the issue of large carnivores, and the wolf in particular, is frequently exploited and distorted for political purposes today: hasty announcements of culls or dramatic decrees with high symbolic value are used as signals to sensitive constituencies, such as farmers, rural areas, and the mountain public. This phenomenon has a significant impact: punitive rhetoric and the promise of "quick fixes" put pressure on administrations and experts, risking influencing decisions that should instead be based solely on the effectiveness of prevention measures. The danger is twofold: on the one hand, hasty decisions that compromise conservation processes; on the other, the erosion of mutual trust between local communities, science, and institutions.
Last but not least, several studies* (see link at the bottom of the article) demonstrate that as "legal" culling increases, so does illegal culling . This phenomenon has been observed in various European and American contexts: the introduction of exemptions, harvest quotas, or authorized culling plans, far from reducing illegal killings, often contributes to culturally and socially legitimizing the idea that eliminating the predator is acceptable or even necessary. In other words, the perception of the wolf as a "problem" species is strengthened, and a segment of the population may feel indirectly authorized to intervene independently, outside of the law.
In Italy, there is a significant knowledge gap on this front: the species' actual mortality rates, the impact of poaching, and the causes of anthropogenic deaths in wolf populations remain largely unknown to the very regions responsible for managing the phenomenon. We will provide further information on these aspects in the coming months.
Comparison between the two cases: what the facts and documents say
In the case of Val Venosta, the Province of Bolzano ordered the culling of two wolves following a series of predations on sheep left in mountain pastures. News reports and official press releases describe the operation as a rapid response to livestock attacks. However, an examination of the case files and preliminary reports (obtained only recently through a request for access to documents) reveals a recurring theme: most of the predations appear to have occurred in conditions where preventive measures were absent or inadequate. This is not a minor detail: it justifies the objection that the cull was used as a "shortcut," replacing a structured prevention plan, currently severely lacking in South Tyrol, and public awareness initiatives about the species.
Compared to Alto Adige, Trentino has historically adopted a more comprehensive approach, with specific support activities for farmers and greater technical awareness, also gained through experience in bear management.
However, the case of Malga Boldera, in Trentino, is emblematic because it highlights the remaining grey areas: the fenced perimeter, despite having been a virtuous example for years in protecting cattle from wolf attacks, has over time proven to be excessively extensive, subject to maintenance problems, and vulnerable to predators' evasion techniques. A sort of deserted cathedral amid hundreds of unprotected pastures, it now demonstrates the physiological management challenges of wild, or unsupervised, grazing.
Oversized enclosures are difficult to monitor and create vulnerable spots for predators to exploit. Guard dogs remain one of the most effective tools when used correctly, but unfortunately, they were never used in this case: the enclosure houses cattle from numerous farms, making it particularly difficult to introduce dogs, as with multiple farmers grouped together, there is no single point of contact for a single owner.
In short, prevention works if it is systemic: where even one of these elements is missing, the risk of failure increases significantly, as the cases of Trentino and Alto Adige demonstrate.
Technical considerations on the effectiveness of abatements
Technical analyses show that the removal of a few individuals does not eliminate the risk when livestock exposure factors persist. For this reason, I'm Not Afraid of the Wolf, along with numerous associations and technical groups, have emphasized that these culls actually have more significant political implications than actual effectiveness in the interests of livestock farmers.
For over a decade, both in South Tyrol and in Lessinia Veneta and Trentino, there has been strong reluctance to widely adopt preventive strategies: the systemic "inapplicability" of preventive measures has been repeatedly touted as a reason to suspend structural investments, creating a vicious cycle that is now evident in the cases of South Tyrol and Trentino. From this perspective, we have repeatedly shared our observations with farmers, and we reiterate it here: those who claim that the "wolf problem" will be solved by culling, that predation will cease, and that there is no need to invest in prevention are not protecting the interests of farmers, but exploiting the issue for personal or electoral gain.
In fact, polarization has two concrete effects: it increases distrust of conservationists (who are perceived as insensitive to the concerns of livestock farmers) and, simultaneously, reinforces the political narrative that favors "one-off" solutions over structural investments. All of this represents a double disadvantage for a long-term policy, which should combine biodiversity protection and income.
Recommended policy actions
From this perspective, there is still much to be done. A key concept we propose as a policy-practice is to cease the payment of compensation to those who fail to adopt prevention measures. Today, in many Italian regions, including Trentino and Alto Adige, wolf damages continue to be paid even when the preyed animals are not protected; this creates a perverse mechanism that discourages prevention and, in the long run, complicates coexistence with carnivores.
European directives are clear in this regard: compensation should not replace preventive measures . It is time for regional and provincial regulations to consistently reflect this logic, making the payment of compensation conditional on the essential requirement of having correctly adopted all necessary protective measures, especially since preventive measures are often provided free of charge by institutions.
The suspension of compensation in the event of failure to apply preventive measures appears to be an urgent and necessary compromise, especially when conservationists are required to accept occasional removals.
For our part, since the Association's founding, we have repeatedly reiterated the need to work on prevention in Lessinia, but our words have often fallen on deaf ears. The results are now clear for all to see, with generations of wolves preying on cattle, ongoing damage, widespread discontent, and a steadily increasing poaching rate. In this regard, our certified emails to institutions and authorities regarding recent cases of illegally killed wolves in the Venetian Lessinia have been to no avail: the silence of the institutions has left criminals unpunished and walking free, rifles at the ready.
Monitoring and data collection
Regarding knowledge of the species and pack monitoring, it's important to emphasize that many Italian regions face a chronic data shortage. In the case of Trentino, the lack of telemetry data (such as that provided by radio-collared wolves) drastically limits the ability to reconstruct detailed spatial-temporal dynamics and assess the impact of management measures on the behavior of individual individuals and packs. This scientific deficit , in our view, makes the technical legitimacy of emergency measures very fragile.
In this regard, it's worth noting that in 2023, the Province of Trento had already requested ISPRA's opinion regarding the culling of two wolves, which was never carried out, again in connection with predation on cattle at Malga Boldera. The Higher Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, analyzing the predation cluster, had made specific observations at that time:
The requested sampling may be consistent with the provincial and EU regulatory framework, provided that this Administration (the Province of Trento) activates a program of actions aimed at encouraging the adoption of prevention measures by other companies present in the area, and provided that it produces within 3 months a brief assessment of possible prevention improvements that can be implemented at the Boldera mountain dairy, accompanied by a concise timetable of any actions.
These fundamental steps are explicitly stated in ISPRA's opinion, but more than two years later, none of the recommendations appear to have been implemented , and significant critical issues remain: neighboring farms lack effective protection; reports of low fence tension and a lack of adequate guarding; and the presence of young grazing animals more vulnerable to predation.
It should also be noted that, for several weeks now, we have observed a smaller enclosure within the main grazing area at Malga Boldera, housing a few young animals. Since then, we have not seen any further predation at the same pasture. This finding is significant because it demonstrates how the adoption of additional and more appropriate measures can often be effective in reducing damage, effectively disproving the idea that there are no technical solutions beyond wolf culling.
Final houghts
In conclusion, the recent culls, as they were conceived and communicated, appear to have more political than practical value: they do not address the root causes of predation, nor do they offer real support to farmers, but instead risk fueling the vicious cycle of conflict.
What's needed is a change of pace: more concrete prevention, more quality control over measures adopted, more scientific research, and, above all, greater political will to translate formal commitments into structural and quantifiable local interventions. This is the exact opposite of the "wolf control plan" that the Province of Trento appears to be working on, but for which no details are currently available.
Only in this way will it be possible to reconcile livestock income, the identity of Alpine communities, and the conservation of a species that, in Europe, is still subject to strong social and management tensions, and whose future is not as rosy and obvious as many would have us believe.
Opening photo by Gaetano Pimazzoni / LessiniaBolf
*