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: felling is not, and cannot become, a preventative tool. It is and must remain thelast resort, applicable only in the presence of a situation of threat to public safety or serious and repeated damage to the livestock sector, in clearly documented circumstances and only when, through appropriate prevention tools, everything possible has been done to avoid the occurrence of such situations.
It is also necessary to clarify what “having done everything possible” really means, defining solid technical criteria, On the one hand, for the constant improvement of prevention measures, and on the other, to understand when all alternatives to culling have actually been attempted. In this sense, ISPRA's opinion is crucial, both in defining clear parameters and in assessing, on a case-by-case basis, their effective compliance. At the same time, however, This opinion cannot be based exclusively on the report provided by the person requesting the demolition work.
These considerations must also take into account how the theme of large carnivores, and in particular the wolf, is today frequently used and distorted for political purposes: 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" solutions put pressure on administrations and technicians, risking biasing decisions. which should instead be based exclusively 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 the number of "legal" killings increases, the illegal ones also increase in parallelThis phenomenon has been observed in various European and American contexts: the introduction of exemptions, harvest quotas, or authorized culling plans, far from reducing illegal killing, often contributes to culturally and socially legitimizing the idea that eliminating the predator is acceptable or even necessary. In other words, it reinforces the perception of the wolf as a "problem" species, and a segment of the population may feel indirectly authorized to intervene independently, outside of the law.
In Italy, there is a great 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 capture 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 investigation 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 of absence or inadequacy of preventive measures. This is not a marginal detail: it justifies the objection that the cull was used as a "shortcut", replacing a structured prevention plan, currently profoundly lacking in South Tyrol, and information initiatives aimed at the population about the species.
Compared to Alto Adige, Trentino has historically adopted a more complex approach, with specific support activities for farmers and a greater technical awareness, also gained thanks to 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 that protected the cattle from wolf attacks, over time has revealed itself to be overly large, subject to maintenance problems and vulnerable to overtaking techniques developed by predators. A sort of cathedral in the desert amidst hundreds of pastures without any protection, which today demonstrates the physiological management difficulties 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 just one of these elements is missing, the risk of failure increases significantly, as demonstrated by the cases of Trentino and Alto Adige.
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, Io non ho paura del lupo, along with numerous associations and technical groups, have emphasized that these culls actually have more significant effects on a political level than any real effectiveness in the interests of breeders.
For over a decade, both in Alto Adige 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 Alto Adige 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 It does not protect the interests of breeders, but exploits 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 point of view, there is still much to do. A key concept that we propose as policy practice consists in stop providing compensation to those who do not adopt prevention tools. Today, in many Italian areas, including Trentino and Alto Adige, damages caused by wolves continue to be paid even when the preyed animals are not protected; This creates a perverse mechanism that discourages prevention and, in the long term, complicates coexistence with carnivores.
The European directives in this regard are clear: compensation should not replace preventive measuresIt's time for regional and provincial regulations to consistently reflect this logic, making the payment of compensation conditional on the correct adoption of all necessary defense measures, especially since prevention tools 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 there for all to see, with generations of wolves prone to predation on cattle, ongoing damage, general discontent and constantly increasing poaching. In this regard, our certified emails addressed to institutions and authorities regarding the recent cases of wolves killed illegally in the Lessinia Veneto region have been of no avail: the silence of the institutions leaves criminals unpunished and at liberty with their rifles at the ready.
Monitoring and data collection
Regarding knowledge of the species and monitoring of packs, it is important to underline that many Italian regions are faced with a chronic lack of data. In the Trentino case, then, the absence of telemetric data (such as those provided by radio-collared wolves) drastically limits the ability to reconstruct detailed space-time dynamics and to evaluate the effect of management measures. on the behavior of individuals and packs. This scientific deficit From our point of view, this 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 sample may be consistent with the provincial and community 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 concise assessment of the possible improvements in prevention that can be implemented in the Boldera mountain hut, accompanied by a concise timetable of any actions.”
These fundamental steps are explained in the ISPRA opinion, but after more than two years none of the instructions appear to have been followed Yet, 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 animals grazing, more vulnerable to predation.
It should also be noted that, for several weeks now, at Malga Boldera we have been able to observe, within the main grazing area, the presence of a smaller enclosure housing some young animals. Since then We are not aware of any further predation on the same mountain hut. This data is significant, because it demonstrates how often the adoption of additional and more appropriate measures can be effective in reducing damage, effectively denying the idea that there are no further applicable technical solutions other than the culling of wolves.
Final houghts
In conclusion, the recent demolitions, as they have been conceived and communicated, They 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, while instead risking 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
*