The recent ruling relating to the killing of a wolf in Limana (BL) brings to the forefront an issue that has remained unresolved for years: the disproportion between the seriousness of crimes against wildlife and the actual effectiveness of the sanctions provided for and applied.
This reflection is made even more timely by what reportedly happened in Pietrabruna (province of Imperia), where a man was reported for the alleged illegal killing of a wolf. According to reports, he then photographed himself next to the animal's carcass and shared the image within a WhatsApp group, transforming an already serious act into a form of public display of the crime. This act not only represents a violation of the law protecting a protected species, but also takes on a particularly grave symbolic significance: the public display of the crime, almost as a source of pride, sends a message of impunity and contributes to normalizing behaviors that should instead be met with firm social and legal condemnation.
The cases of Pietrabruna and Limana, though different in their modalities, reveal the same underlying criticality: the perception that illegally targeting wildlife is a behavior with limited consequences. In the specific case of Limana, we are talking about an illegal capture system based on snares and carcass bait—non-selective, highly cruel tools that have been banned for decades. This is therefore not a marginal incident or an impulsive act, but a planned, technically structured action, potentially capable of indiscriminately targeting various species, both domestic and wild. Yet, once again, the punitive response appears weak.
The structural issue: low penalties, zero deterrence
The Italian regulatory framework, particularly Law 157/92, represents an important pillar for wildlife protection. However, its implementation has clear limitations. The financial penalties are often limited and, in many cases, less than the environmental damage caused. Prison sentences are rarely effective and almost always suspended, while lengthy judicial proceedings contribute to diluting the very perception of the crime. Added to this are investigative difficulties that already make it difficult to secure a conviction. The overall result is a system that, in effect, fails to provide real deterrence.
It's also essential to clarify one point: the illegal killing of a wolf isn't just an "animal rights" issue. It's effectively an environmental crime. Such an act alters established ecological balances, affects a protected species, uses unselective and dangerous methods, and, at the same time, undermines the credibility of institutions. The weakness of penalties, therefore, is not a technical detail but becomes a concrete problem for land governance.
However, there is one aspect that makes this case even more serious: the person convicted in the Limana case is a hunter. This raises an issue that is rarely addressed clearly: the relationship between privileges and responsibilities in the hunting world. A hunting license is not an automatic right, but a concession by which the state grants a citizen the ability to use weapons and access to a regulated wildlife activity. This concession is based on an implicit assumption: that the holder operates in strict compliance with the rules and with full awareness of their role. When this pact is so seriously violated, we are no longer dealing with a simple infraction, but with a failure to meet the conditions of the license itself.
Anyone who uses illegal and indiscriminate methods, plans to kill a protected species, and operates completely outside the regulatory framework can no longer hold a hunting license. This is not an ideological position, but a matter of systemic coherence. If the license represents a privilege contingent on compliance with the rules, serious violations must result in clear and automatic consequences, such as license revocation, and not just temporary suspension, a ban from hunting, and exclusion from any management role. Without this step, the system inevitably loses credibility.
A further critical element, in light of this ruling, is the lack of a strong stance from the hunting community. If hunting is to be recognized as an environmentally beneficial activity, as many public figures and politicians have recently continued to repeat, its representatives should be the first to publicly condemn such incidents , clearly distance themselves, and defend the legality within their sector. Silence, on the other hand, has the opposite effect: it risks fueling the idea that there exists a tolerated gray area, where illegal behavior is minimized or ignored. And it is precisely this gray area that undermines any serious discussion about the usefulness of hunting.
This case occurs in a particularly sensitive context, characterized by an increase in poisonings, as in recent days in Abruzzo, an increasingly polarized social climate, and often ambiguous political signals . In such a situation, lenient sentences and the lack of clear public condemnations risk being interpreted as a sign of weakness, further fueling the problem.
Our point of view: legality, responsibility, consistency
As I'm Not Afraid of the Wolf, we believe it is necessary to reiterate some fundamental principles. Legality is non-negotiable: the use of poisons and traps can in no way be considered management, but must be recognized for what it is, that is, a serious crime. Furthermore, truly effective sanctions are needed, capable of providing a concrete deterrent and producing tangible consequences. It is essential that those involved in the hunting world take active responsibility, becoming part of the solution. Finally, full institutional coherence is essential: you cannot ask for cohabitation if you are not able to guarantee compliance with the rules.
Coexistence between humans and wolves is only possible within a credible system. And a system is credible when the rules are clear, violations are effectively prosecuted, privileges are linked to real responsibilities, and those who make mistakes truly pay. In conclusion, this case isn't just about a murdered wolf, but about how we choose to govern the relationship between humans, wildlife, and the environment. If legality remains weak, if privileges carry no consequences, and if silence prevails over responsibility, the risk is clear: management is progressively replaced by arbitrariness. And at that point, coexistence, but above all, environmental protection, ceases to be a goal and becomes an illusion.
_
AI-generated opening photo