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.
A reflection made even more relevant from what is said to have happened in Pietrabruna in recent days (IM), 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 in a WhatsApp group, transforming an already serious act into a form of public display of the crime.An act that not only represents a violation of the legislation protecting a protected species, but which takes on a particularly serious symbolic meaning: The public display of the crime, almost as a source of pride, conveys a message of impunity and contributes to normalizing behaviors that should instead provoke firm social as well as legal condemnation.
The cases of Pietrabruna and Limana, although 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're talking about an illegal trapping system based on snares and carcass bait—non-selective, highly cruel, and banned tools for decades. This isn't a minor 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 sanctions 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 introduces a topic that is rarely addressed clearly, namely: 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 regulated wildlife activities. 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 agreement is violated so seriously, we are no longer faced with a simple infringement, but with a failure to meet the conditions of the license itself.
An individual who uses illegal and non-selective tools, plans the killing of a protected species and operates completely outside the regulatory framework can no longer hold a hunting license. This isn't an ideological position, but a question of systemic coherence. If the license represents a privilege subordinated to compliance with the rules, its serious violation must entail consequences Clear and automatic measures, such as license revocation (and not just temporary suspension), hunting ban, 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 activity beneficial to the environment, as many public figures and politicians have recently continued to repeat, Its representatives should be the first to publicly condemn episodes of this kind, clearly distance themselves and defend legality within their sector. Silence, on the other hand, has the opposite effect: it risks fueling the idea that there's 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 is part of a particularly delicate context, characterised by an increase in poisonings, as in recent days in Abruzzo, from an increasingly polarized social climate and often ambiguous political signalsIn 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.
Cohabitation between man and wolf is only possible within a credible system. And a system is credible when the rules are clear, violations are actually prosecuted, privileges are linked to real responsibilities, and those who make mistakes actually pay. In conclusion, this case isn't just about a dead wolf, but about how we choose to govern the relationship between humans, wildlife, and the landscape. If legality remains weak, if privileges carry no consequences, and if silence prevails over responsibility, the risk is clear: management is gradually 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