It is necessary to update the regulations governing hunting that have been in place since 1992. However, the hunting bill approved by the Senate changes very little, introducing only one new figure: the farmer-hunter. This is both a political and a practical mistake
Analyzing Bill No. 779, approved by the Senate on first reading on June 23, 2026, and now under examination by the Chamber of Deputies, it becomes clear that we are dealing with legislation on hunting activities that is heavily influenced by vested interests. It is worth recalling that the Bill amends Law No. 157 of 1992, the cornerstone of Italian legislation on wildlife protection and hunting, the latter currently divided into two main categories: selective hunting and population control hunting.
Any hunter may participate in either, provided they are properly authorized and trained. However, under the current legal framework, no one is allowed to place meat obtained through population control hunting on the market.
The new law is intended to expand this possibility by allowing hunters who cull surplus wild boar to sell the animals they harvest. In practice, however, this will be a privilege reserved exclusively for farmer-hunters. That is not a scandal in itself. Agriculture and hunting have always been closely connected, and a farmer can certainly be an excellent hunter.
The real issue lies elsewhere. A farmer who holds a hunting license, has completed the required training, and meets all legal requirements is, in every respect, simply a hunter. There is therefore no need to create a special category around that individual. Nor should the law promote the idea that a hunter who is not a farmer—that is, someone who does not own or manage agricultural land—is somehow less entitled to participate in wildlife management than someone who does.
The Bill does not respect these principles. On the contrary, it appears to have been inspired—if not outright dictated—by agricultural organizations.
These organizations understandably defend agricultural interests, but that does not automatically mean they also defend the interests of the hunting sector. It is no coincidence that Coldiretti welcomed the Bill as an important reform for addressing the wild boar emergency and the resulting damage to crops. This should come as no surprise, given Coldiretti’s well-known focus on advancing its own priorities. Problem is that this particular interest has become the very framework of the legislation, creating a privilege that places farmer-hunters above, rather than alongside, hunters who are not farmers.
The clearest example concerns the control of wild animal populations, starting with wild boar. The Bill provides that farmers, landowners, and land managers may participate in population control plans, provided they hold a hunting license and have completed the required training, while retaining the animals they harvest as compensation for the damage suffered and the costs incurred.
Giving economic value to meat obtained through population control is undoubtedly a positive idea. In fact, it is a path that should have been opened years ago.
This publication has argued in favor of it for at least five years, and I personally have supported the concept for the past fifteen years through my work with universities, public institutions, restaurateurs, schools, Hunting Management Districts (ATCs), and Alpine Hunting Districts. Wild game has the potential to become part of a structured supply chain, a source of local income, a component of food culture, a public health safeguard, and an incentive for responsible wildlife management. The underlying concept is therefore sound. The problem is that it has been poorly drafted, creating first-class and second-class hunters.
It would have been sufficient to establish that animals harvested under officially approved population control plans, provided hygiene and traceability requirements are respected and the carcasses are delivered to authorized processing centers, may enter a regulated commercial supply chain. Instead, the legislation creates a specific exemption benefiting one particular category—farmer-hunters—while effectively penalizing hunters who are not farmers.
This is especially unfair to those who have spent years carrying out population control voluntarily, without earning a single euro and, on the contrary, paying out of their own pockets for fuel, equipment, and the responsibilities involved. It is only natural that those who have participated in population control out of civic responsibility may now feel reduced to unpaid labor. If they decide to withdraw their participation, the pool of volunteers will inevitably shrink.
Once we accept the fact that wildlife population control cannot be achieved through categories but only through adequate numbers of qualified participants, it becomes difficult to believe that a group limited exclusively to agricultural operators, however committed they may be, will be sufficient to control wild boar populations that are now widespread, highly mobile, and extremely adaptable.
Effective legislation should broaden the pool of potential wildlife controllers rather than create symbolic hierarchies. It should allow everyone who is properly trained, authorized, insured, and officially included in a public management plan to share both the responsibilities and the benefits of wildlife management, regardless of whether they are farmers.
To be clear, farmers absolutely deserve a place within Italy’s wildlife and hunting management system. It would be absurd to argue otherwise. They are often the first to suffer the damage caused by overabundant wildlife, they manage the land on a daily basis, they understand local ecological dynamics, and many of them are highly competent hunters. However, they should be part of the system, not become the system. That distinction is fundamental.
A farmer can certainly be a hunter. But not every hunter is a farmer. A law governing hunting should recognize the value of hunters as such, not only when their role happens to coincide with an agricultural interest.
If the objective was to encourage more farmers to participate in hunting activities, there was no need to create a special legal fast track exclusively for them. What should instead be encouraged is the growth of the hunting sector as a whole through better training, accessible supply chains for all qualified operators, transparent public data on wildlife management plans, clear reimbursement mechanisms, and less unnecessary bureaucracy.
Moreover, this approach would be entirely consistent with one of the Bill’s genuinely positive aspects: the introduction of the concept of “wildlife management” alongside that of “wildlife protection.” This is not merely a semantic change; it represents an important acknowledgment. Wildlife is neither an untouchable natural ornament nor a heritage that can simply be left to manage itself. Wild populations must be surveyed, monitored, protected when necessary, and harvested when ecological and social conditions require it.
A properly trained and responsible hunter operating within a scientifically designed harvesting plan is not the caricature of someone who “shoots at everything,” as portrayed in certain public debates. Rather, such a hunter knows the territory, monitors remote areas, participates in wildlife surveys, implements scientifically based harvesting plans, and accepts significant responsibilities.
For precisely this reason, if lawmakers truly wish to recognize the hunter as a wildlife manager and biological regulator, they must have the courage to place hunters themselves at the center of the discussion, regardless of the profession they practice when they are not hunting.
Coldiretti welcomed the hunting bill
As mentioned in the main article, Coldiretti welcomed the Bill, presenting it as an important response to the wildlife emergency, agricultural damage, and biodiversity protection. This should come as no surprise. The organization is defending its own constituency, and the proposed legislation clearly places the agricultural sector at the center of the framework.
What is more troubling, however, is that Federcaccia also promoted this favorable interpretation on its own website, effectively endorsing the narrative put forward by Coldiretti.
At this point, the issue is no longer merely agricultural but also political and cultural. Part of the hunting community’s representation appears willing to accept—and even reinforce—the idea that the focus of hunting policy should align primarily with agricultural interests rather than defending the central role of hunters in wildlife management.
If Coldiretti supports an agriculture-centered reform, it is simply pursuing its own mission. But when those who claim to represent hunters allow others to shape the debate while overlooking the interests of their own members, they are failing in their responsibility.
Those who have embraced the concept of hunters as biological regulators may ultimately feel betrayed by the very institutions and representative organizations that were supposed to acknowledge and support that role. As a result, they may choose to withdraw from population control programs, causing undeniable harm not only to wildlife management but also to farmers, who still rely on these volunteers to address the growing challenges posed by overabundant wildlife.
The agricultural and hunting sectors should therefore move along the same path while continuing to defend their respective interests.
Confusing the two does not produce better environmental protection or more effective wildlife management. Instead, it results in sectoral politics being presented as reform, often endorsed by ministries and parliamentary majorities that have only a superficial understanding of agriculture, livestock production, and wildlife management—a pattern that has become all too common.
The game parks that are ethically difficult to justify
Another sensitive aspect of the Bill concerns the greater emphasis placed on private hunting estates and agri-tourism hunting enterprises. This is not an argument against private enterprise. Rural economies also depend on tourism, hospitality, land stewardship, and related services. However, hunting should never be reduced to the organized consumption of animals bred specifically to be shot.
Once legislation embraces the model of farmed ungulates that are released and subsequently harvested within enclosed or semi-enclosed areas, it is no longer dealing with the management of genuinely wild populations. Instead, it resembles the creation of “game parks” that are ethically difficult to justify because they are designed primarily for recreational shooting rather than wildlife management.
The Bill also addresses highly symbolic issues, beginning with the wolf. Removing the species from the list of those enjoying the highest level of legal protection does not automatically reopen hunting. Nevertheless, the political message is unmistakable. It places the wolf in a more vulnerable legal and political position at a time when public debate is already marked by excessive hostility toward this predator.
By contrast, the Alpine ibex remains excluded from the list of huntable species, despite the fact that, in certain Alpine regions and under rigorously designed selective management plans, limited harvesting could be carried out while reinvesting the resulting revenues into monitoring and conservation programs.
The outcome is somewhat paradoxical: a law that repeatedly speaks of “wildlife management” while continuing to be shaped by symbolism, political sensitivities, and longstanding taboos.
Title: Italy’s hunting bill: a mix of pros, cons, and vested interests
Authors: Eugenio Demartini e Roberto Viganò
Translation with ChatGPT
