Analyzing Bill No. 779, approved by the Senate on first reading on June 23, 2026, and now before the Chamber of Deputies, one realizes that we are dealing with legislation regarding hunting activities that is heavily influenced by vested interests. It is worth remembering that the bill intervenes in Law No. 157 of 1992, a key provision regarding the protection of wildlife and hunting, which in Italy are currently divided into two main strands.
Selective hunting and containment hunting. Any licensed and trained hunter can participate in both, but currently no one can sell meat from containment hunting. The new law should expand this possibility by allowing hunters of excess wild boar to sell their slaughtered animals, but in practice this will be a privilege reserved only for hunter-farmers. This isn't a scandal in itself, let's be clear.
Agriculture and hunting are historically linked, and a farmer can easily be an excellent hunter. The point is different. A licensed, trained, and qualified farmer is a hunter in every respect, and therefore there's no need to create a special category around him.
Nor should the idea be conveyed that "non-farmer hunters," those who do not manage agricultural land, are less entitled to participate in wildlife management than those who own or work land. The bill, however, does not respect these axioms, as it clearly appears to have been inspired, not to say "dictated," by agricultural organizations.
These defend agricultural interests without automatically protecting the interests of the hunting sector. It's no coincidence that Coldiretti has hailed the bill as an important reform to address the wild boar crisis and the resulting damage to crops, an attitude that shouldn't be surprising, given that Coldiretti is known for always working only for itself.
It's unfortunate that this interest has become the architecture of the law and has given rise to a privilege, placing farmer-hunters above, rather than alongside, non-farmer hunters. The most obvious issue, in relation to the above, concerns the containment of wild species, starting with wild boar.
hunting bill
Farmers, owners, and managers of landed properties are expected to participate in control plans, provided they have the necessary licenses and training, retaining the slaughtered animals as compensation for the damage and costs incurred. Promoting the use of containment meat is a good idea and, in fact, a path that should have been explored long ago.
It's been written on these pages for at least five years, and the author has been supporting it for fifteen years, working in universities, institutions, restaurateurs, schools, ATCs, and Alpine resorts. Game can become a supply chain, a local income, a food culture, a health facility, and a management incentive. So the underlying idea is good, but it needed to be better written, without creating "A" and "B" hunters.
Conservation groups oppose return of big game hunting quotas
It would have been sufficient to establish that animals slaughtered according to control plans, in compliance with hygiene and traceability standards, and if delivered to authorized centers, can enter a regular supply chain. Instead, an exemption has been created for a specific category that rewards hunter-farmers and, in effect, punishes non-farmers.
First and foremost, those who have volunteered for years to carry out containment, without earning a single euro and, indeed, spending their own money on fuel, equipment, and liability. Obviously, those who carried out containment out of a sense of responsibility could now feel like they've been turned into unpaid labor, a position that, if rejected, would see the ranks of volunteers dwindle.
If we then accept the idea that animal control is achieved not through categories, but through numbers, it becomes difficult to imagine that a restricted group of farmers, no matter how motivated, will be sufficient to contain wild boar populations that are now widespread, mobile, and adaptable. An effective regulation should broaden the range of potential controllers, not create symbolic hierarchies. It should allow all those trained, authorized, insured, and included in a public plan to share in the burdens, honors, and benefits. Farmer or no farmer.
Let's be clear: farmers must be part of the hunting and wildlife system. It would be absurd to think otherwise. They are the first to suffer damage from the presence of invasive wildlife; they monitor the land, understand local dynamics, and are often also competent hunters. But they must be part of a system, not become the system.
Not all hunters are farmers
The difference is crucial. A farmer can easily be a hunter. But not all hunters are farmers. And a hunting law should recognize the value of hunting as such, not just when it coincides with agricultural interests.
If we wanted to encourage hunting among farmers, there was no need to create a special lane for them through a law. Instead, we should encourage the growth of the hunting sector through training, supply chains accessible to qualified operators, public data on plans, clear reimbursements, and less unnecessary bureaucracy.
The above, moreover, would be entirely consistent with a positive aspect of the Law: the introduction of the term "wildlife management" alongside the term "protection." This isn't a linguistic detail; it's an acknowledgement.
Wildlife is not a natural ornament, nor a heritage to be left to its own devices. Wild populations must be counted, monitored, protected when necessary, or harvested if ecological and social conditions warrant it. A trained, responsible hunter, integrated into a well-planned harvest plan, is not the caricatured "shoot-everything" described in certain public debates.
This individual knows the territory, oversees marginal areas, participates in censuses, implements harvest plans, and assumes responsibility. Precisely for this reason, if we truly want to recognize the hunter's role as a bioregulator, we must have the courage to put him at the center of the discussion, regardless of his profession when he's not hunting.
Hunting bill, Coldiretti celebrates
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 shouldn't be surprising. The union defends its scope, and the legislative text clearly places the agricultural sector at the center of attention.
A serious matter, however, is that Federcaccia has also relaunched this favorable interpretation on its website, effectively embracing the framework proposed by Coldiretti. Here, the problem is no longer merely agricultural, but political and cultural.
Some hunting representatives seem to accept, and even amplify, the idea that hunting should be centered around agricultural interests rather than defending the hunter's central role in wildlife management. If Coldiretti supports an agricultural-centric reform, they're working for themselves. But if hunters' representatives leave things to others and ignore their own members, they're not doing their job properly.
Those who believed in the role of the hunter as a bioregulator could feel betrayed by the very institutions and representatives who should have recognized it and at that point they could stop wanting to participate in the containment plans with certain damage also for the farmers who still need these figures.
The agriculture and hunting sectors must therefore walk the same path while protecting different interests. If they are confused, there will no longer be environmental protection and wildlife management, but only a sector-specific policy proposed as a reform approved by ministries and majorities completely ignorant of the issue, as too often happens when it comes to agriculture and livestock farming.
Ethically unacceptable “hunting groves”
A sensitive part of the bill concerns the space given to wildlife-hunting and agritourism-hunting businesses. It should be noted that there is no preemptive demonization of private enterprise. The rural world also thrives on services, tourism, hospitality, and land maintenance.
However, hunting cannot be reduced to the organized consumption of animals bred for slaughter. When we embrace the concept of ungulates bred, released, and then harvested in closed or semi-closed areas, we are no longer talking about the management of wild populations, but rather about "hunting groves," ethically unacceptable because they are heavily geared toward recreational pursuits. The text also touches on symbolic themes, starting with the wolf.
Its removal from the list of particularly protected species does not automatically open the way to hunting, but the political signal is clear since the predator is being moved to an area more exposed to social and agricultural pressure, just as part of the public debate demonizes it excessively.
On the contrary, the ibex is left off the list of huntable species despite the fact that in some Alpine areas and on the basis of rigorously studied selection plans it is possible to harvest a certain number of animals and reinvest the proceeds in monitoring and conservation. In effect, a law that speaks of "Management" but then opens up to symbolism and taboos.
