A disturbing phenomenon
In today's information landscape, we are increasingly witnessing a disturbing phenomenon: the replacement of scientific debate and institutional legality with summary trials on digital platforms. The latest, painful example of this decline is the violent smear campaign targeting Dr. Alan Risolo, a veterinarian with proven experience, a respected professional, and a long-time collaborator of our association for training activities in health, biosecurity, and animal welfare. As an association, we cannot and will not remain silent in the face of a media lynching that tramples on the dignity of a professional and distorts the facts with sensational headlines and fake news. We believe it is our duty to clarify matters by analyzing the objective data and official documents that categorically refute the distorted narrative that has emerged in the media and on social media.
Reality versus journalistic sensationalism
The media storm arose following the implementation of the five-year plan for the removal of the feral domestic ungulate population from the Monti Lucretili Regional Natural Park, a formal plan approved and authorized by the Lazio Region (Determination No. G02928 of March 11, 2025) in consultation with the competent health authority (ASL RM5). Dr. Risolo did not act on his own initiative or as an "unauthorized private individual," as falsely claimed by some associations; rather, he received a formal and legitimate direct assignment from the Park Authority by virtue of his specific and rare expertise in the chemical and physical containment of wild and stray animals (Determination No. A00188 of June 23, 2025).
Let's examine the key points systematically distorted by the press
The invention of "tame cows" grazing: Press articles have described the culling of "healthy and defenseless cows," accompanying the news with bucolic images of domestic cows. The ecological and management reality is radically different: over 700 feral ungulates (including approximately 400 adult cattle), specifically wild bulls, characterized by behavior reminiscent of wild species, marked by elusiveness, ferocity, and marked aggression. These dangerous animals, in recent years, have been responsible for repeated attacks on humans and as many as 31 road accidents resulting in personal injury in the municipality of Moricone alone.
The false myth of "healthy" animals: The press has characterized the slaughtered animals as "healthy." Scientifically, the health status of a feral population without mandatory controls is, by definition, unknown. The lack of prophylaxis for serious diseases such as brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis poses a concrete zoonotic threat to humans and a huge biological risk to traditional, controlled livestock farms and native wildlife. It is no coincidence that the Local Health Authority (ASL) regulations require the disposal of carcasses as "Category 1 by-products," i.e., materials posing a high risk to public health.
Falsehoods about the price list: In clear bad faith, a partial extract from Dr. Risolo's offer was circulated, claiming that the professional had a greater financial interest in culling an animal (€600) than in sedating it (€200). The reality, as can be seen from the documents accompanying the expression of interest, is exactly the opposite: the teleanarcosis procedure included retaining the value of the live animal to offset expenses, which would have guaranteed the veterinarian an estimated profit of approximately €2.500 for each bull recovered, far exceeding the culling fee. Therefore, culling was not a "profitable" choice, but rather a last resort dictated by the conditions on the ground.
The technical limitations and ethical choice of “One Health”
Why was the direct culling of approximately 40 animals necessary, rather than mechanical capture or telenarcosis? Those who work in the field know the severe limitations of veterinary medicine in harsh environments:
Limitations of telenarcosis: Pharmacological restraint requires long periods of intoxication (10-15 minutes) in extremely steep mountainous terrain, where the animal would end up taking refuge in inaccessible ravines, starving to death or making recovery impossible. Furthermore, alpha-2 agonist drugs (such as xylazine), in addition to having been in short supply on the pharmaceutical market for months, compete with the adrenaline released by the feral animal during capture, nullifying safety guarantees.
Ethical assessment of distress: The Five-Year Plan itself highlights how the capture and subsequent 90-day quarantine of feral cattle causes them an intolerable level of psychophysical stress, with a very high incidence of behavioral stereotypies, self-trauma, and spontaneous mortality. From this perspective, the immediate selective culling of the most dangerous animals—performed in full compliance with EU Regulation 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at slaughter—is the most professionally and ethically sound choice to minimize suffering, where the captured animal would have otherwise been slaughterhouse or disposal.
Dr. Risolo's work fits perfectly with the internationally recommended One Health approach, which recognizes the intimate interdependence between human health, animal health, and ecosystem stability. The uncontrolled grazing of feral cattle was destroying the protected habitats of the Lucretili Mountains, fueling clandestine slaughter markets run by criminal networks, and threatening the biosecurity of the entire region.
Social pillorying is not civilization
What happened immediately after the first sensationalist articles were published perfectly describes the short circuit in our civil society. Headlines peppered with expressions like "Wild West scenes" or "extermination by rifle fire" deliberately manipulated the public's emotions. The result? Hundreds of insulting posts, vicious defamations, and, even more seriously, explicit death threats, which forced Dr. Risolo to close all his social media profiles to protect his safety. When associations and the media incite public pillorying, ignoring institutional mandates, technical expertise, and European regulations, they are not defending animals: they are simply fueling hatred and prejudice. A society that calls itself civil cannot allow a professional's scientific expertise to be trampled by the emotional populism of the internet. Dr. Alan Risolo acted according to his knowledge, conscience, and rigorous professionalism, applying decrees and protocols validated by the scientific and health authorities of the Italian Republic and the Lazio Region. Our association expresses its fullest, unconditional solidarity with Dr. Risolo and firmly supports the complaint for aggravated defamation that he has filed with the Public Prosecutor's Office. We will continue to stand by him, convinced that the only viable path to truly protect animals and public health is that of legality, science, and mutual respect (source: AB – Agrivenatoria Biodiversitalia).
You May Also Like ..
