Incorrect interpretations
The recognized Hunting Associations Federcaccia, Enalcaccia, Arcicaccia, ANLC, ANUUMigratoristi, Italcaccia and the CNCN – National Hunting and Nature Committee, gathered in the Control Room of the hunting world, intervene on the decision of the Council of State, Section VI, no. 895 of February 3, 2026, has recently been the subject of incorrect and misleading interpretations in the press aimed at influencing public opinion. Although numerous animal rights and anti-hunting associations have presented the ruling as a supposed "historic turning point" that would grant citizens the right to conscientious objection, automatically excluding hunting from their lands, this interpretation is, in fact, misleading and tendentious, and is not supported by a legally correct interpretation of the provision.
Exclusion request
As highlighted in the technical opinion prepared by the legal offices of the Hunting World Control Room, the Council of State clarifies that the landowner is recognized (as has always been the case until now) exclusively as having a legitimate interest in submitting a request for exclusion from hunting, for any reason, including ethical or moral reasons, but this does not automatically confer the right to obtain it. In this sense, the decision expressly confirms that no right of conscientious objectors to have their land removed from hunting has been established. The decision on whether to grant the request remains within the discretion of the Regions, which may reject the request if it conflicts with wildlife and hunting planning or other public interest requirements set forth in Article 15, paragraph 4, of Law 157/1992.
The motivations
The Council of State also reiterates that any denial must be adequately justified based on concrete evidence relating to the wildlife management of the territory. These include, for example, the number of ungulates frequenting the area, the location of the land in relation to the ungulates' usual movements, the characteristics of the land in relation to its suitability as a habitual habitat for ungulates, thus avoiding hunting, the presence or absence of buffer zones between the land and agricultural areas where hunting can be practiced, thus preventing expansion into cultivated areas, etc.
Misinformation to avoid
The ruling therefore does not introduce any automatic right to remove land from hunting, but rather follows the established principles of administrative law, confirming the central role of public planning in wildlife and land management. The Hunting World Steering Committee emphasizes that a correct interpretation of the decision helps avoid misinformation on a complex and sensitive issue, reiterating that wildlife management must continue to be based on planning tools, technical assessments, and institutional responsibility. In this regard, it expresses its willingness to engage with national and local institutions, the agricultural community, and civil society to ensure that public debate continues to be based on objective data and a correct interpretation of current regulations.
You May Also Like ..
