The terrain of propaganda
The recent Press conference held at the Senate by ENPA, LAV, LNDC, WWF and the Capellino Foundation The call for a one-year moratorium on the downgrading of wolves is yet another example of how a segment of the animal rights movement continues to focus more on propaganda than on scientific analysis and responsibility toward local communities. The request was presented as a defense of "legality" and "science," but a careful examination of the content of the demands reveals a far more complex picture.
Science evoked, but not cited
Associations call the wolf's downgrading "a decision without scientific or legal basis." A catchy phrase, perfect for newspaper headlines, but lacking any real technical support. For years, research institutes, universities, and European organizations have been reporting:
– a constant and significant growth of the wolf population in Italy;
– a territorial expansion that has reached agricultural and peri-urban areas;
– an increase in predation, often not adequately compensated;
– the need for flexible management tools, already adopted in other EU countries.
Yet, the press conference didn't cite a single piece of updated data, study, or independent monitoring. Only slogans.
The Capellino Foundation and the ethical short circuit
The presence of the Capellino Foundation is striking, having made headlines for the Almo Nature products scandal and its "Nothing Justifies Hunting" campaign, which was harshly criticized by the UNA Foundation for its ideological and misleading stance. It's hard not to notice the paradox: a private entity that builds its image on pet products—a multi-billion dollar industry—pretends to dictate wildlife management policies, completely ignoring the economic, social, and environmental impacts on rural communities.
The requests: between good intentions and total disconnection from reality
The associations put forward four main demands. Some, taken individually, might even seem reasonable. The problem is that they are presented as if we lived in an ideal country, where resources are infinite and complex problems are solved with a press release.
1. One-year moratorium on the downgrading of wolves
A moratorium isn't a solution: it's a postponement. And postponing means leaving breeders, farmers, and territories at the mercy of a growing problem.
2. Application of prevention measures financed by the CAP
Measures exist, but they're often insufficient, not suitable for all situations, or not implemented quickly enough. Pretending that prevention is a universal panacea is a misunderstanding of the local context.
3. Full compensation for damages to farmers
True in theory, but unfeasible in practice if the central issue isn't addressed: managing the species. Without structural interventions, the damage will continue to grow, and reimbursements will become a bottomless pit.
4. Information campaign on wolf ethology
Informing is great. But informing doesn't mean denying real problems or infantilizing the debate with nature documentary-style narratives.
You May Also Like ..
The real crux: the sideral distance between those who live in the territory and those who tell about it
The point isn't to be "for" or "against" the wolf. The point is to recognize that:
1) coexistence is not a hashtag, but a fragile balance;
2) wildlife is not an ideological symbol, but a biological reality;
3) management is not a concession to the “hunters' lobby”, but a necessity recognised throughout Europe;
4) those who live and work in rural areas are not antagonists, but indispensable interlocutors.
Animal rights groups, however, continue to propose an urbane, abstract, and often paternalistic vision. A vision that ignores complexity and turns every discussion into a moral tribunal.
We need less propaganda and more responsibility
The debate about wolves—like all wildlife—deserves seriousness, data, and expertise. Not slogans, advertising campaigns, or press conferences designed to generate outrage. Rural communities, farmers, wildlife experts, researchers, and local authorities demand one simple thing: policies based on reality, not rhetoric. As long as a segment of the animal rights movement continues to ignore this principle, debate will remain fruitless, and the country will continue to pay the price of postponed decisions, unresolved problems, and narratives that help no one—not even the wolf (source: Federcaccia, Magenta Nucleus "Eligio Colombo").
