Italy Moves Its Hunting Law Toward Active Wildlife Management

The Italian Senate approved Bill 1552 on June 23, a reform package that modifies Law 157/92, the legislation that has regulated the protection of warm-blooded wildlife and hunting activity in Italy since 1992.

According to the Senate’s official record, the final vote ended with 80 votes in favour, 56 against and 2 abstentions. The bill is not yet law: after passing Palazzo Madama, it must now continue through the Chamber of Deputies.

The move matters beyond Italy’s domestic politics. Law 157/92 is one of the major Mediterranean reference points for hunting, wildlife, land-use planning and conservation. Its revision comes as several European countries face growing conflicts over crop damage, expanding ungulate populations, road safety, animal health and the public role of hunting in wildlife management.

A reform presented as an update to wildlife management

The bill approved by the Senate amends a law written more than three decades ago, in an ecological, administrative and social context very different from today’s.

Italy’s hunting sector argues that the reform is not an unrestricted liberalisation of hunting, but an update designed to reflect the role of the regions, wildlife and hunting planning, and the need to intervene when wild populations cause damage or create risks.

The Federazione Italiana della Caccia welcomed the result as a first step, while stressing that the process will continue in the Chamber of Deputies. Its president, Massimo Buconi, linked the parliamentary vote to the problems of the “real country”, referring to wildlife management, agriculture and rural territory.

The Cabina di Regia del Mondo Venatorio, a coordinating body for the hunting world, had also argued days earlier in comments reported by Armi e Tiro that the reform does not remove the main safeguards of the current law and does not allow hunting in parks or cities.

Supporters of the reform are advancing one central argument: wildlife policy should move beyond passive protection alone and include active management, technical monitoring and regulated intervention as part of conservation.

That position connects with a wider European debate over how to balance biodiversity, farming, public safety, animal health and hunting in landscapes heavily shaped by human activity.

Environmental groups and opposition parties push back

The reform, however, has faced strong opposition. Organisations including WWF Italy have criticised the bill, arguing that it increases hunting pressure and weakens the wildlife protection system.

WWF Italy maintains that wildlife control is a public function separate from ordinary hunting and has challenged the idea that hunters can be described as “bioregulators” in legal or scientific terms.

Italian media including Corriere della Sera have reported that the text has opened a political clash over the role of the regions, hunting calendars, the areas where hunting can take place and the list of huntable species.

The practical effect of the reform will depend on the consolidated text that emerges from the parliamentary process, as well as its compatibility with the European Union’s birds and habitats directives.

The Italian debate has also become polarised around competing claims on parks, urban areas, mountain passes, protected species, regional powers and the technical role of scientific bodies.

For that reason, any definitive claim about specific changes should be checked article by article against the text approved by the Senate and followed as it develops in the Chamber of Deputies.

A political signal for the European hunting debate

Italy’s reform has international significance because it brings into parliament a debate now visible across much of Europe: whether wildlife laws should focus mainly on strict protection, or whether they should more clearly incorporate tools for population management, damage prevention and selective control.

In Mediterranean countries, where farming remains central, urban pressure on rural land is high and conflicts with certain species are recurring, the issue is especially sensitive both politically and socially.

For Europe’s hunting sector, the Italian case could become an important reference if the bill completes its parliamentary journey. For environmental organisations, it represents a possible weakening of wildlife protection.

In both cases, the key point remains the same: the Senate has taken a significant first step, but the reform is not final, and its eventual scope will depend on the rest of the parliamentary process and any legal scrutiny it may face under the European framework.