An experience published by Outdoor Life has reopened the debate over the value of precision shooting competitions for hunters: they offer practice in shooting positions, rifle control and decision-making under time pressure, but firing at steel targets does not replicate the safety, identification and responsibility demands of hunting.

US journalist Tyler Freel argues in Outdoor Life that taking part in a PRS competition can help hunters improve their rifle handling, build stable shooting positions and perform under pressure. His conclusion is based on his experience at an event, not on a study measuring how those skills transfer to the field.

The official 2026 Precision Rifle Series rules confirm several elements described in the article: stages follow a defined course of fire, are controlled by range officers, use a timer and generally award one point for each hit. Shooters receive instructions on targets and positions, while an official may call a ceasefire in response to any unsafe conduct.

Shooting positions, repetition and rifle control

The main potential benefit for hunters lies in repeated practice. During a PRS event, competitors must shoot from different supports, move the rifle between positions, manage their time and maintain sound technique under competitive pressure. Outdoor Life argues that this process can expose mistakes such as rushing the trigger, building an unstable position or wasting time on unnecessary movements.

The value of training away from the bench also has institutional backing. Hunter education material from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department recommends practising the four basic positions —prone, kneeling, sitting and standing— because visibility and terrain determine which can be used during a hunt. The agency also notes that proper support can contribute to a more accurate shot and a clean kill.

That does not prove that competing automatically improves hunting outcomes. It does, however, reveal a specific overlap: both hunter education and PRS emphasise stability, muzzle control and the ability to handle a firearm from different positions.

A steel target is not a game animal

The differences are crucial. In competition, the targets, course of fire, timing and shooting area have been prepared and supervised. In the field, hunters must identify the species and individual animal beyond doubt, check what lies in front of and behind it, assess the angle, comply with the applicable regulations and pass up the shot when safety and a clean outcome cannot be assured.

The same US agency’s safety guidance stresses the need to know what lies beyond the target, keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction and refrain from shooting whenever there is any doubt. That obligation cannot be made secondary to the timer or to speed learned in competition. Nor does hitting steel replicate anatomy, movement or the need to ensure a clean outcome.

A farmer witnesses a predation scene as a coyote chases a fawn in front of his combine harvester.

In the United States, the coyote is one of the wildlife species subject to the most permissive legal regimes. Generally, in many of the states where it is found, it is regarded as a predator whose management should focus on reducing the damage it causes to livestock and certain wild species. North Dakota, where the following video was filmed, is one of the clearest examples of this.

There, the hunting season for this carnivore runs throughout the year. Trapping is also permitted all 12 months of the year, and night hunting is even allowed for several months. There is also an effective control system known as the Coyote Catalog, backed by the Department of Agriculture itself, which connects rural property owners with hunters and trappers so they can take action when damage occurs on their holdings.

Landowners themselves are even permitted to shoot coyotes that attack their livestock. This is something many users have called on the farmer to do. He responded with the following explanation: “For those wondering where my rifle is, even if I had one, I could not have shot at a coyote chasing a fawn that was zigzagging between the windows, and with my luck, I would have hit the fawn or its mother when she appeared.”

The doe saves her fawn

This time, it is a deer fawn that comes under attack from the predator. It is a natural life-or-death scene, but one filmed from inside an agricultural machine. The coyote comes close to catching the deer fawn on numerous occasions. However, the fawn’s speed and ability to dodge it buy enough time for the adult female to arrive and, after making sure her young is safe, drive the coyote away, turning it into the one being chased.

The alleged perpetrator of this atrocious act recorded a video boasting about the slaughter. An agricultural machine ran over the wild boar during the harvest.

Philippe Lavit, known in hunting circles as Feliew, has posted these stark images on his Facebook page and YouTube channel. The hunter is one of the most popular hunting content creators in France and internationally, with more than 160,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel.

On his personal Facebook blog, he shares a compilation of his “best hunting videos filmed with a camera mounted on his head: wild boar hunts in the Vosges Mountains, small game hunting, duck hunting and hunts during trips”.

Wild boar run over during the harvest

The hunter reports that this reprehensible act was committed between the French departments of Vosges and Haute-Marne, located in the northeast of the country in the Grand Est region. The action has caused outrage among the French rural community.

For the time being, the identity of the person who committed this act is unknown. In statements to a local hunting media outlet, Feliew says that “if these acts are proven and those responsible are identified, the law should be applied with the same rigour to anyone who intentionally harms wildlife”.

France recorded 92 firearm-related injury accidents during the latest season, while Germany counted 460 incidents linked to hunting activity in 2025. The difference appears enormous, but the official definitions show that the two figures measure different realities.

A comparison published by Le Chasseur Français brings together data from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Finland to highlight differences in hunting accident statistics. Its main conclusion is relevant: without a common definition of an accident, the same reporting period and a consistent denominator, raw figures cannot establish which country is safer.

A review of the responsible authorities confirms the need for caution. The French Office for Biodiversity —OFB— limits its figures to bodily injuries caused by the use of a hunting weapon. Germany’s agricultural social insurance body, by contrast, includes a broader range of accidents associated with the activity, including incidents on tracks or at hunting stands.

France: 92 firearm-related injury accidents

The official OFB report records 92 accidents and 92 victims during the 2025-2026 season. Of these, 4 were fatal, 57 serious and 31 minor. The authority expressly defines a hunting accident as a bodily injury caused by the use of a hunting weapon.

That definition therefore excludes incidents in which no weapon was involved, although these may appear in other European records. The French report also states that 89% of the victims were hunters and that accidents have fallen by 49% compared with 2006, although they have remained stable over the past six seasons.

The document also provides useful information for guiding prevention efforts. 66% of accidents occurred during big-game hunting, and failure to observe the 30-degree safety angle remained the leading cause in these forms of hunting. The OFB attributes 92% of the big-game hunting accidents analysed to human error.

Germany’s 460 cases measure a different reality

The SVLFG, Germany’s social insurance body for the agricultural, forestry and horticultural sectors, reported 460 hunting-related accidents in 2025 and no fatalities. However, the institution itself notes that incidents occur mainly on unpaved tracks, at hunting stands and during their maintenance.

Its statistics also cover reportable occupational accidents resulting in more than three days of incapacity for work, as well as fatal accidents. Directly comparing those 460 cases with France’s 92 would therefore mix a broad occupational safety record with one focused on firearm injuries.

This methodological difference also prevents reliable rates from being calculated by dividing each figure by the number of licences. It would first be necessary to clarify which population each system covers, whether all hunters are insured in the same way and whether calendar years or hunting seasons are used.

Spain does not provide the same indicator either

In Spain, the MITECO Annual Hunting Statistics compile information on licences, hunting land and hunting activity supplied by the autonomous communities. The source notes that these administrations are responsible for issuing licences. The public documentation reviewed does not include an annual national accident series based on the definition used by the OFB.

Nor does the number of licences necessarily correspond to the number of people who hunt. The same holder may have permits in several autonomous communities, so using the administrative total as the denominator could count hunters more than once and artificially lower a rate.

Finland highlights another denominator problem

The Natural Resources Institute Finland reports that 301,963 people paid the wildlife management fee in 2024, but estimates that only around 196,000 actually hunted. Even before examining accidents, choosing one figure or the other significantly changes any rate per hunter.

Italy and Finland complete the comparison published by the French outlet, but their accident figures still need to be checked against official data series explaining the reporting period, coverage and exclusions. Based on the verified documentation, only one conclusion can be supported: Europe has no single benchmark in this area, and rankings built from raw figures may describe statistical differences more accurately than the actual safety of hunting.

Few species in the Spanish countryside have a biological calendar as strict as that of the roe deer. Its rut is concentrated in July and peaks towards the end of the month, coinciding with the first weeks of August. If fertilisation does not take place during these days, female roe deer will not have another opportunity until the following summer. For hunters, this makes these weeks a date that will not come around again and demands preparation rather than luck.

During the rut, roe deer behaviour changes completely. Males, normally elusive and territorial, lower their guard as they pursue females and expose themselves more than usual. It is the time of year when it is easiest to locate those animals that disappeared during the spring. But this advantage comes with a catch: the females remain alert, and if one detects the hunter, she will take the male with her, closing off any chance of a shot within seconds.

Locate before deciding

In hunting as selective as roe deer stalking, the difference between a successful outing and an unsuccessful one almost never lies in the shot. It lies in the observation beforehand. Assessing the antlers, confirming that it is the right animal and estimating the distance before moving closer are steps that determine the final outcome, and they all depend on optics capable of resolving detail at medium and long range without having to approach and reveal your position.

This is where a spotting scope makes the difference compared with conventional binoculars. The VEO HD IV 65A offers magnification from 18.7x to 45x with a 65-millimetre objective lens, enough to examine the condition of a male’s antlers from several hundred metres away without leaving the observation point. Its HOYA ED glass reduces chromatic aberration and makes it possible to distinguish fine details even in the low light of dawn or dusk, precisely the times when roe deer are most active during the rut. Being waterproof and fogproof, it can withstand a summer storm without difficulty—conditions that also often trigger roe deer movement.

Stability when it is time to shoot

Once the animal has been located and assessed, stalking during the rut usually involves short, rapid movements to gain position, often under the intense heat of July and August. In this context, carrying a rifle without a stable rest during hours of walking is not a reasonable option, nor is losing seconds setting up a heavy support when the roe deer may move at any moment.

The Scout M62C monopod is designed for exactly this situation. Made from carbon fibre, it weighs just 267 grams and deploys in seconds thanks to its clip locks, extending from 67.5 centimetres when folded to a maximum height of 157.5 centimetres. Its V-shaped yoke, with 360-degree rotation, allows the rifle to be brought to bear securely and the animal to be tracked smoothly if it changes position, without having to reposition the support. In short, it is a companion designed for hunters who are constantly on the move throughout the day.

Before heading into the countryside

The exact dates for roe deer stalking vary between autonomous communities. In some, they coincide with these weeks of the rut, while in others the hunting period closes earlier or resumes in September. Always check the current calendar in the hunting-season order for your area before planning an outing.

What does not vary is roe deer biology. July and the first weeks of August provide the only real window of the year for observing males when their behaviour is at its most predictable and least cautious. Preparing with the right optics and support does not guarantee a shot, but it does ensure that, when the moment comes, you are ready to take advantage of it.

Have you already chosen your hunting ground for this rut?

The High Court has ruled it unlawful, according to the claimant association, for the regulator to use licence conditions to prevent birds from being held on site before release, although the full judgment and its implications for the shooting season have yet to be established.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) announced on 16 July that it had won its High Court challenge against Natural England over the licensing regime applied to gamebird releases. According to the claimant association, the judge found that the regulator had interpreted the legal concept of “release” beyond the powers granted by Parliament.

The information currently available comes from the statement published by BASC. The organisation says the court ruled that Natural England cannot include conditions designed to prevent birds from being held on site before their release. BASC says the judge considered those conditions irrational because they were based on a mistaken interpretation of the scope of the agency’s powers.

The full judgment has not yet been found in the public repositories consulted, nor has a specific response from Natural England. The ruling should therefore not yet be interpreted as overturning the entire licensing system or as providing general authorisation for releases without environmental controls.

The meaning of “release” at the heart of the dispute

According to BASC, the case centred on the distinction between holding pheasants and partridges on site and actually releasing them into the environment. The association argued that Natural England had improperly extended the concept of release by imposing conditions on the preceding stage, while the birds were still confined.

The practical significance of that distinction could be considerable for English shoots that receive birds before releases begin. However, the court order and legal reasoning will need to be examined to determine which specific conditions are affected, whether the regulator must review licences already granted and whether an appeal is possible.

BASC also claims that the administrative approach had created uncertainty and even jeopardised the continuity of some shooting operations. This is a claim made by the claimant which, in the statement consulted, is not currently quantified or supported by administrative decisions or public data.

Licences are still required in protected areas

The current official UK Government guidance states that the regime applies to common pheasants and red-legged partridges when they are released within special areas of conservation, special protection areas for birds or within 500 metres of their boundaries. An individual Natural England licence is required in special protection areas for birds.

For the 2026 season, the official documentation provides for authorisations covering standard measures, delayed releases and sites where approval is highly unlikely except in exceptional circumstances. Natural England says this approach is shaped by the risk of highly pathogenic avian influenza and by the assessment of potential effects on protected wild birds.

Nothing published so far supports the conclusion that these requirements have disappeared. The ruling announced by BASC appears to restrict the regulator’s ability to use a licence to control certain activities carried out before release, but its precise scope will depend on the written judgment and Natural England’s response. Until then, those responsible for shooting operations must continue to comply with the licences, consents and animal-health rules applicable to each site.

Benelli is marking Beretta’s anniversary with a limited-production over-and-under aimed at collectors, featuring artistic references to Urbino and several of the mechanical solutions found across the 828 family.

The new Benelli 828 S LE was conceived to commemorate Beretta’s 500th anniversary with a production run of just 500 guns, according to the presentation published by all4shooters/all4hunters. The publication describes an over-and-under that uses the two brands’ shared history as a mark of exclusivity, with decoration inspired by the Renaissance in Urbino.

There is, however, a discrepancy that must be clarified before publication. The Spanish website of Benelli currently shows an 828 S A.I. Limited Edition restricted to 350 guns, featuring scenes of ducks, pheasants and quail. That listing does not match the 500-gun edition with Renaissance motifs presented by the specialist publication, suggesting that these are two different configurations with very similar names.

A shotgun turned into a brand narrative

What makes the project distinctive is that this edition bears the name not of Beretta but of Benelli, another company within the same group. The initiative presents Beretta’s historical continuity and the Urbino manufacturer’s technological approach as two complementary expressions of the Italian gunmaking industry.

According to all4shooters, the receiver decoration reproduces motifs associated with the Ducal Palace of Urbino. These include rosettes taken from the third loggia of the Torricini façade and grotesques inspired by ornaments commissioned in 1526 for the duchess’s apartments. The underside also features the three-arrow emblem associated with Beretta. These details make the gun a commemorative piece rather than merely another finish variant.

The mechanics of the 828 family

Beneath the ornamental work lies the architecture of the Benelli 828. The publication notes the presence of the Lock Plate action, based on a steel plate that contains pressure within the assembly formed by the monobloc and the plate itself. This solution relieves the receiver of that structural role, one of the features that set the 828 apart from more conventionally built over-and-unders.

The edition would also feature the Benelli Advanced Impact barrel and choke system. The manufacturer presents this technology as an integrated system designed to alter the internal geometry and improve shot-pattern performance. These claims come from Benelli and should be understood as the manufacturer’s commercial specifications, not as the results of an independent test of this commemorative gun.

The publication also attributes a carbon-fibre rib, walnut stock, Perfect Fit adjustment and the Progressive Comfort progressive recoil-absorption system to the model. However, the absence of an unambiguous official specification sheet for the 500-gun version currently makes it impossible to confirm its gauge, barrel lengths, weight and commercial configurations without risking confusion with those of the 350-gun limited series.

An exclusive edition awaiting price and distribution details

More than a mechanical innovation, the 828 S LE is a branding and collectors’ project: a numbered production run linking Beretta’s five centuries of history with Urbino’s industrial and artistic identity. The figure of 500 guns reinforces that approach, although essential details are still missing for assessing its commercial reach.

Neither the price nor market allocations could be verified from the sources consulted. It also remains to be confirmed whether any guns will be allocated to Spain and under what name they will be offered. Until Benelli clarifies the relationship between the two limited editions, the specific features of this commemorative model should be treated as provisional information attributed to the specialist publication.

A new French regulation allows GPS and other tracking devices to be used to find hunting dogs, protect their safety and prevent collisions, while leaving room for additional restrictions at departmental level.

France has revised its rules on electronic devices used in hunting, directly affecting tracking devices for hunting dogs. The change appears in an order dated June 25, 2026, published in the Journal officiel de la République française on July 9 and reflected in the consolidated regulations from July 10.

The amendment concerns Article 7 of the French order of August 1, 1986, a key piece of legislation governing hunting methods and equipment. The new wording authorises dog-tracking devices “for the sole purpose” of finding the dogs, ensuring their safety and preventing collisions.

The official text is available through Légifrance, France’s public legal information service.

What changes for hunting dog GPS collars

The main change is a clearer definition of the permitted uses. Rather than linking dog tracking to a rigid point in the timing of a hunting day, the regulation now focuses on the purpose for which the device is used: finding the dog, protecting it and reducing the risk of accidents or collisions.

The practical implications are particularly significant in forms of hunting where dogs may work far from their handlers or range across large areas. In such situations, a GPS collar can show the animal’s position and allow action to be taken if it becomes lost, approaches a road or enters another potentially dangerous area.

The new wording does not, however, make GPS technology an unrestricted hunting tool. The authorisation specifically concerns locating dogs for the purposes set out in the regulation. It should therefore not be interpreted automatically as a general permission to use tracking technology for any purpose connected with locating or pursuing wildlife.

French departments may retain specific restrictions

The regulation also includes an important qualification. The use of these devices remains subject to any specific provisions contained in the schéma départemental de gestion cynégétique, the departmental game-management scheme.

These schemes form part of France’s territorial system of hunting regulation and may impose requirements adapted to conditions in each department. The national rule therefore creates a clearer general framework, but hunters must still check whether additional restrictions apply in the area where they are hunting.

The order also states that dogs must be recovered in accordance with safety rules. When a vehicle is used for recovery, the relevant provisions of French hunting regulations continue to apply, preventing the vehicle from being used improperly as part of the hunting action.

From legal uncertainty to a rule focused on safety and tracking

French publication Chasse Passion has described the change as a simplification of a framework that had created practical uncertainty over when a tracking system could be consulted during a hunting day.

The official text makes the position clearer by expressly listing three permitted purposes — finding the dog, ensuring its safety and preventing collisions — while also removing a previous provision from Article 8 of the same regulation. The result is a simpler framework for using these devices, although hunters must still consider the specific purpose for which they are used and any departmental rules that may apply.

The amendment also reflects the growing role of dog-tracking technology in the day-to-day management of some forms of hunting. Across large hunting areas, forests and landscapes crossed by roads, electronic tracking has become a tool not only for keeping track of a dog but also for protecting its safety.

Since July 2026, France has had a more explicit legal framework for that reality: tracking devices may be used to find hunting dogs, protect them and help prevent accidents, within the limits of the national regulation and any additional conditions imposed at departmental level.

The number of achenes the pigeon shooter extracts from the membranous pouch is incredible. A wood pigeon can consume 100 grams of food a day.

Dean Livett, a specialist in controlling damage caused by wildlife, devotes much of his hunting time to controlling the wood pigeon population, stalking wild ungulates that feed on crops and shooting foxes that attack livestock in the county of Essex, in the United Kingdom.

Wood pigeon overpopulation causes millions in crop damage

The areas most affected in Spain by the overpopulation of wood pigeons are the Balearic archipelago, the province of Cádiz, the two Castiles, Catalonia and the Valencian Community.

In Ibiza and Mallorca in particular, farmers suffer serious financial losses in vineyards, almond groves and other fruit crops. Farmers in the Magaluf area have estimated the losses caused by pigeons in cereal crops at 50%.

In southern Andalusia, sunflowers and wheat are the crops most affected by pigeons, while in Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y León, Catalonia and the Valencian Community, the problem is concentrated in cereals, vineyards and legumes.

Pigeons and other granivorous birds feed on borage seeds. These are rich in oils and nutrients. Borage produces and ripens its seeds mainly in summer.

Borage seeds have cosmetic and pharmaceutical uses

This plant is grown on a large scale in the county of Essex, where these pigeons were shot. It is sown to extract borage oil, also known as “starflower” oil, which is used in the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries.

Essex borage honey is highly prized for its clarity and delicate floral flavour. In some regions of Spain, the leaves of this plant are highly valued in cooking. Its cultivation is concentrated almost exclusively in the middle Ebro Valley, and Aragón is the autonomous community with the highest production and the largest area devoted to this vegetable.

There is no better way to raise awareness of wolf attacks on livestock than to publicly display the animals they kill. And farmers in the Netherlands took advantage of the Pride Day celebrations to bring a truck whose trailer could not hold any more carcasses of sheep mutilated by these predators.

It happened yesterday, 9 July 2026. The location chosen for the protest against the damage caused by wolves was Gemeentehuis Oldebroek (Netherlands). There, farmers protested against wolf attacks by bringing a trailer full of dead sheep as a shocking sign of protest.

During this demonstration, a shepherd denounced the consequences of a wolf attack on his flock, highlighting the growing discontent over the increase in wolf attacks on sheep. He referred to the publication of studies indicating that wolves in the Netherlands have become the «deadliest in Europe», based on findings that point to an average of 25 animals killed per wild canid each year.

The demonstrators gathered outside Oldebroek Town Hall alongside a trailer containing the carcasses of recently attacked sheep to demand drastic and immediate measures.

The protest took place just three days after the Dutch Government, through State Secretary for Agriculture Silvio Erkens, relaxed the rules to allow the provinces to shoot or drive away aggressive wolves more quickly this summer.

France recorded four fatal hunting accidents during the 2025–2026 season, the lowest figure ever reported by the French Biodiversity Agency, although self-inflicted shootings and breaches of the 30-degree safety angle remain major concerns.

France ended the 2025–2026 hunting season with four fatal hunting accidents, down from 11 during the previous season. The figure represents a fall of around 64% and the lowest death toll ever recorded by the French Biodiversity Agency, the Office français de la biodiversité (OFB), which publishes the country’s annual hunting accident report.

All four people killed were hunters. Two accidents occurred during big-game hunting and two during small-game hunting. Three of the deaths were self-inflicted accidents in which hunters were struck by their own firearms.

Total accident numbers remain stable

The sharp reduction in fatalities was not matched by an equivalent fall in the overall number of accidents. The OFB recorded 92 accidents involving personal injury, a figure it considers stable within the range of 80 to 100 cases reported in each of the past six seasons.

Over the longer term, however, the French agency reports a clear downward trend. The total number of accidents has fallen by 49% since 2006. The number of victims who were not taking part in hunting also declined from 16 to 10 in a single season. Four suffered serious injuries and six sustained minor injuries.

Self-inflicted accidents accounted for 39% of all cases. The OFB has therefore renewed its emphasis on safe firearm handling during hunting, while travelling and when weapons are stored after use.

Ungulate hunts accounted for 66% of all accidents. In incidents involving other people, failure to respect the 30-degree safety angle remained the leading cause.

Safety remains a public responsibility

The report also recorded 122 incidents involving property damage but no injuries, compared with 135 during the previous season. These mainly involved shots striking homes, vehicles or domestic animals.

Direct impacts accounted for 87% of these incidents, reinforcing the importance of correctly identifying the target, understanding the surrounding area and choosing a safe shooting direction.

France attributes the long-term improvement to a combination of licensing examinations, regular training, instruction for driven-hunt organisers, field inspections and administrative enforcement.

During the latest season, the OFB temporarily suspended 39 hunting licences in connection with serious accidents or situations that could have endangered other people.

A female roe deer appears trapped in a swimming pool with her two fawns. Fortunately, the homeowners discover them and are able to free them before exhaustion causes them to sink to the bottom.

The periods of dry heat that occur during the summer season cause countless water sources used by wild animals in fields and woodlands to disappear. But they still need to drink in order to survive, which leads them to search for new watercourses and places where they can do so. Swimming pools at homes located near natural areas become an all-too-common option for wild boar, deer, roe deer, birds, reptiles and countless animal species.

On this occasion, a female roe deer raising two fawns has jumped into a swimming pool she found near her habitat. The sense of smell of Capreolus capreolus is capable of detecting the presence of water. In fact, it is the most important sense in its daily life, used to locate predators, other roe deer, feeding areas or to recognise all kinds of scent signals in its territory.

And although water gives off very few odour molecules, these animals’ sense of smell detects the humidity in the air, the fresher vegetation around it, the smell of mud and other scents associated with the area around the water.

“Another deer rescued from a swimming pool,” a German media outlet reported just a week ago when publishing the latest case involving one of these cervids, a young male trapped in a swimming pool in Oppen, which was rescued and returned to the wild by local firefighters.

Why do roe deer fall into swimming pools?

These images, which are repeated so often during the summer, can be explained by these animals’ learning method. Roe deer, wild boar, deer and many other species are accustomed to entering streams, brooks, rivers and other waterways from banks that allow them to get out just as easily. When they reach a swimming pool, that type of bank usually does not exist, causing them to fall into the water without the possibility of getting out because of the high, smooth walls that keep the water inside.

The new artificial warren model, developed after years of research, improves breeding, reduces predation and ectoparasites, and will soon begin to be marketed for implementation in the field.

The Extremadura Hunting Federation (FEDEXCAZA) has obtained the final results of the MAJANO Project, a pioneering study that has made it possible to develop a new artificial warren model for the wild rabbit, with technical, health and biological advances that will represent a decisive step toward the recovery of this key species in Mediterranean ecosystems.

The project, developed by Grupo Ecohábitat Ibérico S.L. thanks to research grants promoted by FEDEXCAZA and with the technical collaboration of the Technological Institute of Ornamental Rocks and Construction Materials (INTROMAC), has led to an innovative infrastructure designed specifically to address one of the major challenges facing the conservation of the wild rabbit in Extremadura: the lack of suitable refuges for its reproduction, especially on hard, stony and shallow terrain.

The recovery of the wild rabbit is essential not only from a hunting perspective, but also from an ecological one, as it is a basic species in the Mediterranean food chain and a key element for the survival of emblematic species such as the Iberian lynx or the Spanish imperial eagle.

A new artificial majano model

In this regard, the new artificial majano model developed within the framework of this project represents a qualitative leap compared with traditional systems. On the one hand, it is made with lightweight, resistant concrete, with antibacterial qualities and the capacity to improve the thermal conditions and humidity inside.

On the other hand, its modular design, based on a system of galleries and breeding chambers, is adapted to the biology of the species and incorporates important structural innovations aimed at improving hygiene, health and parasite-control conditions, as well as protection from predators. In addition, it has interchangeable access openings that make predator activity more difficult and create a passive deworming system.

Fewer predators and parasites

The field trials carried out during the project have confirmed a high level of acceptance by rabbits and notable effectiveness in reducing predation pressure, especially from species such as the fox or the Egyptian mongoose. They have also demonstrated optimal structural performance under real conditions and a virtually nonexistent presence of disease-transmitting ectoparasites.

Following the final validation of the model and the economic viability analysis carried out in the final phase of the project, FEDEXCAZA announces that this innovative majano will begin its marketing process in the near future, with the aim of making it available to hunting managers, local hunters’ associations, administrations and estate owners interested in improving rabbit populations and supporting the conservation of their habitats.

With this initiative, FEDEXCAZA strengthens its commitment to research, innovation and the transfer of knowledge to the hunting sector, promoting real solutions that can be applied on the ground to address one of the main conservation challenges for wildlife in Extremadura.

Turn up the volume and witness the strength and ferocity of a wild boar that has fallen into a trap. When the trapper approaches, it charges and bites the metal bars, bending them as if they were made of rubber.

Is this wild boar capable of breaking the bars of the cage in which it has become trapped? If the structure is not damaged, it is very unlikely that a wild boar could bite through solid steel bars several millimeters in diameter, although it can deform them slightly if they are made of low-quality steel or if the cage structure gives way.

What bite force does an adult wild boar develop?

Although, as we can see, it can indeed bend and deform them after a powerful blow and a strong bite. Especially considering that this type of cage is designed to withstand these kinds of attacks from trapped wild animals, under a high degree of stress and with violent responses. And we know that wild boars are specialists in pushing with their snout and shoulders, using the neck as a lever thanks to musculature that has evolved precisely to perform this movement, both when searching for food by rooting and when defending themselves and attacking other members of their species and predators.

The variable that best predicts bite force is not the weight of the wild boar, but the development of the superficial masseter muscle. This means that two wild boars of the same size may have very different bite capacities depending on their jaw musculature. What we do know is that, based on biomechanical studies of the skull, measurements in domestic pigs and anatomical estimates, it is possible to establish a fairly reliable range.

An adult wild boar can develop a bite force of between approximately 900 and 1,300 newtons (N) in medium-sized adult specimens. Large males, especially those weighing more than 100-120 kg, could reach 1,500 N or even slightly more in the rear molars. Expressed in kilogram-force, this translates as 900 N ≈ 92 kgf and 1,500 N ≈ 153 kgf. It should be kept in mind that the force is much greater in the molar area than in the tusks or incisors, due to the lever effect of the jaw.

Why does this species bite so hard?

The wild boar has several adaptations that favor great jaw power, including a very robust head, highly developed temporal and masseter muscles, a broad skull with large surfaces for muscle attachment, as well as a short jaw, which improves mechanical advantage. These characteristics allow it to break hard roots, tubers, nuts, small bones and even snap thin branches while foraging.

Direct measurements of the bite of the European wild boar

The most solid study to date is the one carried out by Brassard et al. (2023). Morphology of the jaw adductor muscles and bite force in wild boar (Sus scrofa) and published in Journal of Morphology.

The researchers worked with 10 European wild boars in captivity using a high-precision piezoelectric transducer and obtained the following results:

average weight of the animals: 76.9 ± 14.8 kg

average recorded bite force: 753.9 ± 133 N

highest value recorded: 982.3 N, corresponding to a 57 kg female.

These values were lower than expected because the measurement was taken on the premolars, in a unilateral bite and voluntarily, without stimulating the animal to reach its maximum physiological capacity. The authors themselves indicate that these figures do not represent the absolute limit of the jaw musculature, but rather the greatest force the animals developed spontaneously during the experiment.

There is another very interesting study carried out by Monteiro et al. (2021), called Quantifying bite force in coexisting tayassuids and feral suids. In this case, a device called BiTu was used, specifically designed to measure bites in captured wild animals. The results for feral wild boars (Sus scrofa) were:

• average: 3,370 N
• males: 3,690 N
• females: 3,131 N
• maximum recorded: 4,839 N.

The authors themselves point out that the position of the bite and the measurement method have an enormous influence on the force recorded.

The animal has been filmed by several residents following a domestic pig through the streets of a residential neighborhood.

The local press calls them javaporcos, a term used to refer to animals resulting from a cross between both species: wild boar and domestic pig. And they highlight residents’ concern over the presence of an animal of enormous size walking through the streets of the municipality of Soledade, which has more than 30,000 inhabitants and is located in the state of Rio Grande do Sul.

Wild boars are now daring to enter cities

The images, provided by a local shopkeeper, show two wild boars roaming the Fontes neighborhood, worrying both residents and shopkeepers who fear a run-in with these animals. The presence of wild boars in rural areas has already been a problem suffered for decades, also in this South American country, considerably damaging local agriculture. But in situations of this kind, in which wild and feral suids enter urban areas, a safety alert is created for the population.

After that video was published, local media and social networks began posting new images of the same animals walking unconcernedly on the town’s asphalt roads and sidewalks, increasing that sense of concern among the population, mainly due to the risk of accidents and the possibility of attacks if the animals feel threatened. To this end, the authorities have recommended not approaching them, feeding them, or making sudden movements that could lead the animals to feel cornered, with special care in the case of children and pets.

It has even been given a scientific name. This distraction behavior is one of the best-documented anti-predator strategies in birds that, like our red-legged partridge, nest on the ground.

We are talking about the “broken-wing display” or “injury-feigning behavior” (IFB), also called “distraction display”. This behavior helps ground-nesting birds improve their reproductive success, and is one of the best ways to attract predators and protect nests. It has mainly been documented in females, which pretend to have a broken wing to draw predators away from their young.

The mechanism, according to the classic literature by Armstrong (1949) and later works: the bird pretends to have a broken wing that prevents it from flying; if the predator is fooled and chases it, it moves away from the nest or the young, considerably reducing the likelihood that it will find them. Finally, when the predator has been drawn away from the nest, the bird ends its distraction display and escapes.

The partridge flaps compulsively, moving dangerously close to the threat looming over it and its chicks, while at the same time trying to draw it away from them. When this person looks toward the edge of the rural track along which they are walking, they discover the reason for this strange behavior. Several chicks are trying to hide among the vegetation.

A wing hanging limply. A clumsy flight, almost dragging along the ground. A call that sounds desperate. Anyone who comes across a red-legged partridge in that state usually thinks the same thing: this animal is seriously injured. And that is exactly the objective. The partridge has nothing broken. It is acting. This behavior, far from being an isolated curiosity, is one of the best-documented examples of animal deception in the scientific world and has a solid evolutionary explanation behind it.

What the “broken wing” is: the science behind the deception

In ethology, this type of behavior is known as a distraction display through injury feigning. The mechanism, already described in 1949 by the ornithologist Edward Armstrong, is as simple as it is effective: the bird pretends to have a broken wing that prevents it from flying. If the predator is fooled and chases it, it gradually moves away from the nest or chicks, drastically reducing the likelihood that it will locate them. Only when the danger is far enough away does the partridge end the performance and fly off, without the slightest trace of the supposed injury.

It is a high-risk strategy: the bird voluntarily exposes itself to a predator to protect something that, at that moment, is more valuable than its own immediate safety: its offspring.

This pattern is common in ground-nesting birds such as the partridge, since their nests are exposed to a wide range of predators and lack the protection offered by nesting at height.

What scientific studies say

The behavior of feigning an injury is not simply a field anecdote: it has been analyzed with scientific methodology in several key studies.

The study that linked deception with the actual survival of the nest. The work by Gómez-Serrano and López-López, published in 2017 in the journal Behavioral Ecology, was one of the first to directly link the intensity of this behavior with the nest survival rate in a ground-nesting species, providing evidence that it is not just an eye-catching display, but a strategy with a measurable reproductive benefit.

The evolutionary map of the “broken wing” across all birds

The most ambitious study to date is that by Framond, Brumm, Thompson, Drabing and Francis, published in 2022 in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. The researchers traced this behavior across the entire bird phylogeny and found it described in 52 different families, indicating that it evolved independently on multiple occasions. The team identified eight ecological factors that make a species more likely to develop this display: breeding far from the equator, doing so in environments with dense vegetation, having short incubation periods, having little cover over the nest, only one parent incubating, the species attacking predators as a group (mobbing), and being altricial or breeding several times a year.

Confirmation in related galliform birds

The red-legged partridge belongs to the Phasianidae family, the same group in which this behavior has recently been documented in other terrestrial species, such as Godlewski’s bunting (Emberiza godlewskii), whose study confirmed that, in ground-nesting birds facing a high risk of predation, this active nest defense plays a decisive role in the season’s reproductive success.

In the specific case of the red-legged partridge, observation of this behavior is firmly established in field ornithology literature, both in specialized British and Spanish guides, although the most detailed quantitative studies have traditionally focused on waders such as plovers and lapwings, the global reference group for this behavior.

The same trick in other species: a case of convergent evolution

The most fascinating thing about this behavior is that it is not exclusive to birds. It has appeared independently in branches of the evolutionary tree that are very distant from one another, a phenomenon that biologists call convergent evolution: when similar environmental pressures, vulnerable offspring, accessible nests and the absence of shelter produce similar solutions in species that do not share a recent ancestor.

Fish

Distraction behavior is not limited to land or air. In populations of stickleback (stickleback), parents perform striking displays, such as conspicuously digging or simulating a false nest, to divert the attention of threats away from the eggs.

Mammals

It has also been documented in the American red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), studied by Long in 1993, and in the Mentawai langur, an endangered primate that uses similar diversionary tactics to protect its young.

Reptiles

There are references, although less firmly established in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, to injury-feigning behavior in some species of snakes, such as the garter snake (garter snake).

The new HIKMICRO T16 Trail Camera combines 4G connectivity, dual field of view and app-based control, reflecting a wider shift toward continuous wildlife data for hunters, landowners and game managers.

The evolution of trail cameras is no longer measured only by image quality or how tough the housing is. The new HIKMICRO T16 Trail Camera, presented by all4shooters on June 12, 2026, fits into a product category increasingly focused on turning these devices into connected field sensors for wildlife monitoring and land management.

According to information published by all4shooters, the T16 offers 4G LTE connectivity, image resolution of up to 24 megapixels, Full HD video, night vision using 940 nm infrared LEDs, 64 GB of internal storage and an IP66-rated housing. HIKMICRO lists the camera at a recommended retail price of 149 euros, a significant detail because it brings connected features into an entry-level or mid-range segment.

From occasional trail-camera checks to continuous field data

The most interesting angle is not just the launch of another camera, but the change in use it represents. HIKMICRO integrates the T16 with the HIKMICRO Sight app and its HIKZone ecosystem, allowing users to check images, locations, coverage areas and device status from a mobile phone. In practice, the device moves beyond a camera that is periodically retrieved in the field and becomes a remote information node.

HIKMICRO’s official German product information describes the T16 as a smart 4G trail camera with a dual field-of-view system, selectable between 60° and 100°, and data transmission through the app and mobile network. That dual angle allows users to switch between tighter surveillance of specific trails and a wider view of clearings, feeding areas, boundaries or transit zones.

all4shooters also reports that the camera includes PIR sensors with a range of up to 25 metres and a 0.4-second trigger speed. These are product specifications that should be attributed to the manufacturer until independent testing is available, but they help explain the commercial proposition: fewer trips to the field, remote alerts and images, and a growing record of wildlife presence and behaviour.

A market signal for game management

The launch sits within a broader trend in international hunting technology. Thermal optics, digital sights, 4G cameras, mobile apps and cloud services are increasingly being presented as parts of a single decision-making ecosystem. For a game manager, the potential value is not only seeing an animal, but also organising patterns of movement, activity times, human pressure, the presence of different species and nocturnal behaviour.

The T16 also introduces a usage model based on data plans, cloud storage and transmission packages. According to all4shooters, several cameras can share the same data allocation, with progressive discounts available for multi-device setups. That matters because the real cost of connected management no longer depends only on the purchase price, but also on connectivity, the volume of images transmitted and the services attached to the device.

European turtle dove management is again at the centre of EU hunting policy, as recovery on the western flyway contrasts with continued decline on the central-eastern route that affects much of Italy.

The European turtle dove has once again become one of the most sensitive species in EU hunting policy. In Italy, the debate has intensified after an analysis by Caccia Passione interpreted the latest European recommendations as pointing to a total de facto moratorium for the 2026/2027 hunting season.

The issue stems from the 2026 technical update to the EU’s adaptive harvest management mechanism for the turtle dove. Prepared for the Task Force on the Recovery of Birds, the document draws a clear distinction between two situations: a western flyway showing signs of recovery after several years of moratorium, and a central-eastern flyway where the population continues to decline.

Two migration routes, two very different outcomes

On the western flyway, the technical report notes four consecutive years of recovery and estimates that the breeding population in spring 2025 was higher than in previous years. On that basis, the EU system allows a very limited level of harvest, with quotas distributed among the countries and regions concerned.

For Italy, however, that margin appears almost impossible to apply in practice, according to Caccia Passione. The Italian quota cited by the outlet would be limited to the north-west of the country, specifically Liguria, Piedmont and Valle d’Aosta, and would amount to just 1,050 birds. Those regions had already chosen not to include the species in their hunting calendars, further reducing any real possibility of a harvest.

The situation is different on the central-eastern flyway, which affects much of Italy. The European technical update concludes that the conditions for allowing hunting are not met on this route because the population trend remains negative. In that scenario, the EU recommendation is prelievo zero, meaning no harvest.

The political argument: uneven conservation burdens

The significance of the Italian case goes beyond the closure of a game species. It raises a wider question over how conservation burdens are shared between countries, regions and productive sectors when dealing with migratory birds. The turtle dove does not recognise administrative borders, but restrictions, controls, farming obligations and hunting calendars are set through national and regional decisions.

The Italian sector analysis argues that the burden falls disproportionately on Italian territory and its agricultural sector, while other parts of the migration routes have applied different or less consistent measures. That is the political core of the case: turtle dove conservation is no longer only a matter of quotas, but also one of international coordination, compliance and consistency between countries.

The European Commission presents the turtle dove as a reference case for the recovery of huntable species in poor conservation status under the Birds Directive. The approach combines scientific monitoring, habitat work, hunting regulation and control systems. But the gap between recovery in the west and decline on the central-eastern route shows that the model depends on comparable and verifiable measures across the entire migratory corridor.

French hunting law focuses not only on who operates a drone, but on whether aerial information is used to locate, move or take game during a hunt.

The growing availability of drones, thermal cameras and compact aerial observation devices has revived a practical question for many hunters in France: when does a seemingly useful piece of technology become a prohibited means of hunting?

The French hunting website Chasse Passion has published an explainer on how drones fit within French hunting regulations. Its central point is clear: during a hunt, the legal issue is not limited to the hunter holding the controller. It may also affect a hunter who receives and uses information gathered from the air by someone else.

The key issue is assistance during the hunt

The starting point is France’s Code de l’environnement, or Environmental Code. Article L. 424-4 states that electronic assistance devices for hunting are prohibited unless authorised by ministerial order. It also bans other hunting methods, including the use of aircraft and motor vehicles, even as means of driving or flushing game.

Chasse Passion applies that framework to drones in a way that matters directly to hunters. If a third party, even someone who is not hunting, uses a drone to locate big game before or during a hunting day and then passes that information to hunters in the field, using those details could be treated as benefiting from a prohibited method.

That distinction shifts the focus from the device itself to the hunting value of the information it provides. The relevant question is not only who is flying the drone, but whether the flight is being used to search for, locate, direct, wait for or facilitate the taking or killing of an animal.

Penalties and flight rules also matter

On penalties, Article R. 428-8 of the same code punishes several offences involving hunting methods, means, instruments or procedures with the fine set for fifth-class contraventions. Chasse Passion notes that this category can reach €1,500, in addition to possible accompanying consequences depending on the case.

Beyond hunting law, drone pilots in France must also comply with the general rules governing unmanned aircraft. The French civil aviation authority has reminded operators that, since 1 January 2026, the former national S-1, S-2 and S-3 scenarios have disappeared for the specific category and have been replaced by the European STS-01 and STS-02 scenarios. In other words, a flight outside an actual hunt is not automatically free from administrative, technical or airspace obligations.

The most sensitive area remains the boundary between non-hunting uses and uses connected to hunting. A recreational flight, footage of the countryside or an inspection carried out outside hunting hours may be viewed differently from a flight intended to locate animals for a driven hunt. Chasse Passion also points out that operational doubts remain over the possible use of thermal drones to search for wounded animals.

The European Commission has launched a 2026 review of the Birds and Habitats Directives, the legal framework behind species protection, Natura 2000 sites and wildlife management powers across the European Union.

The European Commission has launched a stress test of the Birds and Habitats Directives, two cornerstone laws that have shaped species conservation, protected areas, environmental authorisations and the ability of Member States to intervene in wildlife management for decades.

The process officially opened on 12 May 2026 with a public consultation on how both directives are working. According to the Commission, the feedback received will feed into a broader review linked to its regulatory simplification agenda, whose stated aim is to strengthen the European Union’s competitiveness without lowering environmental, social or economic objectives.

In EU language, the official message is about efficiency, reducing administrative burdens, digitalisation and legal certainty. For wildlife managers, the implications are more direct: Brussels wants to assess whether the current framework is still fit to protect nature in a cost-effective way, while identifying procedures that may be too burdensome, unclear or difficult to apply in practice.

What Brussels will review

The European Commission has set out three main areas of work. The first concerns the application of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, especially the appropriate assessment procedure for Natura 2000 sites. This affects plans, projects and activities that could have a significant impact on protected areas.

The second area covers policy coherence, stakeholder participation, funding, governance, monitoring and reporting. In other words, the review is not limited to the legal content of the directives. It also looks at how administrations, landowners, land users, scientists, conservationists and productive sectors take part in putting them into practice.

The third area is particularly sensitive for hunting and rural wildlife management: species protection, the use of exceptions or derogations, and procedures for adapting the annexes of the directives to scientific and technical progress. These annexes classify species and habitats under different levels of protection, directly influencing how much room Member States have to act.

Why it matters for hunting and wildlife management

The Birds Directive recognises the hunting of certain wild bird species as a form of sustainable use, provided it does not undermine the conservation of populations. The Commission notes that Annex II includes huntable species under specific conditions, while others are subject to stricter protection regimes. The Habitats Directive, meanwhile, regulates species and habitats of Community interest, including large carnivores and other species that create management conflicts in several European countries.

The stress test does not automatically amount to a legislative reform, nor does it mean the directives will be immediately reopened. The Commission says the results should indicate whether changes to the legal framework are needed to meet the objectives of simplification. That wording matters: it leaves the door open to amendments, but also to new interpretative guidance, administrative improvements or adjustments in implementation without necessarily changing the legal text.

The process also builds on the previous 2016 Fitness Check, which concluded that the directives remained relevant and fit for purpose, although their implementation needed substantial improvement. Ten years later, Brussels is looking again at the same legal framework, but under different political pressure: administrative simplification, legal certainty, competitiveness, food security, climate change and the growing body of European case law.

A political timetable through the end of the year

The roadmap published by the Commission includes technical work between February and August, guidance documents between March and July, public and targeted consultations with Member States and stakeholders, a review event with authorities and affected parties in September, an implementation dialogue with Commissioner Jessika Roswall in October, and a final report expected by the end of 2026.

For Europe’s hunting sector, the process is significant because it places long-running management questions at the centre of the debate: when a derogation may be authorised, how conservation status should be measured, how much flexibility States have to adapt measures to local realities, how damage, prevention and coexistence should be integrated, and what role should be given to sectors that manage land on the ground.

The review should also be read with caution. The Commission insists that its aim is to maintain ambition and high standards of nature protection. The stress test should therefore not be presented as a pre-decided weakening of protection, but as a major political and technical review of how the European Union’s two most influential environmental laws are being applied.

The outcome will matter because it could shape the future interpretation of cases involving Natura 2000, protected species, derogations, bird hunting, large carnivores and rural conflicts. In a European context marked by tensions between conservation, farming, hunting use and legal certainty, the process opened by Brussels is one of the year’s most important regulatory moments for wildlife governance in the European Union.

The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust says grey partridge recovery depends on nesting cover, insect-rich chick habitat and targeted predator management across working farmland.

The grey partridge has once again become a central example in the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s message on practical conservation in the British countryside.

In a recent publication, the UK-based organisation stresses that recovering a species once common across the country’s arable landscapes requires more than broad statements of support. It depends on a demanding combination of measures: suitable nesting cover, insect-rich habitat for chicks and effective management of predation.

According to the GWCT in its analysis of grey partridge conservation, today’s populations are found mainly in areas where farmers, land managers and landowners actively create the conditions the species needs to thrive. The message is not new within the organisation’s work, but it is especially relevant at a time when many farmland wildlife recovery plans risk relying on partial measures.

A bird of cereal fields and detailed land management

The grey partridge is closely linked to Britain’s agricultural landscapes. For years, the GWCT has argued that its future depends on how the patchwork of cereal crops, field edges, hedgerows, margins and breeding areas is managed.

Protecting a static picture of the countryside is not enough. The land must provide shelter, food and security at the most vulnerable stages of the bird’s breeding cycle.

One of those critical stages comes in the first days of a chick’s life. The GWCT underlines the importance of insect-rich habitats, because grey partridge chicks rely heavily on insects during their early weeks. Cover that is too dense, damp or poor in invertebrates may look like shelter, but it does not necessarily work as good brood-rearing habitat.

The organisation also highlights the importance of nesting cover. Hedgerows, grassy margins and well-structured vegetation at field edges can provide suitable nesting sites, but only when they are part of wider, joined-up management. The technical lesson is clear: isolated measures achieve little unless they form a coherent system for the species.

Predators and the breeding season

Alongside habitat and food, the GWCT continues to place legal, selective control of generalist predators at the centre of grey partridge recovery, especially during the breeding season. Its technical material points to the need to reduce pressure on adult birds, nests and broods when the aim is to rebuild wild populations.

This is often the most uncomfortable part of the public debate, but it is also one of the defining features of the applied conservation approach defended by the British organisation.

For the GWCT, predator management does not replace habitat, nor can it compensate for a depleted farming landscape. It is one part of a wider combination in which each element supports the others. Without insects, chicks struggle to survive. Without cover, nests remain exposed. Without predator management, productivity can be heavily reduced.

An international lesson for small game

The value of the British example for small-game conservation is not that other countries should copy it mechanically. Its importance lies in the biological logic behind it.

The grey partridge acts as an indicator of farmland capable of producing wild game and broader wildlife: useful field margins, available insects, real shelter and sustained management over time.

In other European contexts, including regions where the key farmland bird is not the grey partridge but another agricultural partridge species, the broad lesson is similar. Recovery is not built on slogans, nor on releases as the only response. The foundation is functional habitat, natural food for chicks, lower avoidable mortality and rigorous monitoring of results.

The GWCT’s latest message reinforces a simple but demanding idea: wild small game needs a living countryside. From a partridge’s point of view, that means more than vegetation. It means structure, insects, a compatible farming calendar and predation pressure managed with technical judgement.

A French hunting magazine has highlighted concerns in southern Spain over wild boar impacts on protected ground-nesting birds in Doñana, linking the case to a wider debate on population control in highly protected natural areas.

The debate over wild boar in southern Spain has reached the international hunting press. The French magazine Le Chasseur Français has presented the case of Doñana as an example of the unintended consequences that can arise when game management is removed and an opportunistic species reaches problematic densities.

The French publication’s argument is clear: wild boar do not only cause agricultural damage or create animal-health risks. They can also become a source of pressure on protected species, particularly birds that breed on the ground or in marshland areas.

A problem already raised in Doñana

The case did not appear out of nowhere. In May 2024, Ecologistas en Acción reported reproductive failure in colonies of glossy ibis and purple heron in Doñana National Park, attributing a significant part of the impact to wild boar entering breeding areas. The organisation also pointed to damage affecting other protected birds that nest on the ground in the marshes.

For wildlife managers, the key issue is not simply that wild boar may prey on eggs or chicks, a behaviour documented in different ecological contexts. The concern is what happens when that behaviour coincides with abundant boar numbers, recurring drought, wildlife becoming concentrated around wet areas and operational limits inside spaces under the highest level of protection.

In that setting, population control is no longer only a hunting-sector debate. It becomes part of practical conservation. The end of sport and commercial hunting in Spanish national parks from December 2020 shifted the burden of ungulate control to the public administrations responsible for each protected area, as the IREC noted in a scientific analysis of the ban on recreational hunting in national parks.

Andalusia has already declared a hunting emergency

Concern over wild boar is not limited to Doñana. The Regional Government of Andalusia published a resolution on June 2, 2026 declaring a temporary hunting emergency area for damage and animal-health risks linked to wild boar and feral pigs during the 2026-2027 season. The official text states that populations of both species continue to increase in the autonomous community, with environmental, agricultural and health impacts.

According to information released by the regional administration, the resolution strengthens control measures to help prevent the entry of African swine fever and reduce environmental and agricultural damage. This regional framework confirms that Andalusia regards wild boar as a species requiring active intervention, although it does not replace the need for specific scrutiny of what measures are being applied inside Doñana and what results they are producing.

FACE warns from Brussels that the next EU farming policy will matter for hunters and conservationists only if it delivers dedicated funding for habitat measures that can restore farmland wildlife and support small game.

The debate over the post-2027 Common Agricultural Policy is entering a decisive stage in the European Union, with direct implications for farmland wildlife, game management and small-game hunting across the continent.

The European Federation for Hunting and Conservation, FACE, has warned that biodiversity linked to agricultural landscapes must not be absorbed into broad general funds without dedicated money for practical habitat work on the ground.

Habitat funding, not just environmental promises

According to the federation, discussions on the future EU budget for 2028-2034 are continuing in the European Parliament, where work is under way on future National and Regional Partnership Plans. FACE believes this budget structure will be decisive in determining whether Member States can provide real support for measures that benefit farmland species.

For hunters, the issue is highly relevant. Open-country species associated with small game, including the red-legged partridge, quail and hare, depend on a varied agricultural mosaic with fallow land, field margins, hedgerows, extensive grazing, flower strips and feeding areas.

Without workable incentives for farmers and land managers, such measures are unlikely to be maintained at the scale needed to make a meaningful difference.

FACE notes that the draft under discussion includes percentages for rural development, LEADER programmes and young farmers, but warns that a broad agri-environmental allocation does not automatically guarantee targeted funding for nature conservation.

The federation argues that the future CAP should create clear incentives to restore agricultural habitats and prevent wildlife from being pushed into the background by other budget priorities.

A decision with consequences for European small game

The European Commission presents the post-2027 CAP as a central element of the EU’s next budget, built around a simpler and more flexible model. The European Parliament has also previously backed an agricultural policy with sufficient funding, less bureaucracy and incentives for environmental and social objectives.

For FACE, the core issue is practical: the next European farming policy must reserve effective resources for habitat measures.

In practice, the future of Europe’s farmland wildlife will depend less on broad biodiversity speeches and more on how money is actually allocated for fallow areas, field margins, ground cover, hedgerows and other essential features of the agricultural landscape.

They may seem adorable animals, even semi-domesticated, but adult wild boars are a species involved in hundreds of attacks every year. This is a growing trend, first of all because interactions are increasing between these wild suids and people from towns or cities who do not know the risk they are taking.

Several residents think it is a good idea to throw food to a good-sized female wild boar looking after several piglets. They even go so far as to give her bread so that she takes it directly from their hands, ignoring the biting power these animals possess. We have observed the main consequence of this many times.

These pigs become attached to these streets, which they reach after crossing several roads, they come across pets being walked by their owners, creating dangerous situations and even fatal attacks and, something that must not be forgotten, it leads the wild boars to look for and demand that food from whoever is carrying it, whether in shopping bags or as a snack in areas set up for that purpose. If they do not get it, they insist. If they still cannot access it, that is when the attacks begin.

What measures Spanish town and city councils are taking against wild boars in the streets

The presence of wild boars in urban areas has ceased to be a one-off anecdote and has become a municipal management problem in several regions of Spain. Barcelona, Madrid and different municipalities in Murcia and Aragon have been forced to design specific plans to stop these animals entering streets, parks and residential estates.

Barcelona is probably the most studied municipal case in Spain, because since 2022 it has been living with “urbanized” wild boars in the neighborhoods close to Collserola. It is a good example of a truly municipal package of measures, not just a regional one.

The Barcelona neighborhoods bordering Collserola Park have been living since 2022 with wild boars that have fully adapted to the urban environment. The city council has identified the origin of the problem: when a wild boar easily finds food, water and shelter, it no longer needs the forest.

The most visible measure in the municipal plan is the reinforcement of rubbish containers. The council has installed metal fencing around the most problematic collection points, reinforced with additional anchors so that, even if a wild boar manages to get past the first barrier, it cannot tip the container over. It is a simple solution, but with a direct impact, since accessible rubbish is the main source of food for the animals that approach residential areas.

The plan includes three other lines of work that are less well known, but just as relevant:

Redesign of green areas: the vegetation in some parks bordering Collserola is being experimentally modified to reduce the plant cover that serves as shelter for the animals.

Control of stray cat colonies: the people who feed these colonies are now working with the city council to prevent wild boars from accessing the feed, placing the feeders in elevated spots and removing leftovers once the cats have eaten.

Express ban on feeding wild boars, a practice that, despite municipal warnings, remains one of the main reasons why the animals lose their fear of the human environment, as we have just seen in the images.

Added to this is a health protocol that is activated when an outbreak of African swine fever appears in the area: temporary closure of parks and picnic areas, a ban on handling dead or sick animals, with mandatory notification to 112, and safety perimeters that, in the most recent episode, came to affect up to 64 municipalities within a 20-kilometer radius.

Madrid: large-scale population control

In the Community of Madrid, where there are estimated to be between 35,000 and 40,000 animals, the strategy has been different: expanding the tools for hunting and population control. Thirteen districts have been declared under a hunting emergency, the use of thermal sights and camera traps in drives is allowed, and all restocking of wild boars on hunting grounds has been suspended. The new Hunting and Fishing Law, approved in June 2026, incorporates the so-called “Population Control Plans”, which allow town and city councils to intervene on overabundant species even outside the usual hunting season.

Murcia: direct municipal powers

The Region of Murcia has chosen to delegate responsibility directly to the most affected municipalities —Totana, Blanca, Cehegín and Cartagena—, which can act with their own resources or through contracted companies within their powers over public safety and public health. The use of cages and capture pens is authorized, while the use of firearms is only permitted if the security forces first establish a controlled perimeter.

The five measures any town or city council should apply

Beyond the major regional plans, the experience of municipalities already affected leaves a list of actions that can be replicated at low cost:

• Rubbish containers with lids and anti-tip anchoring.
• A municipal ordinance banning and sanctioning the feeding of wild fauna.
• Coordination with the regional government to authorize captures or drives on urban land.
• Reduction of dense vegetation on the boundaries between the urban area and the countryside.
• A clear citizen notification protocol: what to do and who to call when a wild boar is present.

A pair of roe deer surprise two fishermen while they are having lunch on the bank of a river. The small ungulates try to swim across the body of water.

The species’ rutting period takes place in Europe between mid-July and late August, although it may vary slightly depending on the region, the population and weather conditions.

During this time, it is common to see males courting or chasing females. Fights between males to compete for the best territories and reproduce with female roe deer are also common. Fawns are born in spring, when there is more food and cover in the countryside.

Two rutting roe deer cross a river

The ungulates jump into the water without noticing the presence of the men. Before reaching the bank, they detect the Frenchmen and change direction. One of the animals returns to the riverbank it came from, while the female crosses the body of water.

Can roe deer swim?

All cervids are good swimmers. Roe deer swim by instinct, and the movement of their legs when swimming is similar to the movement they make when walking.

The small ungulate swims to escape predators or to move between different areas of its territory. Roe deer have been seen swimming on the high seas or in reservoirs.

Hunting and wildlife officials from EU member states met in Kuldīga, Latvia, to discuss large carnivores, African swine fever, forest damage and the growing role of digital tools in game management.

The Latvian town of Kuldīga hosted the informal meeting of European Union hunting directors from 16 to 19 June 2026, bringing together senior officials responsible for hunting and wildlife management across member states.

According to FACE, the European Federation for Hunting and Conservation, the technical meeting was organised by the Latvian Ministry of Agriculture and attended by senior representatives with responsibilities for hunting and wildlife management. FACE took part as an observer, alongside the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, known as CIC.

Large carnivores, hunting governance and animal health

The agenda described by FACE reflects several of the issues now shaping hunting policy across Europe. They included hunting governance, the management of large carnivores, international legal developments affecting hunting, and the use of digital tools to support decision-making in species management.

Participants also exchanged experience on wildlife monitoring, browsing damage in forests, African swine fever and national approaches to implementing nature restoration objectives. These are technical matters, but they have direct consequences for quotas, management plans, authorisations, control measures, habitat conservation and disease prevention.

African swine fever remains one of the main pressures in wild boar management in Europe, while forest damage and the presence of large carnivores require administrations to balance conservation, public safety, rural economies and social acceptance. The meeting was not presented as a legislative forum, but as a space for exchange between administrative decision-makers.

FACE links the debate to wider EU policy

During the meeting, FACE secretary general David Scallan gave an overview of recent European policy developments affecting hunting and conservation. According to the federation, these included the so-called “stress test” of the Birds and Habitats Directives, two central pillars of EU nature conservation law.

The value of such meetings lies partly in their low-profile character. They rarely produce major headlines, but they show which issues administrations are dealing with when hunting management is approached from a technical perspective: population data, animal health, damage, digital tools, ecological restoration and the compatibility of sustainable use with conservation.

FACE said it welcomed the opportunity to contribute to discussions aimed at promoting practical, science-based approaches to the sustainable management of wildlife in Europe. In the absence of broader public communication from the host ministry or detailed official conclusions, the available information currently comes mainly from the European federation.

The colour of this animal is a far cry from the brown that characterises its species. This makes it an extraordinary animal that causes surprise and admiration in equal measure in everyone who sees it.

The spectacular photograph was taken by the Dutch amateur photographer corne_wildlife_fotografie. He titled it “Black is beautiful”, something irrefutable. It is an adult male specimen sporting beautiful tall, pearled and symmetrical antlers, which was interrupted by the camera while feeding in a cereal sowing.

Black roe deer, documented melanism

A rare genetic phenomenon, concentrated in a few enclaves on the continent, is beginning to reveal its molecular secrets. In the oak and beech forests of northwestern Germany, between 10% and 25% of the roe deer that cross the paths do not display the usual reddish or cinnamon-brown coat, but an intense black, almost jet-black, which makes them stand out like living shadows among the undergrowth. They are not a different species or an isolated rarity: they are melanistic specimens of Capreolus capreolus, the European roe deer, and constitute one of the best-documented yet most enigmatic cases of melanism among the continent’s entire ungulate fauna.

What melanism is and why it attracts so much attention in a cervid

Melanism is the opposite phenomenon to albinism: instead of a lack of pigment, there is an overproduction of eumelanin, the compound responsible for dark shades in skin and hair. In mammals, coat colour depends on the balance between two pigments, eumelanin (black-brown) and pheomelanin (reddish-yellow); when the scales tip completely towards the former, the result is a uniformly black specimen, with the skin also darkened.

What is striking about the case of the roe deer is that, according to the scientific literature, it is the only species of cervid that naturally and stably maintains a numerically significant melanistic population. In other deer species, melanism exists, but as a one-off anecdote; in the roe deer, however, there are entire districts where the “black roe deer” is not an exception, but a common variant of the landscape.

Where we can find black-coloured roe deer

The geography of melanism in the roe deer draws a very particular map, with two major historical focuses. The first is in northwestern Germany, especially Lower Saxony and neighbouring areas of North Rhine-Westphalia, where hunting and naturalist tradition has documented the presence of black roe deer for several centuries, even with the explicit interest of former royal houses in this variant. The second is in adjoining strips of the Netherlands, where the forest continuity with northwestern Germany has allowed the variant to persist in border populations.

Outside that central European core, Austria and other areas of central Europe also record appearances of melanistic specimens, although more scattered and with a much lower prevalence.

The Spanish focus: the Las Batuecas Regional Hunting Reserve

In the Iberian Peninsula the phenomenon is practically anecdotal and, when it appears, it is usually linked to historical introductions of roe deer from Germany: this is the case of repopulated populations between southern Salamanca and northern Cáceres, as well as some isolated records in areas such as La Alcarria, which suggest that the trait may persist latently in the gene pool even far from its area of origin.

Within that reduced Iberian map of melanism, there is one enclave that concentrates a good part of the documented sightings in Spain: the Las Batuecas Regional Hunting Reserve, located in the south of the province of Salamanca, bordering the Cáceres district of Las Hurdes. It is precisely in this area that roe deer from Lower Saxony, the German core where melanism is most frequent, would have been introduced in the mid-20th century, which would explain why the trait has managed to become fixed here and not in other Iberian populations.

This highly localised distribution —specific focuses with high prevalence surrounded by vast areas where melanism is practically non-existent— is in itself a relevant fact: it suggests that we are not dealing with a mutation that has spread homogeneously throughout the species, but with a trait that has become fixed or favoured in specific populations, probably through processes of genetic drift, reproductive isolation or population bottlenecks.

The genetic cause: a switch in the ASIP gene

For a long time, although melanism in the roe deer was a phenomenon known and documented for centuries, the exact mutation that caused it was unknown. That gap began to close with a study published in the journal Genes in 2020, by a team led by Monika Reissmann (Humboldt University of Berlin), together with researchers from the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research and the University of Kiel.

The team focused its search on two key genes in pigment production in mammals: MC1R (the melanocortin 1 receptor) and ASIP (the agouti signalling protein). These two genes act as a switch system: under normal conditions, the ASIP protein locally blocks the MC1R receptor, allowing mainly pheomelanin, the reddish pigment, to be synthesised. When that blocking fails, the receptor is free to activate the production of eumelanin, the dark pigment, throughout the hair follicle.

That inheritance pattern is key to understanding why melanism behaves as it does on the ground: as it is a recessive trait, a roe deer needs to inherit the mutated copy from both parents to display the black coat. A single carrier specimen —heterozygous— retains the usual chestnut colour, but can pass the mutation on to its offspring without showing it itself. This explains why melanism can remain “hidden” for generations in a population and re-emerge more visibly when conditions, such as genetic isolation or mating between close relatives, increase the likelihood of two carriers breeding with each other.

Why is melanism maintained? The functional hypotheses

The fact that a mutation persists and is concentrated in certain populations raises a fundamental evolutionary question: does the black coat provide any advantage, or does it simply survive by genetic chance? Research into melanism in other species —from insects to reptiles— has proposed several functional hypotheses that specialists also consider as possible explanations, not yet conclusively confirmed, for the case of the roe deer:

• Protection against ultraviolet radiation: eumelanin absorbs UV radiation better than pheomelanin, so a darker coat could offer some additional protection against sun damage to the skin.
• Thermoregulation: the so-called “thermal melanism hypothesis” maintains that dark-coloured individuals absorb more solar radiation and reach higher body temperatures in cold, low-wind conditions, which could provide an advantage in certain forest microclimates of northern Europe.
• Resistance to pathogens: in several species, an association has been observed between greater melanic pigmentation and more robust immune responses, since the biochemical pathways that produce melanin share components with certain defence mechanisms of the organism.
• Genetic drift and bottlenecks: in contrast to adaptive explanations, there is also the possibility that melanism confers no particular advantage and has simply become fixed by chance in small and relatively isolated populations, a well-known evolutionary mechanism in other colour variants that remain stable in very specific locations, as also occurs with albinism.

A phenomenon that continues to raise questions

Despite the progress made by identifying the mutation in the ASIP gene, the authors of the 2020 study themselves acknowledged that there is still some way to go: it has not been resolved with certainty whether the genetic variant confers any real selective advantage in the natural environment, nor why the phenomenon has remained so strong in such a delimited area of northwestern Germany for centuries, while it has barely spread to the rest of the roe deer’s vast distribution area, which extends from the Iberian Peninsula to the Urals.

A nationwide volunteer survey in Denmark recorded 22,090 common eiders across 58 coastal sites, providing fresh data on a declining waterbird whose management depends heavily on the balance between males and females.

The common eider has again placed Denmark at the centre of a key question in modern wildlife management: how to make decisions about a sensitive species using data that is reliable, verifiable and useful to science.

According to information published by FACE and a technical report from Danmarks Jægerforbund, volunteer hunters took part in a new national eider count in March 2026 to assess the sex ratio of Denmark’s wintering population.

The survey produced a broad snapshot, although the report notes some methodological limitations: 22,090 birds were recorded at 58 coastal locations, including 13,986 males and 8,104 females. The final ratio was 63.3% males and 36.7% females.

The report says the figures confirm a persistent male bias in the population, although the 2026 ratio returned to levels similar to those recorded in 2011 after higher male percentages were observed in 2021 and 2024.

Why the number of females matters

The central issue is not only how many eiders are present, but how the population is structured. For Somateria mollissima, the Danish report notes that the species is in decline and that females are especially important for reproduction.

Understanding the balance between males and females therefore helps assess whether management decisions, including hunting rules, are based on a strong enough biological foundation.

In Denmark, according to FACE, male eiders may be hunted, while females are protected. That regulatory distinction means bag statistics and wing surveys can provide useful information, but not always enough to describe the true composition of the population.

That is why targeted counts such as this one matter. They are designed to fill a specific data gap: the proportion of males and females present in monitored areas before the spring movement towards breeding grounds.

Volunteer hunters in the field

The technical report states that 41 volunteer hunters took part in the survey, carried out on 14 and 15 March 2026. A total of 68 coastal points were covered, although 10 observations involving fewer than 20 eiders were excluded from the analysis to reduce potential bias from small sample sizes.

Most observations were made from land, with some also carried out from anchored boats. Participants recorded males and females separately through visual identification, including both resting birds and birds in movement.

The data were later compiled and analysed centrally by Danmarks Jægerforbund. The report also states that the data will be available for scientific analysis that may contribute to the sustainable management of eiders in Denmark.

Applied science for sustainable hunting

The Danish case is relevant because it shows a practical form of cooperation between the hunting sector, science and public management. Rather than making a general argument in favour of hunting, the project contributes field data on a species under active monitoring.

FACE describes the initiative as an example of citizen science, while the technical report includes scientific commentary from Thomas Kjær Christensen of Aarhus University and DCE, Denmark’s National Centre for Environment and Energy.

The international context is also important. Under AEWA, the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds, the common eider is covered by an international action plan and adaptive management recommendations.

A DCE document from Aarhus University on eider monitoring in Denmark had already highlighted the need to strengthen surveillance of the species, including counts, monitoring of breeding areas and data on the proportion of females in the population.

The celebration of Beretta’s 500 years of existence brings us another gem in the form of a limited edition of the SL3 shotgun. Only 150 units for those most passionate about this iconic model from the Italian firm.

We are looking at the limited edition SL3 500 Years, a firearm worthy of the occasion it commemorates. The designers at the Italian factory have included exclusive features in each of these 150 gems. First, a commemorative 500th anniversary logo, an exclusive anniversary engraving package, its dedicated serial numbering, a custom presentation case and selected top-quality walnut blanks.

This refined engraving combines English ornamentation with modern hunting scenes, achieved through a sophisticated combination of state-of-the-art laser engraving, rolling and a meticulous hand finish by the master engravers of Pietro Beretta Selection.

This shotgun exudes elegance, something that over time will become timeless, founded on hand-selected grade 4 walnut wood. Its tones are perfectly complemented by the Beretta 500 Years logo inlaid in gold on the underside of the action, together with the PB Selection logo engraved on the trigger guard.

Its distinctive sliding profile, where the rear of the receiver and the top lever blend seamlessly with the stock through an expertly executed cone, creates an elegant and unmistakable line, while naturally improving target acquisition.

Superior engineering

At its core, its locking system is based on barrels anchored by hinge pins, lower lugs and locking pins, ensuring flawless operation and reliability. The leaf-spring hammers provide fast and precise trigger operation, offering total control shot after shot.

The set is completed by the Steelium® Pro barrels, derived from the most successful competition shotgun ever made, the Beretta DT11. With an extended 450 mm triple progressive forcing cone that reaches the choke area, this advanced geometry maximizes ballistic efficiency, offering superior terminal energy, reduced recoil and exceptionally uniform shot patterns so that every shot meets the highest standards.

Technical features

Engravings

Mixed engraving: laser, rolling and final hand retouching.

Fine engraving in scrolls and hunting scenes.

Golden 500 Years logo on the underside of the receiver, PB Selection logo on the trigger guard.

Selected woods

Grade 4 walnut: the hand-selected grade 4 walnut wood is complemented by the Beretta 500 Years logo inlaid in gold on the underside of the action.

Superior performance

Available in 12 and 20 gauge with a 6 x 6 mm top rib, this limited edition adds the exceptional ballistic performance of Steelium Pro barrels with the proven profile that has supported countless Olympic and international victories with the iconic Beretta DT11 shotgun.

Steelium® Pro barrels

Profile with 450 mm triple progressive forcing cone.

Optimachoke® HP chokes

Engravings

Designed by the renowned Bottega Giovanelli, the decorative scenes have been crafted as follows:

• Developed for absolute consistency.
• Individually hand-finished.
• Exclusive to the 500th anniversary limited edition.

The engraving reflects Beretta’s artistic heritage, while preserving the individuality expected of a firearm of this calibre.

For centuries, wild boar population control with dogs has depended almost entirely on the hunter’s experience, knowledge of the terrain and the dogs’ instinct. Today, however, that tradition coexists with a tool that is changing the rules of the game: the drone equipped with a thermal camera. Without replacing the role of the dog or the skill of the hunter, this technology has turned the uncertainty of hunting into something infallible for population control, transforming wild boar game management in many parts of the world.

A thermal drone detects the body heat of animals, making it possible to locate them even in dense vegetation, fog or at night, conditions in which the human eye comes up against these limitations.

Location before the action

Before releasing the dogs, a reconnaissance flight makes it possible to know whether there are wild boar in the patch, how many there are and in which area they are concentrated. This avoids “blank” days and focuses the dogs’ efforts where there really are specimens to control. Let us look at a very clear example of all this.

Safety for dogs and people

One of the greatest risks of this method is that the dogs face a strong, bulky wild boar equipped with long tusks, especially those solitary males. Seeing the size and behaviour of the animal from the air before the release helps decide how many dogs to release and with what precautions, reducing the likelihood that any of those hounds will be injured.

Tracking during the action

Once the chase has begun, the drone can follow the movement of the group of dogs behind the wild boar, and do so from a distance, giving the hunter information about where the run is heading, something especially useful in areas of low scrubland, dense scrub or closed forest, where visual contact is lost in seconds.

Recovering dogs

After the encounter, locating dogs that have been left behind, exhausted or lagging somewhere in the hills is another of the applications most valued by pack handlers, and probably the one that saves the most dogs’ lives year after year.

Real-time animal welfare

This is perhaps the most sensitive and least known application outside the sector: the thermal camera allows the drone operator to observe the development of the hold live and detect whether a dog is injured at the very moment it happens, without waiting to physically reach the place, something that in rugged terrain or dense vegetation can take critical minutes.

Seeing from the air that a dog stops moving normally, separates from the group while limping or remains motionless makes it possible to immediately alert the team on the ground, prioritise veterinary assistance and, ultimately, reduce the time an injured animal spends without attention. It is a powerful argument when talking about animal welfare in this method, because it shifts the safety of the pack from something reactive (acting when the injured dog is discovered) to something proactive (knowing it at the instant it happens).

Population and health management

In a context of wild boar expansion and concern over African swine fever in southern Europe, surveying populations through thermal flights over maize fields and crops helps plan control actions with more objective criteria than the simple observation of damage.

The agricultural benefit

This directly connects population control with a problem that affects many people outside the hunting world: the wild boar is now one of the main causes of damage to maize fields, vineyards and other crops across large areas of Spain, and its population has grown steadily in recent decades. Thermal detection makes it possible to plan more precise control actions —and therefore more effective ones, reducing pressure on crops with fewer days in the field— and shifts the conversation from the purely hunting sphere to that of rural management.

As for the use of drones to locate game animals

In addition to regional hunting regulations, there are two additional regulatory frameworks worth mentioning:

Aviation regulations. Flying a drone in Spain is regulated by AESA under the European framework (EU Regulations 2019/947 and 2019/945). Since 2026, only the European standard scenarios STS-01 and STS-02 have been valid for specific-category operations, following the disappearance of the former national scenarios STS-ES.

This entails the mandatory use of drones with European class marking C5 or C6 depending on the scenario, and for many professional operators it has meant pilot requalifications and new operations manuals. Flying at night or over land where uninformed people are present carries additional requirements.

Privacy. Recording with a camera over neighbouring properties or public roads means respecting data-protection and privacy regulations, something that is not always taken into account in rural areas with nearby neighbours.

Tradition versus the cutting edge: two ways of understanding population control

We end with a reflection that goes beyond the technical or the legal: what is gained and what is lost when technology enters a field so closely linked to oral tradition and experience accumulated over generations.

Uncertainty as part of the passion for hunting. Traditional population control is based on reading the countryside: the fresh track, the wallow, the recent rooting, the wind and its direction, the time of day... The old-school hunter decides where to release the pack based on indirect signs and the accumulated memory of previous days in the field, without any real certainty that there is a wild boar in the patch until the dogs confirm it with their barking and runs.

That uncertainty, with its blank days and surprises, is also part of what many enthusiasts value in this activity: it is not just a result, it is an exercise in knowledge of the terrain built up over years spent walking the hills.

The thermal drone reverses that approach. Instead of inferring the animal’s presence from indirect signs, it confirms it directly before taking a single step: the heat of the wild boar’s body can be seen on the screen, along with its exact location and often even its approximate size. The decision ceases to rest on reading the terrain and instead rests on objective data.

It is more effective and safer, but it also shifts part of the weight of the day from the hunter’s eye and experience to the drone pilot’s screen. Do these devices become an aid that adds to the pack handler’s experience, or do they end up replacing the judgement that previously only practice could provide?