Adding to the Meloni government’s problems, squeezed between an increasingly complicated foreign policy and at-risk ministers, is the hunting deregulation, a very unpopular proposal. The hunting reform bill is being contested by a broad front of environmental, animal welfare and scientific associations, which are calling for its halt. The fear is that the new regulatory framework will reduce the protections built up over the past decades, create new conflicts with the European Union, and weigh negatively on both wildlife protection and human safety. For critics, the text does not simply update the rules, but changes direction, opening up to a much more permissive model, contrary to European directives.
Allegations: ‘more guns, less control‘
The harshest criticism comes from the political front. In a joint note, Pd deputies Eleonora Evi and Patrizia Prestipino speak bluntly of an unbalanced measure:“The Hunting bill is a measure that introduces more guns, fewer controls, fewer protected areas, more huntable species, and foreigners who will be able to hunt in Italy without any limits.”
Not only that. The women parliamentarians also denounce a possible weakening of the scientific role in wildlife management: “We also strongly denounce yet another attack on the scientific autonomy of ISPRA, which the government continues to empty of its powers in order to replace science with eclientelarian electoral convenience.”
Adding to the pressure on the government is a letter signed by 58 associations asking the Prime Minister to stop the bill. The document speaks explicitly of the risk of dismantling existing protections and increasing dangers to citizens. Environmentalists point out that wildlife management is already complex and requires balance, not relaxation of rules.
The weight of public opinion
A not insignificant political fact also enters the comparison: an Ipsos poll. “According to Ipsos polls,” the Dem parliamentarians stress, ” 85 percent of Italians are against any expansion of hunters’ rights: these numbers are not ignored, they are listened to. A number that, beyond controversy, signals a significant distance between the orientation of public opinion and the legislative choices under discussion. And one that could weigh in as the parliamentary process continues.
At the heart of the clash is a broader question: what role should hunting play in an increasingly urbanized and environmentally conscious country? For critics of the bill, the priority should be safety and the protection of biodiversity, not the expansion of hunting activities. The risk, they argue, is to increase conflicts between different land uses: agriculture, tourism, nature enjoyment. In this context, introducing more flexibility for hunting would create new tensions.
