Spilamberto bans recreational hunting: Safety over hunting lobby

Not in the forest, not far from houses, but in private living space — where people must be able to feel safe.

In response, the mayor issues an ordinance banning recreational hunting across a large part of the municipal area, explicitly citing public safety.

Anyone who reflexively says 'accident' is taking the easy way out. An accident is a fall on the stairs. This is about firearms in the vicinity of residential areas. And about a system that is considered acceptable until someone bleeds.

Safety distances are not a recommendation — they are the minimum

Italian hunting legislation contains clear prohibitions, including a ban on shooting towards buildings from less than 150 metres, depending on the weapon. LAV points out that in the Spilamberto case, precisely these minimum distances appear to have been violated. That is the point hunting advocates prefer to ignore: even where rules exist, public safety depends on every person involved acting without error at all times. Anyone who considers that realistic has not understood human reality.

The truth is uncomfortable: hunting risk is offloaded onto bystanders

The recreational hunting industry is often packaged as 'population management' and sold as a necessary service to society. In practice, however, it is society that bears the risk: walkers, residents, children, pets. Spilamberto is therefore not 'a regrettable isolated incident', but an example of what happens when a dangerous leisure activity encroaches — spatially and politically — closer to people than any honest risk assessment would permit.

When municipalities act, the hunting lobby shows its true face

What is remarkable is not only the ordinance itself, but also the predictable response from hunting-affiliated circles, who are mobilising against the portrayal by animal protection organisations and against the ban.
The pattern is always the same: instead of first discussing safety, the debate begins with a fight over interpretive authority. As if the image of recreational hunting mattered more than the physical integrity of people and animals.

Spilamberto sets a benchmark that applies beyond Italy as well

The central question is: why must a person first be injured before politicians do what is obvious? A hunting ban in sensitive zones is not a radical act. What is radical is the normalisation of gunfire in living spaces where families reside, play, and seek recreation.

Spilamberto has done something that elsewhere is considered 'impossible': it has set the right priorities. Safety and the protection of life above the hunting interests of a minority.

What would now be necessary

Not only in Spilamberto — everywhere:

• Hunting-free zones around residential areas, paths, schools, and local recreation areas
• Consistent enforcement and transparent reporting of incidents
• Political honesty: recreational hunting is not a harmless tradition, but a risky practice with deadly consequences for animals and potentially for people as well

Spilamberto is not an outlier. It is a warning signal. And it is an example demonstrating that one need not wait until the next person is struck in their own garden. In Switzerland, the statistics on fatal hunting accidents document a similar pattern.

Template texts for hunting-critical motions in cantonal parliaments