ABSTRACT
The rewilding of Alpine landscapes has often triggered the expansion of wildlife populations and the ‘return’ of previously near extinct species. Among those, the wolf has generated much debate and is a frequent object of contention between mountain communities and environmentalist groups. This paper aims to reorient such polarising debate by foregrounding multispecies entanglements through the experience of wildlife hunters in an Italian Alpine valley. In doing so, I show that the core issue lies in socioeconomic ruptures and the ongoing disenfranchisement of mountain communities, rather than with rewilding per se. To this end, I argue, the return of ‘wild’ animals becomes contentious not because of the threatening or formidable nature of such creatures; but rather because it signifies the abandonment of the mountain, connoting a process that equates to the ultimate un-domestication of a familiar space – a point of no return for mountain communities’ social and cultural livelihood.
Acknowledgement
I am grateful to Carolin Maertens, Roger Norum, Matthäus Rest, Jonathan Carruthers-Jones, the two anonymous reviewers and the editors of Ethnos for their insightful comments on various versions of this paper.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Article available in English translation here: https://www.iononhopauradellupo.it/en/bentornato-al-lupo-in-trentino/ (accessed February 2021).
2 As Apollonio et al. (Citation2009: 477) point out, with the exception of a small group, in Italy ‘the current distribution of European red deer (Cervus elaphus elaphus) is entirely the result of several reintroductions performed between 1950 and 2003 and natural expansion in the Alps from the immediately neighbouring European countries.’
3 Data is available on the website of the ACT (in Italian): https://www.cacciatoritrentini.it/il-capriolo/32-68/ (accessed February 2021).
4 In Trentino individual hunters are linked to particular municipal reserves, and are only entitled to hunt there (with just a few exceptions). Local hunting associations are responsible, in concert with ACT, for making shooting plans for ungulates. These have to be detailed, prescribing not only the overall number of head to be culled but also the number of individuals of each age and sex class that can be shot. As a consequence of such plans, per every hunting season each individual hunter is allocated a specific number of animals within defined sex and age classes.
5 ‘Investito e ucciso un lupo a Speccheri di Vallarsa: un giovane di 6–7 mesi,’ L’Adige, 17 November 2020: https://www.ladige.it/territori/vallagarina-altipiani/2020/11/17/investito-ucciso-lupo-speccheri-vallarsa-giovane-6-7-mesi (accessed February 2021).
6 Hunting tourism has always been marginal in Vallarsa, and the case of Fabio’s uncle is a rather exceptional one. Even with the growth in wildlife experienced today, and unlike other contexts (cf. Øian & Skogen Citation2016) where privately-owned land features prominently, the impact of hunting tourism on how hunting is practiced and experienced in the valley, as well as on hunters’ relations with the landscape, is negligible in Vallarsa.
7 With the exception of wild boar, which can be hunted with shotguns (single ball), according to local regulations all other ungulates can only be hunted by stalking with rifle.
8 Chamois expanded to such significant numbers that a few were ‘sold’ every year to hunters from outside of the valley. One animal (usually a young male, or a yearling) would yield 500 euro, funds which were spent on various initiatives such as ecological restoration (see below) and the instalment of a fridge cell for large game.
9 Protocollo d’intesa signed on 13 December 2000, available here: https://www.cacciatoritrentini.it/document/pdf/protocollo-intesa-miglioramenti-ambientali-2000/cacciatori_8318a5445954984a04a8a9b697f55b3/ (accessed February 2021).