A new analysis shows that dog fighting is still widespread in Italy. Several legislative measures and a guide for citizens aim to combat the phenomenon
There is a moment, during an investigation into animal fighting, when the machinery of justice must confront a question that is only apparently simple: what should be done with the animal victim? An animal that has endured unspeakable suffering, both psychological and physical, and that has often been trained to fight and kill. For years, the answer to this question was left to the preparedness and proactivity of the judiciary, law enforcement, and third-sector organisations. Sadly, sometimes no answer came at all, and one was left to reckon with an embarrassing silence.
A clearer sense of the true scale of this silence emerges from the survey of news cases contained in the report "Io non combatto, un progetto per il contrasto ai combattimenti tra cani in Italia: Inquadramento del fenomeno criminoso", produced as part of the project that Humane World for Animals Italia has been running for years together with Fondazione Cave Canem. The report paints a picture in which animal fighting is not a southern Italian phenomenon, nor a feature exclusive to run-down urban peripheries, but a reality that cuts across the entire country.
Particularly telling in this regard is the presence of inter-regional operational networks and, in some cases, connections that extend beyond national borders. Also frequently documented is the overlap with other criminal offences, including the trafficking and possession of narcotic and psychotropic substances, the use of doping substances, illegal gambling, and the mistreatment and keeping of animals in conditions incompatible with their nature. The report also addresses the criminological dimension of the phenomenon, drawing on the link between violence against animals and subsequent violent behaviour towards people. From this perspective, the exposure of minors to animal fights — documented in the course of investigations — is not an incidental detail, but an early warning sign of behavioural distress that, if not adequately intercepted, can translate into a phenomenon with significant repercussions for society as a whole, fuelling the perpetuation of criminal patterns in new generations.
It is within this already extremely difficult context that the unresolved issue of managing seized animals arises. Under Italian law, the non-human animal has a dual legal nature: that of a sentient being, but also of a "thing" — a movable asset, a res, subject to a legal hold in the event of seizure. The absence of clear rules governing the management of such animals has ended up producing inconsistent practices and unsustainable costs, falling disproportionately on the third-sector organisations called upon to care for them. Associations on the front line of receiving these animals following seizure often found themselves bearing the full cost of their custody — including all associated expenses — while waiting for proceedings to conclude, sometimes years later. This lack of protections was a wound not only to animal welfare, but to the very effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
Today, things are beginning to shift. Two legislative interventions could mark a paradigm shift — cultural even before it is legal. The first is the introduction of Article 260-bis into the code of criminal procedure, through Law no. 82 of 2025, passed following a parliamentary debate that chose as its base text a bill first tabled by Member of Parliament Brambilla. This reform introduced, among other things, a provision with a potentially revolutionary title: "Permanent placement of animals subject to seizure or confiscation". The provision, referring to the offences set out in Articles 544-bis and following of the criminal code, enshrines the principle that an animal, once removed from a criminal circuit, may be permanently entrusted to those who can guarantee its protection and wellbeing.
This provision, together with other measures introduced by the reform, serves a dual function: on the one hand, it formally recognises a legal status for the animal that demands its protection. On the other, it provides the judiciary with a concrete instrument to immediately release the animal from a situation of suffering, establishing that permanent placement constitutes a legal basis for changes to registry records.
To this achievement in legal civilisation was added, with the passage of the 2026 Budget Law, a crucial piece in the fight against animal fighting. An amendment passed in this context, first signed by Senator Anna Bilotti, allocates one million euros per year for 2026 and 2027, earmarked to cover the costs of custody and behavioural rehabilitation of animals seized in these contexts. The passing of this measure represents an acknowledgement that saving a dog used in fighting does not simply mean snatching it from its abusers and removing it from a ring. It means setting it on a path of rehabilitation, entrusting it to specialist facilities and associations capable of reading its trauma and rebuilding trust. It means, ultimately, not abandoning the victim a second time.
The "Io non combatto" project perfectly embodies this vision. From police training to rehabilitation, it is a model of integrated intervention. Working in the same direction is the Citizens' Guide, also produced as part of the project.
The tool – designed for a non-specialist yet informed audience – outlines the relevant regulatory framework, describes the breeds most commonly involved, and provides guidance on the warning signs that may reveal the presence of dogfighting-related activities: from training equipment to the conditions in which animals are kept, from the presence of drugs and doping substances to makeshift arena structures. A dedicated section guides citizens on the correct procedures for reporting and gathering evidence, in compliance with applicable privacy regulations and the prerogatives of investigating authorities, and avoiding conduct that could undermine the effectiveness of investigations.
Combating dogfighting requires the active and informed participation of citizens as a widespread safeguard of legality across the territory. Dogfights thrive in indifference and silence: they take place in apparently ordinary settings, and it is often citizens themselves who are the first to notice anomalous signs, to spot dogs in suspicious conditions, or to observe movements and behaviours that law enforcement alone could not detect with the same reach. In this sense, the public is not a passive recipient of anti-dogfighting policies, but an essential actor within a system that, in order to function, must necessarily be distributed and rooted in the community. Investing in public awareness is a structural component of any serious strategy to combat the phenomenon.
Parliament has chosen to provide an important tool to those pursuing similar objectives. A clear signal that the State has chosen to be present, side by side with those who put themselves on the front line every day. Of course, the road ahead is still long. With the approval of the implementing decree from the Ministry of Labour and Social Policies, a fundamental step has been taken to make the support mechanism fully operational. It now remains essential to continue investing in specialist training for law enforcement, a crucial aspect that, unfortunately, has not received adequate funding in this first phase.
Yet the path has been set. Through these measures, legislators have begun to fill a gap. It is now up to all of us – as civil society and as institutions – to see it through to the end, so that justice for animals is no longer the exception, but the rule.
