“The forester considers grazing in the forest to be incompatible and would like it to be always excluded, or even strictly prohibited. The shepherd, on the other hand, who cares much more about forest grazing, naturally protests, violates the prohibitions, and sharpens all his cunning to assert his own interests! ” [1].

There is an underlying, not very visible, yet centuries-old conflict regarding the forests and mountain pastures of the Alps. The forest, arable land, meadow, and pasture are the main elements of the alpine economy, and often those who were and are engaged in one of these elements find themselves unable to share it with those involved in another. 

The most evident condition of such conflicts lies precisely in the “dual purpose” of the forest/pasture in the mountains. As highlighted by the initial quotation, the purpose of these territories is determined more by the users themselves than by the actual configuration of the places. A grazed forest (or wooded pasture; which do we prioritize?) refers precisely to an area covered by trees and shrubs but also used for livestock grazing.

Two Italian terms well define the relationships between forests and animals in the past of the Alpine chain [2; 3] : 

• Strame (German: Waldstreu): i.e. the leaves collected in the forest and used as bedding in the barn for animals.
• Vinciglio (German: Nadelfutter and Laubfutter): i.e. conifer needles or broadleaf leaves collected from the forest and used for livestock feeding purposes.

These terms – now almost forgotten and obsolete – indicate what the forest was in the past, namely valuable support for livestock farming, even when not directly grazed in the forest.

Furthermore, until the early 20th century, forest grazing (German: Waldweide) was the norm – at least for certain livestock categories, such as pigs. In fact, the average values of Swiss forests in 1887 saw an increase of over 20% when, in addition to timber revenues, secondary uses such as grazing and the collection of straw litter and brushwood were also included [3].

This indicated a substantial non-conflict between the different uses of the land and, indeed, an exemplary utilization of all the forest’s products.

However, as early as the beginning of the 19th century, foresters and forest managers emphasized the dangers of exploiting forests for grazing. The causal link that most concerned them was the thinning of tree cover (typical of grazed forests, which are naturally more open and sparser compared to forests with solely productive purposes) and the increasing floods in the downstream areas.

Although at the time still very rudimentary, this concern was actually well-founded. Forest grazing has always been banned and effectively prohibited in every technical prescription for the “protection forests”, which are forests intended to protect downstream areas from landslides, avalanches, and debris flows. These forests are, in every respect, poorly fertile, very steep, difficult to mechanize for forestry purposes, and often also hard to access. Here, forest regeneration, in addition to artificial reforestation, when it develops naturally from the seeds of the existing trees, which are typically of different ages, tends to be sparse and uneven throughout the area. Under these conditions, both in terms of tree presence and morphological difficulties, grazing activity would be very difficult, as well as harmful to forest regeneration [1].

Conversely, when the terrain is relatively flat and the trees are clustered in groups of the same age, grazing can be practiced in the best possible way. As timber production progresses and trees are gradually cut down, the available space for the animals will increase.

Furthermore, not only do the animals find forage, feeding on the grass under the forest canopy, but they also rest there, finding shade and cool areas. In any case, goat grazing in the forest must be prohibited, as goats feed on the tops of young plants, thus preventing the forest from growing.

The future of grazed forests seems to be heading towards total abandonment. Nowadays, the mountain landscape results from a clear division between what is forest and what is pasture, and the overlap between the two realities appears more like a memory of a past driven by productive necessity rather than an opportunity for the present.

However, from the perspective of comprehensive development of the mountain economy, the revitalization of some of these realities could lead not only to a productive revival of “forest forage” but also to a much more profitable and attractive tourism and landscape function.

The example is clear in the different management of such realities between Veneto and South Tyrol. In Veneto, the tradition of forest grazing is almost forgotten, appearing only in some articles of the regional forest regulation that refer to various grazing prohibitions in the forest [4]. In South Tyrol, on the contrary, it is promoted as a traditional cultural landscape of high natural value, to be enhanced, protected, and meticulously regulated for surface admissibility, even within biotopes and protected sites [5].

Furthermore, the grazing areas considered within the forest could not only provide a tangible source of forage for the animals, in addition to that of the adjacent pastures, but also contribute to the eligible surfaces for obtaining subsidies for grazing and mountain farming activities, in the direct interest of those who live and work in the mountains. In short, additional steps forward (but with a glance at the past) towards a revitalization of the mountains in all the aspects that characterize them, making these High-Lands a key player in our future once again.