Trophy photos: double standards and the blind spot of recreational hunting

A man kneels laughing beside a dead roe deer, his weapon within reach, blood in the grass, captioned with the hashtag «Waidmannsheil». Imagine the same scene with a police officer posing next to a victim and posting the picture online: it would be a scandal, a disciplinary offence, grounds for summary dismissal. The fact that society tolerates this kind of staging when it comes to wild animals shows how deeply entrenched the double standard is in our handling of life and death. Drawing on legal foundations, studies and concrete cases, this dossier examines why trophy photos are not a harmless tradition, but rather a litmus test for our understanding of dignity.

What awaits you here

Animal dignity in Swiss law: how the Federal Constitution, the Animal Welfare Act and Art. 135 of the Swiss Criminal Code protect the dignity of animals, why these norms also cover violence against animals, and why trophy photos nevertheless remain in a grey area.
Police and army as benchmarks: what happens when state employees pose with the dead, which cases have led to dismissals and prison sentences, and why different standards apply to recreational hunters.
Studies and figures: what a representative study on Generation Z's perception of trophy photos reveals, and why even the hunting lobby speaks of «communicative landmines».
Psychology and ethics: what the staging of dead bodies reveals about empathy, desensitisation and self-presentation, and why invoking «tradition» does not hold up ethically.
International comparisons: Namibia's ban on trophy photos, Walmart's decision, European bans on importing trophies and what Switzerland has failed to do: from the Grisons Facebook case to the trophy photo competition run by the SRG broadcaster RTR in 2026.
The ethics of dying: why mortal fear is not a photo opportunity, and why recreational hunting turns the most brutal dying process into an occasion for a selfie.
What would need to change: Concrete political demands regarding animal dignity, hunting licence guidelines, youth protection and independent oversight.
Argumentation guide: Answers to the most common objections from the recreational hunting lobby.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and sources at a glance.

Animal dignity: what the law promises and what it delivers

Switzerland has enshrined the protection of animal dignity in its legal order more extensively than any other country. Art. 120 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution (BV) has anchored the «dignity of the creature» as a constitutional principle since 1992. Art. 1 of the Animal Welfare Act (TSchG) sets out as the purpose of the law «to protect the dignity and welfare of the animal». Art. 3 lit. a TSchG specifies what dignity means: the inherent value of the animal must be respected. Interventions that degrade it, instrumentalise it excessively or impair its appearance are considered a disregard of animal dignity.

Anyone who disregards animal dignity commits animal cruelty within the meaning of Art. 26 para. 1 lit. a TSchG and risks a custodial sentence of up to three years or a monetary penalty. In 1989, the Federal Supreme Court held that only comprehensive protection of life could do justice to society’s ethical sensibilities. Legal scholarship also discusses whether animal dignity can have legal effect even after death, analogous to the posthumous effect of human dignity under Art. 7 BV. Bolliger and Rüttimann write on this: since the concept of dignity for animals cannot have a fundamentally different meaning than for humans, a legal effect beyond death must not be categorically ruled out for animal dignity either.

Despite this high normative density, the public display of dead wild animals online remains largely unregulated. The Animal Welfare Act protects animals from pain and suffering but does not explicitly regulate how the body may be staged in the media after death. A society that recognises the dignity of the animal in its legal texts would, as a matter of consistency, also have to problematise the degrading display of dead animals.

More on the legal framework: Hunting and Animal Welfare: What the Practice Does to Wild Animals

Art. 135 of the Swiss Criminal Code: When images of violence become punishable

Art. 135 of the Swiss Criminal Code prohibits depictions that «graphically portray acts of cruel violence against humans or animals in a way that seriously violates the elementary dignity of the human being». The provision expressly also covers violence against animals. It is a criminal offence to produce, distribute, store, show or make accessible such recordings (para. 1, up to 3 years’ custodial sentence). Since the revision, mere possession is also punishable (para. 1bis, up to 1 year).

The foundation for the animal in law (Stiftung für das Tier im Recht, TIR) confirms that anyone who films explicit depictions of violence against animals and publishes them online is committing a criminal offence. Whether operators of social networks can also be held liable under Article 135 of the Swiss Criminal Code has not yet been clarified in practice.

The Federal Supreme Court applies Article 135 of the Swiss Criminal Code restrictively, limiting it to "truly blatant and unambiguous cases" of excessive violence. According to prevailing legal doctrine, typical trophy photos in which a recreational hunter poses next to a shot animal do not fall under this provision, because the depiction of a "legal" killing is not considered excessive enough. The threshold is high: where the state itself permits the killing, it is difficult to classify the photographic documentation of it as "cruel violence". This creates a legal gap: the dignity of the animal ends where the camera begins.

A recent case from Grisons shows that this gap is far from meaningless.As documented by wildbeimwild.com, the Grisons public prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings against a recreational hunter who had publicly posted trophy photos and pictures of children on social media. At the same time, criminal proceedings were brought against the person who used one of these images in a critical context. The case has been taken to the Federal Supreme Court. It shows by example that hunting images in Switzerland are in practice treated as a legal vacuum: those who put dead animals on display go unpunished, while those who criticise the same images risk prosecution.

More on cases bordering on criminal liability: Hunting and animal cruelty

Police and military: what happens when citizens pose with the dead

In the police and military, strict rules apply to the handling of victims and images of violence. Anyone operating at the boundary between life and death must not turn that moment into a stage for self-presentation. Violations are sanctioned harshly, because they reduce victims to objects of entertainment and undermine trust in the rule of law.

A case from London shows how seriously such breaches are taken: in June 2020, police officers Deniz J. (47) and Jamie L. (33) were supposed to guard the crime scene of a double murder of two sisters in Fryent Country Park. Instead of fulfilling their duty, they took selfies with the bodies and shared the images in WhatsApp groups. The verdict: both were dismissed from the police force and sentenced to two years and nine months in prison each. The mother of the victims stated that the officers had «dehumanised» her children.

In Germany, a police commissioner trainee in North Rhine-Westphalia was dismissed in 2020 for «lack of character suitability» after repeatedly using duty situations for social media selfies, including during a prisoner transport. The Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia upheld the dismissal. The message is clear: anyone who abuses their position at the intersection of violence and order for narcissistic self-display loses their job.

For recreational hunters, there are no comparable consequences. No hunting licence is revoked because someone proudly poses with a dead roe deer. No recreational hunting association sanctions members who post bloody scenes to their feed. The underlying behaviour — posing with a killed body — is structurally the same. The assessment, however, follows a double standard: with human victims, it is considered a violation of dignity. With wild animals, it is considered «hunter's honour».

More examples of derailed hunting practice: Dubious Swiss hunting authorities

What the studies say: 96 per cent react negatively

The data are unambiguous. A representative online survey of 1,050 adult members of Generation Z who do not hunt, published in 2024, was the first to systematically examine how this age group reacts to trophy photos on social media. The author is the hunter and hunting communicator Christine Fischer; the survey was carried out by the market research institutes Bilendi and Respondi as part of a master's thesis at the FH Burgenland, and in April 2025 the results were also presented to the German Hunting Association (DJV). The findings are devastating for recreational hunting: between 96.1 and 98.5 per cent of the ratings of the trophy photos shown were negative, and only 1.5 to 3.9 per cent were positive. 73.3 per cent of respondents wanted such images to carry a warning. 69 per cent did not want to see any trophy photos on social media at all. 67 per cent felt pity for the animals pictured. 57 per cent believed that trophy photos have a negative effect on society's image of recreational hunting.

Rejection remained consistently high, regardless of whether the images showed the game animal, the recreational hunter or other compositions. The study thus refutes the widespread assumption among recreational hunters that an 'appealing presentation' can make trophy photos socially acceptable. Study author Christine Fischer puts it bluntly on the hunting blog HIRSCH&CO: 'A dead animal remains a dead animal and cannot trigger positive associations in the animal-loving average citizen.' She calls trophy photos 'communicative landmines' and warns that every single thoughtless photo can destroy, within seconds, the painstakingly cultivated narrative of 'responsible stewardship'.

Notably, criticism also comes from within the recreational hunting scene itself: as early as 2019, 70 per cent of young recreational hunters clearly spoke out against the dissemination of trophy photos on social media (Fischer 2019). In the USA, the organisation Mountain Pursuit documented that in 2019, 29 per cent of the hunting industry's Instagram posts still showed trophy photos or bloody scenes – a rate that fell by 25 per cent by 2021, because even the industry recognised that such images jeopardise public acceptance of recreational hunting.

Social platforms are also reacting: since the introduction of “Sensitive Content Control”, Instagram classifies weapons and hunting content as potentially problematic and throttles its reach for non-subscribers. Hashtags such as #trophyhunting are banned. The algorithm recognises images of weapons and automatically reduces their visibility. Recreational hunting is thus losing not only moral but also technical control over its visual language.

More analyses on today's hunting culture: The recreational hunter in the 21st century

Psychology: Dead bodies as a stage for self-presentation

Trophy photos offer insight into a psychology of detachment. Anyone who poses smiling next to a dead animal signals that the suffering and death of this individual takes a back seat to pride, success and group belonging. Social psychology has shown that repeated exposure to images of violence without empathic context shifts the inner boundary of what is deemed acceptable: people become accustomed to sights that would previously have shocked them.

In a policing context, this very tendency is regarded as a warning sign. Someone who casually poses with a victim demonstrates, according to professional assessment, that they may be unsuited to a sensitive role. In recreational hunting, however, this very same delight in staging oneself with the dead body is glorified as "passion for nature" or "tradition". Relevant hunting magazines are full of images of recreational hunters in the grip of hunting fever, posing in a dominant position over their victims. As wildbeimwild.com aptly describes it: any soldier or police officer would be dishonourably discharged from service and committed to a psychiatric clinic if they presented themselves in front of their victim the way recreational hunters do.

The imagery reveals more than a thousand words: kneeling at the animal’s head, one hand on the antlers, the other on the weapon, a broad smile, thumbs up. The animal does not serve as a living subject but as proof of marksmanship, masculinity or hunting success. The pose degrades the animal to a prop in an ego moment. Recreational hunters need such photographs to feel important and to gain recognition within hunting culture. Whoever can show off the biggest trophy, the strongest red deer or the longest shot rises within the hierarchy. The parallel to trophy hunting abroad is unmistakable: whether it is a roe deer in a Grisons hunting ground or an elephant in Namibia, the mechanics of self-presentation over the dead body are the same.

From an ethical standpoint, death is the most vulnerable moment a living being can experience. Using it as a backdrop for selfies reduces the individual to an object, reinforces the devaluation of wild animals and fosters a culture in which empathy becomes secondary to ego and entertainment.

More on the psychological background: Psychology of hunting: Why people kill animals and With a Smile Next to the Carcass

International comparisons: who takes action and who looks on

The debate about trophy photos is not confined to Switzerland. In Namibia, Environment Minister Pohamba Shifeta issued a ban on publishing photos with dead wild animals on social media. The reasoning: such images misrepresent recreational hunting and are morally indefensible. Wildbeimwild.com reported on the threatened penalties, which are meant to apply to everyone, "especially those with hunting permits". Photos may now only be taken for private use, not for social media.

In the USA, the department store chain Walmart, the world's largest private employer, has removed all depictions of hunting violence from its shops and screens. In a growing number of countries, import bans on hunting trophies are being discussed or implemented: Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands and France have already introduced bans; in July 2026, France extended its ban on lions to further endangered species. In Great Britain, a corresponding bill passed the House of Commons. The EU is discussing a tightening of import regulations.

Switzerland is lagging behind in this development. There is neither a statutory regulation on trophy photos nor binding guidelines from the hunting associations. The umbrella organisation JagdSchweiz does recommend 'restraint' when posting internally, but does not sanction violations. The result: while a minister takes action in Namibia, the Swiss debate remains stuck at the stage of polite requests.

How far this normalisation extends was shown in autumn 2026: the licence-fee-funded SRG broadcaster RTR accepted daily kill reports during the Grisons high hunt, raffled a 2027 hunting permit and let the audience vote for the 'most beautiful' trophy photo, in a gallery that also shows children next to dead animals. On 28 September 2026, IG Wild beim Wild filed a complaint against this with the SRG.R ombudsman's office (RTR: SRG broadcaster raffles hunting licence and crowns the “most beautiful” trophy photo and What the ethical assessment leaves out). In the same month, a Facebook photo of a Grisons recreational hunter with a shot roe deer triggered more than 500 comments; even the game wardens' association considered such images pointless (Recreational hunter from Grisons poses with dead roe deer).

More on Switzerland's failure: Recreational hunting fact check: a quick licence to kill instead of knowledge

Ethics of dying: mortal fear is not a photo opportunity

In human medicine, «dying with dignity» is a central guiding principle. Palliative medicine and ethics emphasise that the final phase of life should be characterised by calm, pain relief and respect. No one would think of putting a dying person into mortal terror and then staging their body as a trophy for recreational enjoyment.

This is exactly what happens to wild animals in recreational hunting. They are shot at from a distance, flee in panic, are often wounded and fight for their lives. According to Swiss Animal Protection (STS), the success rate of follow-up searches is only 35 to 65 per cent depending on the canton; in Grisons in 2021, 57 per cent of 1’018 follow-up searches were successful (official figures). An estimated 3’000 to 4’000 wild animals are wounded in Switzerland every year and never put out of their misery. A Danish study (Elmeros et al. 2012) showed that 25 per cent of the foxes killed bore traces of earlier gunshot wounds. The Tierärztliche Vereinigung für Tierschutz (TVT) in Germany documented that in drive hunts up to 70 per cent of the animals shot at do not die immediately.

It is precisely this outcome, a bleeding, panic-stricken animal that has fled and is finally killed, that is then proudly photographed. While livestock in Switzerland must be stunned before bleeding, no comparable stunning requirement applies to wild animals in recreational hunting. From an ethical standpoint, it is hardly justifiable that we turn the most brutal and uncontrolled dying process of all into the occasion for a selfie. The trophy photo celebrates the outcome of a process that we would condemn as a breach of animal welfare if it happened in a slaughterhouse.

More on the missing stunning requirement: Driven hunt under observation

What needs to change

Animal dignity beyond death: The concept of dignity under animal welfare law must take effect beyond death. Art. 3 lit. a TSchG in conjunction with Art. 26 TSchG must be interpreted such that the degrading display of dead animals online is classified as disregarding their dignity. Template text: Regulation of trophy photos
Binding social media guidelines for hunting licence holders: The issuing of a hunting licence is linked to a binding guideline. The publication of trophy photos staging dead animals as trophies is defined as incompatible with “fair-chase” hunting. Violations result in the withdrawal or temporary suspension of the licence.
Independent hunting oversight with media monitoring: The case of Grisons shows that public prosecutors treat trophy photos as a trivial matter, while critical use of the very same images is prosecuted. An independent hunting oversight body modelled on Geneva would also professionalise control over the media staging of recreational hunting. Template text: Independent Hunting Oversight: External Control Instead of Self-Regulation
Consistently applying child protection: Trophy photos are freely accessible on platforms, including to minors. The Child and Youth Protection Act (JSFVG) must bring trophy photos within its scope, analogous to other depictions of violence against animals.

Talking points

“Trophy photos are tradition.” Many former traditions, from public executions to animal fights, are considered unacceptable today because they turned suffering into spectacle. Appealing to tradition does not explain why a behaviour should be morally defensible. Trophy photos follow the same pattern, turning the death of an animal into a stage for pride and entertainment.

“A single photo doesn’t do any harm.” In the logic of social media, volume and repetition are what count. Between 96.1 and 98.5 per cent of the ratings in the representative survey of non-hunting Generation Z (Fischer 2024) were negative. Every new bloody pose joins a stream of images that links recreational hunting with brutality, weapon fetishism and a lack of empathy.

«Don't the police and army also have problematic images?» Yes, and they are prosecuted. In London in 2021, two police officers were each sentenced to almost three years in prison for taking selfies with murder victims and sharing them via WhatsApp. In North Rhine-Westphalia, a police inspector trainee was dismissed from civil service for taking selfies while on duty. In recreational hunting, comparable consequences are lacking, even though the behaviour is structurally the same.

«Animals have no personality rights, the comparison doesn't hold up.» The comparison does not aim at identical legal status, but at identical attitude: staging a dead body as an ego moment. Switzerland recognises an inherent value of the animal in Art. 1 of the Animal Welfare Act. A consistent application of this principle must also address postmortem degradation.

«Anyone who eats meat has no right to comment on trophy photos.» The hypocrisy argument confuses different levels. Meat consumption can be criticised on ethical grounds, but this does not justify turning an animal's death into an occasion for narcissistic self-staging online. Someone eating a steak does not pose smiling next to the cow.

«Common sense is enough.» The spread and defence of trophy photos shows that «common sense» functions differently in parts of the recreational hunting scene than in the rest of society. Where empathy and self-restraint are not enough, clear ethical and legal guardrails are needed.

«Hunting is only criticised by opponents of hunting.» 70 percent of young recreational hunters are themselves against trophy photos online (Fischer 2019). The platform Hirsch&Co, a hunting-friendly medium, warns of the communicative risks. Even the industry recognises that trophy photos damage its own image more than any campaign from outside.

Quick links

Articles on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

Our Standard

Trophy photos are not a marginal issue, but a mirror of how we as a society think about dignity, compassion and violence. This dossier documents why the public display of dead wild animals collides with legal entitlement, the state of research and basic ethical standards — and why the very same pose that would cost a police officer their job is accepted among recreational hunters as "tradition". The dossier is updated continuously whenever new rulings, studies or political developments make this necessary.

More on the topic of recreational hunting: in our hunting dossier we bring together fact checks, analyses and background reports.