Hunting and children

Many adults associate hunting with experiencing nature. When children are involved, it's often marketed as "educationally valuable": children are supposed to "learn where meat comes from" or develop "respect for nature." But the crucial question is: what values are actually being conveyed when killing is presented as a normal way of dealing with wild animals?

Recreational hunting is a practice that teaches people to normalize and positively evaluate violence against animals. Without a certain desensitization to suffering, most people could not engage in recreational hunting long-term. When children are introduced to this environment at an early age—through hunting trips, school visits by recreational hunters, teaching materials from organizations like JagdSchweiz (the Swiss Hunting Association), or hunting camps—no environmental education takes place. Instead, socialization occurs: the instilling of a value system in which violence against animals is considered a tradition, a skill, and a social glue.

What awaits you here

Children learn through role models: What hunting socialization specifically conveys: How rituals, language and recognition in the hunting environment shape the moral map of children.
Bringing hunting into schools: JagdSchweiz as a "nature educator": What JagdSchweiz specifically offers via the kiknet platform and school visits – and what is missing from these materials.
Weapons and children: What research on early weapons exposure says: How early contact with weapons in positively coded social contexts shapes attitudes towards violence.
Animal suffering and children: desensitization or disturbance? What happens when children are confronted with death and blood at hunting events – different in some cases, but relevant in others.
The language of hunting as a protective layer: How terms like "laying out the game", "dressing" and "killing" normalize violence – and what that means for children who learn this language first.
Societal consequence: When hunting becomes identity: Why early hunting socialization structurally complicates democratic debates about hunting policy.
What meaningful nature education can achieve instead: Which approaches convey empathy, responsibility and encounters with nature without killing.
Animal welfare and children's rights dimensions: What the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the German Animal Welfare Act (TSchG) and minimum educational standards say about this issue.
Argumentation: Answers to the most common justifications for hunting-related children's programs.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and dossiers.

Children learn through role models: What hunting socialization conveys

Children don't primarily learn moral orientation through explanations, but through observation, imitation, and emotional engagement. When adults go into the woods with weapons, kill animals, ritualize the killing—laying out the game, taking photos of the hunters, displaying trophies—and receive social recognition for it, this shapes the moral landscape. The message that emerges is not "Killing is wrong." It is: violence is a legitimate tool when it is traditionally embedded, legal, and socially accepted.

This message works without being spoken. Children who grow up in a hunting environment learn that empathy is negotiable. Compassion for the animal is relativized as soon as tradition, hobby, or a supposed "responsibility for conservation" comes into play. Anyone who is disgusted or saddened by the dead animal is quickly labeled "too sensitive." Children learn to suppress these feelings instead of taking them seriously. This is not environmental education. This is the early practice of indifference to suffering—institutionally promoted and ritually ingrained.

More on this topic: Psychology of hunting and images of the hunter: Double standards, dignity and the blind spot of recreational hunting

Bringing hunting into schools: Hunting Switzerland as a "nature educator"

JagdSchweiz operates its own learning platform for schools and offers classroom visits for teachers and classes. Under the motto "Bringing hunting into the classroom," teaching units are advertised as "age-appropriate" and "ideally combining linguistic, mathematical, artistic, and visual elements." In parallel, JagdSchweiz offers teaching materials via the kiknet platform that present hunting as a "sustainable measure for preserving biodiversity and preventing damage.".

What's missing from these materials is well-documented: animal welfare issues, accidental shootings, animal suffering, driven hunts, societal controversies, and the actual data on accidental shootings and wounded animals are barely, if at all, addressed. Hobby hunters appear in schools and kindergartens as supposed nature educators – even though their primary interest lies in gaining acceptance and attracting new members to a hobby based on killing animals with firearms. Teaching materials from special interest groups, used in a one-sided manner and without critical analysis, are not education. They are lobbying in the classroom.

More on this topic: Hunters' lobby in Switzerland: How influence works and No hunting propaganda by hobby hunters in schools (model initiative)

Guns and children: What early gun exposure means

Weapons are not neutral objects. They are built for a single purpose: to injure or kill. Handling weapons in an environment framed as "nature," "tradition," and "adventure" creates a specific association of meaning in children: weapons are part of nature, weapons are tools of adult competence, weapons are socially accepted objects.

Those who want to bring children closer to nature don't need weapons. Switzerland offers countless opportunities to observe wildlife, read tracks, experience habitats, and understand ecological relationships – without a single shot being fired. In the canton of Zurich, young people undergoing hunting training receive instruction in their first years that includes a separate module on the "use of firearms, edged weapons, and hunting dogs." What's missing, however, is a documented module on animal suffering, animal dignity, and ethical decision-making. This isn't nature education. This is weapons training set against a natural backdrop.

More on this topic: Hunting and weapons: Risks, accidents and the dangers of armed recreational hunters and the hunting license

Animal suffering and children: desensitization or disturbance

Hunting means blood, death, sometimes injured animals, tracking wounded game, and prolonged suffering. Adults often decide for children what is "acceptable"—but children react very differently. Some show signs of desensitization: they learn to block out what is visible and force the experience into the prescribed framework of evaluation. Others react with distress, sadness, or rejection—and are then labeled as "too sensitive.".

In both cases, the fundamental pedagogical question arises: What is a child really learning here? Blood, dead bodies, and slashed animal bellies are presented as "perfectly normal." People speak of "breaking open" instead of tearing apart, of "laying a trail" instead of carcasses. Language protects adults—but it also shapes children's perceptions. Violence no longer appears as something shocking, but as routine, as custom, as a cause for pride. Children who have to suppress their natural empathy for animals in order to function in a social context do not learn respect for nature. They learn to switch off compassion when it becomes uncomfortable.

More on this topic: Wild animals, fear of death and lack of stunning , and hunting and animal welfare: What the reality is doing to wild animals

The language of hunting as a protective layer

Hunting terminology is not a folkloric curiosity. It is a psychological defense mechanism. "Shoot" instead of "kill." "Gutting" instead of "cutting open." "Bag" instead of "pile of corpses." "Regulation" instead of mass killing. "Population management" instead of a cull campaign. This language serves a purpose: it creates emotional distance between the action and its meaning.

For adults, this is a learned protective strategy. For children who first learn this language, something else develops: From the very beginning, they internalize a perception of the world in which animals are not sentient individuals, but rather "populations," "ranges," and "raw material." This is no minor linguistic distinction. Language shapes thought. A child who learns that a dead deer is "prey" will think differently about wild animals than someone who has learned that a deer is a social, learning animal with individuality and the capacity to suffer.

Societal consequence: When hunting becomes identity

Those who grow up in a hunting environment where hunting signifies identity, family tradition, and social belonging will later be highly likely to defend hunting—not because the arguments are convincing, but because criticism is experienced as an attack on their own heritage. This is not a failure of individuals. It is a predictable result of early, deep socialization.

The societal consequences are significant: Hunting policy in Switzerland is significantly shaped by a small minority – approximately 30,000 recreational hunters – who have been disproportionately socialized within hunting-related structures. Their convictions are not the result of a free weighing of alternatives, but often the product of a socialization that is unfamiliar with alternatives. When hunting is accepted as an undeniable norm from an early age, criticism becomes structurally more difficult later on – not because it is wrong, but because it contradicts ingrained identity. This hinders democratic debate and stabilizes a system that is ethically controversial.

More on this topic: Introduction to hunting criticism and ending recreational violence against animals

What meaningful nature education can do instead

Environmental education worthy of the name introduces children to wild animals without making them targets. It explains ecological connections, illustrates conflicts between humans and animals – and seeks solutions where no one has to die. This isn't naivety. It's a fundamental pedagogical decision to prioritize empathy as a learning objective. Concrete alternatives:

Wildlife observation: watching deer in forest clearings early in the morning, observing fox families in spring, documenting bird migration – all without weapons, without noise, without disturbance.
Tracking: Finding and classifying animal tracks in the snow, feeding traces, burrows and sleeping places – an intensive encounter with nature that shows animals as subjects.
Ecological relationships: Explaining food chains, habitat quality, predator-prey dynamics and human influences – without the message that killing is the normal response.
Conflict mediation: What happens if a fox gets into the henhouse? How can a fence provide protection? What makes a habitat safe for wild animals and farm animals? Children can develop solutions that don't kill anyone.

Wilderness education and nature-based education consistently show that experiences in nature promote children's well-being, strengthen empathy and create more sustainable environmental behavior – without a single shot being needed.

More on this topic: Alternatives to hunting: What really helps without killing animals , and Geneva and the hunting ban

Animal welfare and child rights dimensions

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Switzerland is a signatory, guarantees children in Article 19 protection from all forms of physical and mental violence and in Article 29 the right to an education that promotes respect for the natural environment and human dignity. Teaching materials that present violence against animals in a one-sidedly positive light and systematically ignore critical perspectives are difficult to reconcile with this educational mandate.

Swiss animal protection law safeguards the dignity and well-being of animals. Nature education that presents wild animals as targets for hunting and as "game" contradicts the spirit of a law that explicitly protects the dignity of animals. Education is never value-neutral. Anyone who exposes children to hunting programs is making a value judgment – and this judgment deserves public debate, not tacit approval.

More information: Ban on hunting for children and young people (model motion) and model texts for motions critical of hunting in cantonal parliaments

What would need to change

Prohibition of children and young people participating in hunting activities: Minors may not participate actively in recreational hunting and may not be present at the shooting, tracking, or laying out of the game. Protection from violent confrontations must take precedence over the recruitment interests of recreational hunters. Model proposal: Ban on children and young people hunting
No teaching materials from hunting associations in public schools: Materials from JagdSchweiz, kiknet, or other hunting-related organizations may not be used in public schools as long as they are one-sided and ignore animal suffering, accidental shootings, and societal controversies. School visits by amateur hunters as "nature educators" must be replaced by independent experts. Model initiative: No hunting propaganda by amateur hunters in schools
Cantonal guidelines for nature education without exposure to violence: Cantons must issue binding guidelines that require nature education in schools and youth programs to use non-violent methods: wildlife observation, tracking, habitat knowledge, ecological relationships instead of weapons and shooting demonstrations.
Protection of animal dignity in educational contexts: Images of hunters, trophy displays, and the ritualistic staging of killed animals must not be used as educational material. The dignity of the animal (Art. 3 Animal Welfare Act) must also be the standard in education. Model motion: Regulating images of hunters
Raise the minimum age for starting hunting training nationwide to 18: Hunting training, which includes the handling of firearms, edged weapons, and hunting dogs, should only be possible from the age of majority. Young people first need comprehensive ethical education before they are granted access to a practice based on the killing of sentient animals.

Argumentation

"Children learn where meat comes from when they hunt." Meat comes from a slaughterhouse or a farm – that can be taught without a firearm. Anyone wanting to explain "where meat comes from" in an educational way has better places than a driven hunt in the autumn woods. And anyone who honestly explains where meat comes from also explains animal suffering, slaughter conditions, and alternatives – not just the positive aspects of the hunting tradition.

"Children learn respect for nature while hunting." Respect for nature arises through observation, wonder, and empathy—not through killing. Studies on wilderness education show that children develop a deeper ecological understanding through positive, non-invasive experiences in nature. Respect that arises through ritual and social integration into a killing environment is not respect for wild animals—it is respect for the group.

"JagdSchweiz materials are neutral and created by experts." JagdSchweiz is an advocacy organization with the stated goal of maintaining public acceptance of hunting and attracting new members. Educational materials that present hunting in a one-sided manner as sustainable and scientifically sound, without addressing misfires, animal suffering, the problems associated with driven hunts, and societal controversies, constitute biased communication – not neutral education. This applies regardless of who created them.

"Young people can decide for themselves whether they want to hunt." That's true—but only if they have been informed about alternatives beforehand, are familiar with the actual data, and haven't already been socialized in an environment that interprets criticism as an attack on their identity. Early, intensive socialization with hunting doesn't formally restrict freedom of choice, but it does restrict it in practice.

Quick links

Posts on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

External sources:

Our claim

Children deserve an environmental education that fosters empathy, not suppresses it. When hobby hunters appear in schools, when hunting associations distribute teaching materials, and when children are confronted with death and violence at hunting events, this is not education. It is the early indoctrination of an acceptance of violence disguised as tradition. This dossier documents why this is problematic, what research and children's rights say about it, and what alternatives exist. It is continuously updated as new data, studies, or political developments necessitate it.

If hunting programs are running in schools, kindergartens, or youth groups in your area, please contact us . We document what is being taught, who is behind it, and what alternatives exist.

More on the topic of hobby hunting: In our dossier on hunting, we compile fact checks, analyses and background reports.