Psychology of hunting: Why people kill animals

Why do 79 per cent of people view recreational hunting with reservations or reject it, 29,328 people in Switzerland (Federal Hunting Statistics 2025) voluntarily take up a hobby that at its core consists of killing sentient beings, in a society that has enshrined animal welfare in law and in which, according to the independent WaMos 2 population survey, 79 per cent view recreational hunting with reservations or reject it? The psychology of recreational hunting is neither a fringe topic nor a taboo: it is the key to understanding why wildlife policy in Switzerland is so irrational, why kill figures are celebrated as success stories and why entire packs are wiped out even though herd protection has been proven to be more effective.

This dossier examines the psychological mechanisms behind recreational hunting: from moral disengagement through group identity and patterns of dominance to the linguistic strategies used to disguise killing as 'Hege' (stewardship), 'removal' or 'regulation'. It asks what research knows about the motivation of recreational hunters, how hunting culture affects children and families, and why the return of predators triggers such profound emotional reactions.

What awaits you here

Basic psychological motives: Why people kill animals even though there is no necessity for it. Dominance, control, experience of nature, and the question of which motives research actually identifies.
Moral disengagement: How recreational hunters resolve the contradiction between the act of killing and the norm of animal welfare. Bandura's theory and its application to recreational hunting.
Language as a camouflage mechanism: Why 'removal', 'regulation', 'Hege' (stewardship) and 'putting out of misery' are not neutral terms but psychological tools of distancing.
Group identity and social pressure: How hunting parties, mentor systems and guild structures create a sense of belonging and make leaving difficult.
Dominance and control: What psychology says about power motives, trophy orientation and territorial behaviour among recreational hunters.
Cognitive dissonance and 'Waidgerechtigkeit' (hunting ethics): Why the code of honour in recreational hunting is psychologically necessary and how it functions as a framework of legitimation.
Predators as a threat to identity: Why the return of the wolf triggers such disproportionately strong reactions among recreational hunters.
Children and hunting culture: How early exposure to acts of killing affects children and what developmental psychology has to say about it.
What would need to change: Demands for an evidence-based wildlife policy that takes psychological findings seriously.
Argumentation guide: Answers to the most common objections on the subject of the psychology of hunting.

Basic psychological motives: why people kill animals

Research into the motives for recreational hunting paints a consistent picture. In surveys, recreational hunters cite “experiencing nature”, “obtaining meat”, “tradition” and “wildlife management” as their main motives. Studies such as those by Darimont et al. (2015) and Kaltenborn et al. (2013), however, show that the reported motives and actual behaviour often diverge: anyone primarily seeking to experience nature has no need of a weapon. Anyone who wants to practise wildlife management could support professional game wardens. And anyone who needs meat can find it in the shops, free of lead contamination and stress hormones.

What remains systematically under-represented in surveys are the socio-psychologically relevant motives: the experience of control over a living being, the rush of adrenaline at the moment of firing, the sense of competence and superiority in an environment that is otherwise beyond control. These motives are not pathological, but they are more honest than “experiencing nature”, and they explain why recreational hunting is so hard for its followers to give up.

In Switzerland, recreational hunters are overwhelmingly men. Gender research points out that recreational hunting functions as a space in which certain ideals of masculinity (strength, mastery over nature, composure in the face of death) can be staged and confirmed without being questioned by society.

More on this: What Does Psychology Say About Recreational Hunters? (Heubrock, Grohs, Dark Triad), Hunters: role, power, training and criticism and Introduction to hunting criticism

Moral disengagement: how killing is normalised

With the concept of “moral disengagement”, the psychologist Albert Bandura described how people can commit acts that contradict their own moral standards without feeling guilt. Recreational hunting is a textbook example of almost all eight mechanisms that Bandura identified.

Moral justification: The killing is presented as necessary for nature conservation, population control or disease prevention. Whoever kills does so for a higher good.

Euphemistic language: 'Removal', 'regulation', 'bag', 'harvesting' replace 'killing' and 'death'. This linguistic distancing reduces the emotional impact of the act.

Favourable comparison: Recreational hunting is compared with factory farming and portrayed as ethically superior (the animal 'had a free life').

Diffusion of responsibility: It is not the individual recreational hunter who decides, but 'the authority', 'the kill planning', 'the commission'. Individual responsibility is shifted onto the system.

Dehumanisation of the victim: Wild animals become 'stocks', 'populations' or 'pest game'. Their individual capacity to suffer is systematically ignored.

Attribution of blame: The animal itself is made the cause of problems: the 'problem wolf', the 'damage-causing individual', the red deer that 'destroys the forest'.

Together, these mechanisms form a psychological shield that makes recreational hunting not only bearable for the individual, but also palatable to society.

More on this: Hunting myths: 12 claims you should scrutinise critically and Trophy photos: double standards, dignity and the blind spot of recreational hunting

Language as a camouflage mechanism

The language of recreational hunting is no coincidence, but a system of psychological distancing that has developed over generations. In the hunting policy debate, terms such as 'regulation', 'population management', 'removal', 'Hege' (game stewardship) and 'redeeming' dominate the discourse. Each of these terms serves a specific psychological function: it obscures the act of killing, ennobles the killer and de-individualises the victim.

'Redeeming' suggests an act of mercy, as if the wild animal were suffering under a burden from which it needed to be freed. 'Removal' turns a violent death into an administrative act. 'Hege' implies care and responsibility, although in practice it consists mainly of manipulating habitats in favour of huntable species. 'Bringing to bag' evokes a sporting achievement and completely blanks out the dying animal.

The dossier 'Media and Hunting Topics' shows how this language is conveyed through the media: when journalists uncritically adopt hunting vocabulary, they become multipliers of a linguistic system that conceals the reality of recreational hunting. And the dossier 'How Hunting Associations Influence Politics and the Public' documents how JagdSchweiz deliberately feeds this language into consultations, parliamentary motions and press releases.

More on this: Media and hunting topics and How hunting associations influence policy and the public

Group identity and social pressure

Recreational hunting is not merely an individual practice but a social system with its own initiation rites, hierarchies and expectations of loyalty. In Switzerland, hunting societies, territorial groups and cantonal associations are the pillars of this system. In many cantons, joining a hunting society resembles admission to a guild: it requires sponsors, probationary periods and the approval of existing members.

These structures generate a strong in-group identification: those who belong to a hunting society share rituals (the communal meal after the hunt, laying out the bag, hunting horn blowing), language (hunters' jargon, “Waidmannsheil”), clothing and social occasions. Social psychology shows that such group characteristics reinforce the demarcation from outsiders and suppress critical voices within the group itself.

At the same time, these structures make it harder to leave: anyone who gives up recreational hunting loses not just a hobby but a social network that has often grown over generations. In rural areas, where hunting societies are part of local club life, leaving can mean social isolation. This explains why even recreational hunters who feel increasingly uneasy rarely take a public stance.

In Valais, this dynamic takes a particularly pronounced form: the “Psychology of Recreational Hunting in the Canton of Valais” shows how deeply rooted patterns of dominance, identity and community shape hunting culture and influence political decisions.

More on this: The Psychology Of Recreational Hunting In The Canton Of Valais and Recreational hunting as an event

Dominance and control: the power motive

Trophy hunting makes the power motive most clearly visible: the animal is killed not primarily for its meat, but for its size, its antlers or its rarity. The photo with the dead animal, the antlers on the wall, the bag report with its score are symbols of a superiority that could not be displayed without the animal's death.

But outside trophy hunting too, motives of dominance and control play a role. Recreational hunting offers a structured way of exercising a measure of absolute power in an increasingly uncontrollable world: over life and death, over the moment of death, over the choice of victim. This experience of control is psychologically effective, regardless of whether the recreational hunter is aware of it.

Research on power motivation (McClelland, 1975; Winter, 1973) shows that the need to exert influence over other living beings is a fundamental human motive that finds different expression in different contexts. Recreational hunting provides a socially accepted framework for this, one that defines killing not as violence but as tradition, craft or closeness to nature.

More on this: Trophy hunting: when killing becomes a status symbol and Ending leisure-time violence against animals

Cognitive dissonance and 'Waidgerechtigkeit'

The concept of 'Waidgerechtigkeit' (hunting fairness) is the central ethical construct of recreational hunting. It encompasses unwritten rules on fair hunting methods, appropriate distances, species-appropriate hunting and respect for the animal killed. Viewed psychologically, Waidgerechtigkeit fulfils a specific function: it reduces the cognitive dissonance that arises when a person kills an animal that they simultaneously regard as worthy of protection.

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance (1957) holds that contradictory beliefs or actions create psychological discomfort, which must be reduced by changing the belief or the action. Waidgerechtigkeit resolves this contradiction elegantly: the recreational hunter kills the animal, but does so 'properly', 'fairly' and 'with respect'. The killing itself is thereby not called into question, only the manner in which it is carried out.

In practice, however, Waidgerechtigkeit falls far short of the reality of modern recreational hunting. The dossier on Night hunting and high-tech hunting documents how thermal imaging cameras, night sights and digital game calls turn 'fair hunting' into a demonstration of technological superiority. The Driven Hunt in Switzerland shows that driven hunts, with their high miss rates and panicked flight, are the opposite of 'species-appropriate' and 'respectful'.

More on this: Night hunting and high-tech hunting and Hunting and Animal Welfare: What the Practice Does to Wild Animals

The return of predators as an identity crisis

No wildlife policy debate in Switzerland is conducted as emotionally as the wolf debate. Psychologically, the intensity of this reaction cannot be explained by economic damage alone: the 808 livestock animals of all species killed by wolves (November 2024 to October 2025, FOEN) compare with 52,408 registered deaths of sheep in 2025, that is, deaths outside of slaughter from disease, falls and bad weather (Animal Traffic Database). Even if all the kills involved sheep, that would be roughly 1.5 per cent. Such figures do not justify an emotionalisation that extends to demands for complete eradication.

The explanation lies deeper: the return of the wolf fundamentally calls into question the self-image of recreational hunting. When a natural predator takes over the “regulation” that recreational hunters claim as their core competence, recreational hunting loses its most important basis of legitimacy. The wolf is thus not primarily perceived as an ecological actor, but as a competitor for control over the habitat.

In Valais, where the fusion of recreational hunting, identity and politics is most pronounced, this leads to a dynamic of escalation: individual wolf kills are hyped up into “attacks”, political actors such as Christophe Darbellay stage themselves as protectors against a supposed threat, and the Valais wolf report shows how the management of fear becomes a policy of killing. Psychology recognises in this pattern classic threat reactions: exaggeration of the danger, dehumanisation (or “de-individualisation”) of the enemy, and mobilisation of the group against the common adversary.

More on this: Wolf in Switzerland: facts, politics and the limits of hunting and Valais wolf balance sheet: figures of a massacre

Children and hunting culture: what developmental psychology says

In Switzerland, children of accompanying age may be taken along on recreational hunts. Some cantons have youth training programmes that introduce minors to shooting and killing animals. The question of what psychological effects this has on children is hardly ever raised in the hunting policy debate.

From a developmental psychology perspective, confronting children with the killing of animals is a complex issue. On the one hand, children learn that killing is acceptable and even honourable in certain contexts. On the other hand, studies on the development of empathy (Ascione, 1993; Flynn, 1999) show that children who are repeatedly exposed to instrumental violence against animals may develop a reduced capacity for empathy towards animal suffering.

The aim is not to portray recreational hunters across the board as people lacking empathy. But it is psychologically relevant that recreational hunting creates a context in which the killing of an animal is framed as a positive experience (pride, belonging, success) and in which compassion for the animal can be dismissed as weakness or sentimentality. The dossier “Hunting and Children” explores this topic in greater depth.

More on this: Hunting and children and The hunting licence

What needs to change

Psychological aptitude test for the hunting licence: The hunting examination tests knowledge of firearms and wildlife, but not psychological suitability. A standardised aptitude test assessing impulse control, capacity for empathy and the ability to cope with stress under time pressure should become a mandatory part of obtaining a hunting licence.
Independent research into hunting motivation: Research into the motives for recreational hunting has so far been largely funded by institutions close to the hunting community. Independent, publicly funded studies are needed that examine social-psychological motives without self-selection bias.
Decoupling recreational hunting from wildlife management: As long as recreational hunting is presented as a necessary instrument of wildlife management, its psychological dimension remains invisible. Professional game wardens with no recreational hunting interests must take over the sovereign task of wildlife management.
Duty of linguistic transparency in official documents: Official decrees, press releases and hunting statistics should avoid euphemistic hunting vocabulary and state clearly what is happening: killing, not “removal”; shooting, not “regulation”.
Child protection: minimum age for taking part in hunting activities: Children under the age of 16 should not be permitted to take part in acts of killing. Confronting minors with the killing of animals as a “success experience” is incompatible with modern findings in developmental psychology.

Template submissions: Template texts for hunting-critical motions and Template letter: Appeal for change in Switzerland

Talking points

“Recreational hunters are not psychopaths.” Correct, and nobody claims otherwise. The psychological analysis of recreational hunting does not aim at pathologisation, but at understanding the normal psychological mechanisms that normalise acts of killing. Moral disengagement, cognitive dissonance and group identity are universal human phenomena. That is precisely why they are so effective, and precisely why they need to be named.

“Recreational hunting is a cultural heritage and a tradition.” Tradition explains the existence of a practice, but does not justify it. Many practices that were once considered tradition (child labour, duelling, bullfighting) were abandoned because a society's ethical standards changed. From a psychological perspective, appealing to tradition is a mechanism of shifting responsibility: it is not I who decide, the tradition decides for me.

“Recreational hunters love nature.” A connection to nature and a willingness to kill are not mutually exclusive, but neither do they cancel each other out. The question is whether it is psychologically consistent to love a living being and at the same time be prepared to kill it. Research shows that this consistency can only be achieved through moral disengagement.

“Anyone who criticises it has no idea about recreational hunting.” Psychological analysis does not require personal hunting experience, just as addiction research does not require personal experience of addiction. Criticism of the psychological mechanisms of recreational hunting is scientifically grounded and is directed not against individuals, but against a system that stages killing as normality.

“Recreational hunting teaches responsibility and respect.” The question is: respect for whom? The animal that is shown “respect” is dead. Responsibility that can only be exercised within the context of an act of killing is a peculiar form of responsibility. Professional game wardens bear the same responsibility without leisure interests forming the basis for their decisions.

Quick links

Articles on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

Our Standard

This dossier aims neither to pathologise recreational hunters nor to claim moral superiority. What it does aim to do is name the psychological mechanisms that lead a society to accept the systematic killing of wild animals as a leisure activity, even though it is neither ecologically necessary nor ethically up to date. As long as these mechanisms remain invisible, the political debate will also remain superficial: people argue about kill figures, damage thresholds and hunting calendars instead of the fundamental question of why a democracy organises leisure violence against animals at the level of the state.

If you know of leads, studies or personal accounts that belong in this dossier, please write to us. We are especially looking for accounts from former recreational hunters who dared to leave hunting behind.

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