Federal Hunting Act: Massacres Are Not the Solution

Julia Klöckner’s current ministerial draft revision of the Federal Hunting Act intends to use hunting to make up for the shortcomings of forestry policy over the past decades. The amendments to the law are essentially aimed at enabling a «natural regeneration of forests largely without protective measures».

«The undeniably real problem of damage to young trees by roe deer and other cloven-hoofed wildlife (so-called ungulates) cannot be brought under control through even more culling«, is the conviction of Lovis Kauertz, Chairman of Wildtierschutz Deutschland e.V., «Take Baden-Württemberg as an example: over the past ten years, culling has been dramatically increased there, particularly in state forests — by more than 40 percent overall, to over 225,000 roe deer most recently. And yet no significant impact on browsing damage or other damage caused by wildlife has been recorded.«

Kauertz sees the reasons for the sometimes high levels of damage to young forest plantations as lying precisely in the intense hunting pressure in Germany: «Wildlife is hunted — and thus disturbed — virtually year-round; there are no hunting-free foraging areas and no transition zones from agricultural fields to forest.» Anyone who disturbs roe deer through hunting — especially during the food-scarce winter months — should not be surprised when the resulting energy demands are satisfied by feeding on the buds of young trees.

The draft revised Federal Hunting Act calls for, among other things, the annual agreement of minimum culling quotas for ungulates. It also proposes the complete abolition of the ban on night-vision devices for wild boar. Both measures will likely lead to a year-round intensification of hunting result in. In the end, perhaps 100,000 more roe deer end up being killed. This does nothing to help the forest, because on the one hand browsing damage remains at a high level, and on the other hand the biology of roe deer is underestimated. The wild animals will compensate for hunting losses through higher reproduction rates — the doe will then typically give birth to two fawns.

The Klöckner amendment leaves out highly significant reform needs in hunting legislation. For instance, it would have been the right time to replace vague legal terms such as «hunting etiquette» or «game management» with clear, comprehensible, and enforceable definitions. The law prohibits the manufacture, purchase, sale, and use of steel-jaw traps. It would be desirable and sensible to extend this provision to cover all trapping devices not approved for hunting in Germany.

The idea of a mandatory annual proof of shooting practice required for participation in driven hunts is not fundamentally without merit. However, since the proof merely confirms the hunters’ attendance rather than demonstrating actual shooting ability, this obligation will continue to fall short in terms of improving animal welfare.

Within the vicinity of wildlife crossing aids, elevated hunting stands may only be erected and used temporarily and briefly in the case of a driven hunt. This provision is as useless and unenforceable as much of the new Federal Hunting Act. The correct approach would be a complete ban on hunting within at least 500 metres of a wildlife crossing.

Twenty-six years ago, animal welfare was enshrined as a national objective. In the area of hunting, little has changed since then — apart from exceptions in federal states with Green Party participation in government. Above all, the review of the list of huntable species with regard to a justifiable reason under the Animal Welfare Act is still outstanding.