Graubünden: Cruel Special Hunt 2020

Although the manipulated high-season hunting bag turned out very well, a demanding plan for the 2020 special hunt still needs to be carried out.

Without the special hunt in November and December, regulating the artificially inflated red deer populations — and now increasingly roe deer populations as well — would be unthinkable.

A special hunt is, as the name implies, a corrective measure. When a corrective measure becomes the norm, something is wrong with the science, wildlife biology, planning, and execution — and this has been the case in Graubünden at the Office for Hunting and Fisheries with its hobby hunters for over 30 years.

This year's culling quota for red deer stands at a total of 5’560 animals, the same as the previous year. In all regions of Graubünden with serious forest-wildlife conflicts, the proportion of female animals to be shot under the culling plan has been set at 55 or 60%, up from 50%, writes the department of State Councillor Mario Cavigelli.

The persistently high hunting pressure has not regulated the population to the desired level — instead, it has kept it highly productive at an elevated level. This means: the more roe deer or red deer are shot, the more strongly they reproduce.

IG Wild beim Wild

The hunting administration's plan is never fulfilled in favor of wildlife and ordinary mountain communities. The forest-wildlife conflict is intensified year after year. During the three weeks of the 2020 Graubünden high-season hunt, approximately 30% more red deer and roe deer were shot compared to the previous year. More on this in the dossier Why hobby hunting fails as population control.

In order to fulfil the abhorrent hunting mandate of the Office for Hunting and Fisheries, a considerable number of additional red deer and roe deer must be shot during the 2020 special hunt, fabricates Dr. Adrian Arquint, Head of the Office for Hunting and Fisheries in Graubünden, in this press release.

The roe deer population also needs to be regulated

«The roe deer buck harvest, which is significantly higher than in the previous year, reflects a generally good to regionally excessive roe deer population. In areas with major forest-wildlife conflicts, it can be assumed that roe deer have a decisive influence on forest regeneration. For this reason, special hunts for roe deer are carried out in these regions, regardless of the roe deer buck harvest during the main hunting season», Adrian Arquint continues.

Facts instead of hunters' tales

It is the hobby hunters who drive the animals into the forest in the first place, where they cannot find the grasses and herbs that are vital to them and have no choice but to nibble on buds — so argue animal welfare advocates and scientists. The special hunts unnecessarily disturb wildlife, which often increases their nutritional needs and thus the browsing damage even further. At the same time, this also stimulates their reproductive capacity, causing the forest-wildlife conflict to intensify further — while the recreational hunters have more and more cannon fodder, and substantial blood money flows into the canton's coffers.

Intensive hunting keeps population levels high. It has led into a dead end that cannot be escaped by going further down the same path. Quite the contrary. Browsing damage continues to increase, because the wariness imposed on these animals prevents them from living largely in the open, as their nature dictates. If they were allowed to do so, this would not only benefit natural forest regeneration on its own, but the frequency of wildlife accidents would also decrease. Roe deer that don't have to cross roads in the dead of night won't end up under the wheels of vehicles. They can learn to adapt to road traffic.

There would be an additional benefit: wildlife would become visible again. If they were not so shy, it would be far easier to determine how large the populations actually are — and how they are distributed. Browsing damage is not a good indicator of this.

Foundation Animal Law (Stiftung Tier im Recht): Animal welfare legal questions

Contrary to a view that is still sometimes held, federal animal welfare law is fully applicable in the context of hunting as well. Violations of animal welfare regulations are therefore also punishable during the exercise of hunting. An exception applies where the Federal Hunting Act expressly regulates a matter differently from the Animal Welfare Act.

The two-stage Graubünden hunting model, with its main and special hunting seasons, raises questions from an animal welfare perspective. During the special or autumn hunt for red deer and roe deer, which extends well into December, the hunting regulations are considerably more relaxed than during the September hunt. This means that animal welfare violations are accepted to a greater degree.

Wildlife depends on its energy reserves during the winter months. Recreational activities in wildlife rest zones and wildlife sanctuaries are therefore rightly prohibited. Hunting activities place a particular burden on wildlife through the far-audible gunshots and the direct threat posed to the hunted animals themselves. From a legal perspective, in specific hardship cases — for example, in extreme weather conditions — it would need to be examined whether the hobby hunters involved are guilty of unnecessary suffering and thus of animal cruelty within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act.

During the special hunt, unlike during the September hunt, lactating hinds and roe does as well as their young may also be shot. In practice, however, this can hardly be carried out in every case without violating animal welfare standards. Whether this regulation is observed without exception is questionable. From an animal welfare perspective, in the event that a young animal is left behind, the offence of animal cruelty through causing agonising death would need to be examined, as a calf or fawn without its mother has no realistic chance of survival.

In the reverse case — that is, when a young animal is shot in front of its mother — there is no guarantee that the adult animal can also be killed. The loss of offspring is physically and psychologically burdensome for lactating animals. The question of whether additional regulation after the main hunt is necessary at all appears to be contested even within the expert community of forestry and wildlife biology, explains Vanessa Gerritsen of the Tier im Recht Foundation.

High proportion of male animals in the main hunt bag

Since hobby hunters during the main hunt were primarily interested in male red deer (trophy hunting), the regulation of female animals must be intensified during the 2020 special hunt. In addition, further targeted hunting operations were designated in particularly affected municipalities.

To achieve adequate regulation of deer populations, additional recreational hunts in November and December are required. Special hunts for deer are carried out in all 21 deer regions. A total of 3’551 (previous year: 3’422) hobby hunters have registered for the special hunt.

Adrian Arquint is waging war on the most vulnerable in society — his language and actions leave no room for doubt.

The special hunt is always also an unethical and barbaric massacre of wild animals. Pregnant and nursing hinds, as well as roe does and their young, entire social structures are shot down without mercy by hobby hunters in what amounts to a bloodlust frenzy. Shooting nursing mothers away from their fawns is shabby and contemptible. There will never be any justification for destroying a newborn life in this way, or for forcing mother animals to raise their young amid harassment and mortal terror. Further background on hunting myths.

Graubünden's hobby hunting culture, with its hobby hunters, is quite simply deeply criminal. It is only that our legal system has not yet advanced far enough to reflect this in criminal law.

For example, there are over 1’000 reports and/or fines issued against hobby hunters in Graubünden every year.

People — many people — would love to encounter wild animals that don't bolt away in sheer panic or cause a dangerous emergency stop on the road at night. Further intensifying the shooting will not save the forest.