Trophy Photos: Dignity, Law, and the Double Standards of Hunting
Trophy photos, social media, and public resistance.
Trophy photos show hobby hunters posing next to a killed wild animal, and stand in contradiction to the dignity of living beings enshrined in Article 120 of the Federal Constitution.
These images are widespread in hunting culture and are shared on social media with hashtags such as «Waidmannsheil». Animal welfare organisations view them as a violation of the constitutionally protected dignity of living beings.Representative studies show that 96 to 99 percent of the population reacts to such images with disapproval, and criticism has long since made its way even among young hobby hunters themselves.
What exactly are trophy photos?
The term «Erleger» refers in hunting parlance to the hobby hunter who has killed an animal. Trophy photos are accordingly images that capture or stage this moment: the dead animal lies in the foreground, the hobby hunter kneels or stands beside it, often with a weapon, sometimes pointing a finger toward the camera. Blood on the animal's fur is frequently visible, and the pose corresponds historically to the tradition of trophy photography.
The dossier on trophy photos documents how these images circulate on social networks and what social function they serve for hobby hunters: status, belonging, and the performance of masculinity.
What does the Federal Constitution say?
Article 120, paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution (FC) enshrines the “dignity of living beings” as a constitutional principle. Switzerland was the first country in the world to inscribe this concept in its constitution in 1992. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) gives concrete expression to this principle: Article 1 identifies the protection of the dignity and welfare of animals as the purpose of the law; Article 3, letter a, defines dignity as the intrinsic value of the animal that must be respected and prohibits any degradation.
The question of whether trophy photos violate the dignity of the animal, even after death, is seriously debated in academic literature. Legal scholars Bolliger and Rüttimann argue that animal dignity, by analogy with human dignity (Article 7 FC), could also apply post-mortem. The law has not yet provided a definitive answer to this question.
What does the Animal Welfare Act say?
The AWA has gaps in this area. Article 26, paragraph 1, letter a criminalizes animal cruelty: anyone who seriously violates the dignity of an animal risks up to three years imprisonment or a fine. In practice, however, trophy photos that document a legal kill are rarely prosecuted by public prosecutors. A case in Graubünden, in which a hobby hunter published trophy photos alongside photos of children and criminal proceedings were initiated, ended without a conviction of the hobby hunter; instead, it was the critic who had used the images who was prosecuted.
What does the Criminal Code say?
Article 135 of the Criminal Code prohibits depictions that show cruel violence against people or animals and seriously violate basic human dignity. However, according to the Federal Supreme Court, this provision only applies to “extreme, clear-cut cases” when it comes to typical trophy photos. Posing next to a legally killed animal is not considered “rutal enough.” This creates a de facto zone of impunity for hunting-related depictions of violence online.
What do studies on public perception show?
The data is clear. A representative study by Bilendi/Respondi from 2024 (master's thesis, FH Burgenland, Generation Z) found that 96 to 99 percent of respondents reacted negatively to trophy photos. 73 percent wanted warning labels, 69 percent do not want to see such images on social media, and 67 percent said they felt sympathy for the animal.
Tellingly, the hunting magazine Hirsch&Co also found in its own analysis that 70 percent of young hobby hunters reject trophy photos on social media. Communications expert Fischer described these photos as “communicative landmines”: a dead animal cannot evoke positive associations.
How do social media platforms respond?
The major platforms are becoming increasingly restrictive. Instagram automatically throttles hunting content and classifies it as “sensitive content”; the hashtag #trophyhunting is blocked. The reach of such images is reduced without any action on the part of the user. In practice, this means that what hobby hunters regard as a proud form of documentation is treated by algorithms as problematic content.
In the Trophy hunting this connection becomes even clearer: the public display of killed animals functions as a status signal that simultaneously generates widespread rejection across society.
What double standard do animal welfare organizations criticize?
The accusation of double standards is structural: if a police officer were to pose with a killed person after an operation and share the image on social media, she would be immediately dismissed and prosecuted. In 2021, a British court sentenced two police officers to 33 months in prison each for taking selfies with the corpses of two murder victims (the case of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, London). In North Rhine-Westphalia, a police trainee was dismissed for taking selfies at the scene of an accident.
Hobby hunters face no such consequences, even though the basic principle is identical: posing with a corpse for one's own public image.Psychology of Hunting shows that this pose assigns the dead animal a function as a prop for ego, masculinity, and hierarchy.
How do other countries handle this?
Internationally, initial regulatory approaches are emerging. Namibia's Environment Minister Pohamba Shifeta issued a ban on photos of dead wildlife on social media; public distribution is permitted exclusively to private individuals with explicit proof of authorization. In the USA, Walmart removed all depictions of hunting violence from its product range. The EU is tightening the regulation of trophy imports (Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, and France have national bans), which is also changing the political context for trophy photos.
Switzerland is lagging behind: JagdSchweiz recommends "restraint" to its members, but without any sanctions.Hunting and Animal Welfare documents how the Swiss legislature structurally struggles to consistently enforce animal welfare law against the hunting lobby.
What do animal welfare and legal experts demand?
The demands span several levels: First, an extension of post-mortem dignity protection for animals under Articles 3 and 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (TSchG), so that the degrading public display of dead animals qualifies as a violation of dignity. Second, binding social media guidelines for hunting licence holders that define trophy poses as incompatible with “fair chase” recreational hunting, with licence revocation as a sanction. Third, the inclusion of hunter's kill images in youth media protection legislation, analogous to other depictions of violence against animals.
Conclusion
Hunter's kill images are not a harmless hobby. They violate societal dignity norms that would long since have been sanctioned in any other context, and they contradict the dignity of living beings enshrined in Article 120 of the Federal Constitution. Representative studies confirm that the public overwhelmingly rejects these images — including among young recreational hunters. As long as hunting legislation fails to set binding standards and licence revocation does not loom as a sanction, the legal framework will continue to lag behind the social consensus.
Sources
- Art. 120 para. 2 FC (dignity of living beings), popular vote of 17 May 1992
- Art. 1, 3 lit. a, 26 para. 1 lit. a TSchG (Animal Welfare Act, SR 455)
- Art. 135 SCC (depictions of violence)
- Bolliger/Rüttimann: Legal Protection of Animal Dignity, in: Ammann et al. (eds.), Dignity of Living Beings, Zurich/Basel/Geneva 2015
- Bilendi/Respondi (2024): Master's thesis, FH Burgenland, Generation Z and hunter's kill images
- Hirsch&Co: Analysis of the acceptance of hunter's kill images among young recreational hunters
- Case Jaffer/Lewis, Old Bailey London, judgment of 6 December 2021 (33 months for misconduct in public office)
- Namibia: Ban on trophy photos on social media (Environment Minister Pohamba Shifeta)
