In public discourse, amateur hunters are increasingly portrayed as primary victims of "hate and incitement online".
Associations, hunting magazines and lobby organizations of the hobby hunting community emphasize threats, insults and alleged violent fantasies against the scene and demand more protection and respect.
This victim narrative resonates with the media because it taps into a real problem: online hate is on the rise, affecting many professions and creating a climate of intimidation. However, a closer look reveals that the story of only hobby hunters being threatened only reflects part of the reality. In the highly charged arena of conflict surrounding hobby hunting, animal welfare, and nature conservation, it is not only hobby hunters who experience hostility, but also their critics.
For years, wildbeimwild.com has been reporting on scandals in recreational hunting, abuses and conflicts between recreational hunting and modern wildlife policy.
Hate speech: A societal problem – not just in recreational hunting
Hate speech and digital violence have long been a structural problem in modern democracies. Politicians, journalists, scientists, activists, and even people who express their opinions on animal welfare, climate change, or environmental protection are all affected. The tone in comment sections and social networks is becoming harsher, and the threshold for insults and threats is decreasing.
It is important to distinguish between sharp, even polemical, criticism and punishable hate speech. Those who describe recreational hunting as outdated, cruel, or ethically unacceptable are exercising their right to freedom of expression, even if recreational hunters feel attacked by it. The situation becomes problematic when people are deliberately humiliated, dehumanized, or threatened with violence.
For the debate surrounding recreational hunting and wildlife policy, this means: A robust discussion about culling, trophy hunting, the management of wolves, or the role of recreational hunting in the 21st century is legitimate and necessary. However, threats, personal insults, or the deliberate publication of private data can be punishable offenses.
Documented hate speech from amateur hunting circles against critics and animal rights activists
Alongside the publicly cultivated victim narrative, another reality exists: For years, hunting critics, animal rights activists, and wolf protection initiatives have been portrayed as enemies within parts of the recreational hunting community. In comment sections, closed groups, and on hunting-related platforms, one regularly finds defamation, sexism, and violent fantasies.
Animal rights organizations have long documented cases in which activists are insulted as "psychopaths," "eco-fascists," or "fanatics." Citizens who criticize the shooting of a wolf are dismissed as "urban neurotics" or "do-gooders out of touch with reality." It is not uncommon to hear phrases that refer to wolf conservationists as "lead," or to hear people publicly fantasize about alleged "accidents" at night in the forest.
Such comments are no longer harmless pub talk when specific individuals are named, identified, and linked to violence. They create a climate of fear and are intended to intimidate dissent against the practice of recreational hunting. Women who advocate for animals and the protection of large predators, in particular, report sexualized insults and degrading remarks from recreational hunting circles.
Opinion, hate, criminality: Where is the line drawn?
To prevent the debate from degenerating into a competition of victimhood, a sober look at the legal boundaries is worthwhile. Similar principles apply in Switzerland, Germany, and Austria.
Freedom of expression also protects harsh and pointed criticism, for example, of recreational hunting associations, political lobbying, or specific recreational hunting practices. Insults, defamation, and slander—attacks on a person's honor and personal integrity—are not protected. Threats, threats of violence, incitement to crime, systematic stalking, and the publication of personal data with the intent to intimidate are also punishable offenses. The context is often crucial: Is it general criticism of a practice or a targeted attack on an identifiable individual?
For the debate surrounding recreational hunting, this means that both recreational hunters and hunting opponents can become victims of criminal online violence, and both sides can be perpetrators. Anyone who wants to credibly combat online hate must therefore be prepared to clearly name problematic behavior within their own ranks.
Double standards: Outrage outwardly – silence inwardly
Associations and lobby groups representing recreational hunters are quick to sensationalize and denounce hate speech and incitement against them. Press releases, interviews, and campaigns emphasize how threatened and defamed the recreational hunting community feels. However, what is often missing from this communication is an equally clear stance towards their own community.
Where is the clear distancing from misogynistic, racist, or violence-glorifying comments from amateur hunters? How consistently are members held accountable who, on social media, resort to "joke shots" at wolf conservationists or brutal "educational methods" against animal rights activists? And how credible is a moral lecture against "hate" when animals are systematically devalued and conservation organizations are portrayed as the enemy?
As long as associations only speak out when it comes to attacks on recreational hunters, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to offensive remarks from within their own ranks, the call for respect and de-escalation remains unconvincing. The problem then is not the hatred itself, but only who is affected by it.
Crime among hobby hunters: From hunting offenses to a violence problem
While recreational hunting associations loudly complain about hurt feelings and harsh words online, real-world crimes committed by recreational hunters have been filling mountains of files for years. Time and again, recreational hunters are convicted of illegal killings, using prohibited equipment, animal cruelty, or other serious offenses. In several cases, these hunters' activities have proven fatal not only for wildlife but also for humans.
The IG Wild beim Wild continuously documents such cases in the category « Crime & Hunting »: from illegal nighttime shootings and poaching to wire snares and prohibited traps, to hobby hunters who have their firearms license and hunting pass revoked.
These cases are not regrettable isolated incidents, but rather a pattern: Prohibited weapons, night-vision devices, and traps repeatedly surface; wild animals are repeatedly killed outside of hunting seasons; and court rulings repeatedly reveal massive deficiencies in knowledge and character within the recreational hunting community. Furthermore, there are documented links between recreational hunting and violence against people, domestic violence, or mental health problems, which are particularly serious among those who carry firearms.
Those who publicly complain primarily about "hate speech online" but remain silent about this form of real-world crime and violence are distorting the facts. The real danger doesn't come from critical online comments, but from armed hobby hunters who break laws, illegally kill wild animals, and repeatedly endanger and kill people. A responsible approach to security, the rule of law, and violence begins with openly addressing one's own crime record and not just reacting sensitively to criticism.
What victims can do: Strategies against digital violence
People who critically examine recreational hunting, trophy hunting, or wolf management should not accept digital violence. There are concrete steps that those affected can take.
Secure evidence: Consistently document insulting or threatening comments with screenshots including the visible URL, date and time, profile name, and context. Use the platforms' reporting functions: Facebook, Instagram, X, and YouTube offer categories for hate speech, threats of violence, harassment, and bullying. Consistent reporting can lead to posts being deleted and accounts being restricted. In cases of clear threats, persistent harassment, or systematic campaigns against individuals, filing a criminal complaint may also be advisable. Prior consultation with counseling centers or specialized lawyers can help realistically assess the chances and risks.
It is also important not to become isolated. Exchanging ideas with animal welfare organizations, media projects like wildbeimwild.com, or other initiatives against digital violence strengthens and increases the pressure on platforms and associations to take responsibility.
Consistent criticism of violence instead of selective outrage
Hate speech and incitement online are a real problem, even for amateur hunters. However, those who loudly demand respect and protection for their own group cannot remain silent when insults, sexist remarks, and violent fantasies against animal rights activists, wolf conservationists, or critical citizens emanate from within their own community.
Credible criticism of violence begins at one's own doorstep. Those who speak of "hatred" when referring to wolf conservationists, but dismiss their own violent fantasies as "hunter's humor" or "exaggerated rhetoric," forfeit all moral authority. A modern, democratically grounded wildlife policy needs not victim narratives, but honesty about existing power structures, responsibility for one's own language, and clear boundaries against any form of dehumanization, regardless of its source.
