Recreational hunters as victims? The escalation comes from within

In public communication, recreational hunters increasingly portray themselves as primary victims of «hate and incitement online».

Associations, hunting magazines and lobby organizations of recreational hunting emphasize threats, insults and alleged violent fantasies against the scene and demand more protection and respect.

This victim narrative works effectively in the media because it connects to a real problem: online hatred is increasing, affects many professional groups, and creates a climate of intimidation. However, those who look more closely quickly recognize that the story of exclusively threatened hobby hunters only reflects part of reality. Particularly in the highly charged conflict area of recreational hunting, animal and nature protection, it is not only the hunting community that experiences hostility, but equally their critics.

On wildbeimwild.com there have been reports for years about recreational hunting scandals, grievances and conflicts between hobby 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 of modern democracies. Affected are politicians, media professionals, scientists, activists, but also people who express themselves about animals, climate or nature protection. The tone in comment sections and social networks is becoming harsher, the inhibition threshold for insults and threats is sinking.

Important is the distinction between sharp, even polemical criticism and punishable hate speech. Those who describe recreational hunting as outdated, cruel or ethically indefensible are exercising their right to freedom of expression, even if the hunting community feels attacked by it. It becomes problematic where people are systematically dehumanized, dehumanized or threatened with violence.

For the debate around recreational hunting and wildlife policy this means: A hard confrontation about culling, trophy hunting, dealing with wolves or the role of recreational hunting in the 21st century is legitimate and necessary. However, threats, personal insults or the targeted publication of private data can become punishable.

Documented agitation from hobby hunting circles against critics and animal protection

Parallel to the publicly cultivated victim role exists another reality: hunting critics, animal protectors and wolf protection initiatives have been built up as enemy images in parts of the hobby hunting scene for years. In comment sections, closed groups and hunting-related platforms of recreational hunting, defamations, sexism and fantasies of violence are regularly found.

Animal protection 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 'reality-detached do-gooders.' Not infrequently appear formulations that speak of 'lead' for wolf protectors, or one fantasizes publicly about alleged 'accidents' at night in the forest.

Such comments are no longer harmless pub polemics when concrete persons are addressed, made identifiable and connected with violence. They create a climate of fear and are intended to intimidate opposition to the practice of recreational hunting. Particularly women who advocate for animals and the protection of large predators report about sexualized insults and degrading remarks from hobby hunting circles.

Opinion, hatred, punishability: Where does the boundary run?

So that the debate does not sink into mutual victim competition, a sober look at the legal boundaries is worthwhile. In Switzerland, Germany and Austria, similar principles apply.

Freedom of opinion also protects harsh and pointed criticism, for example of recreational hunting associations, political lobbying or individual practices of recreational hunting. Not protected are insults, defamation and slander, i.e. attacks on the honor and personal integrity of a person. Also punishable are threats, the threat of violence, calls for criminal acts as well as systematic stalking and the publication of personal data with the intent to intimidate. Often the context is decisive: Is it general criticism of a practice or a targeted attack on an identifiable person?

For the debate around recreational hunting, this means: Both hobby hunters and hunting opponents can become victims of punishable digital violence, and both sides can be perpetrators. Anyone who wants to credibly stand against hate online must therefore be willing to clearly identify problematic behavior within their own ranks.

Double standards: Outrage externally, silence internally

Associations and lobby groups of recreational hunting are quick to scandalize hate and incitement against hobby hunters. Press releases, interviews and campaigns emphasize how threatened and defamed hobby hunters feel. What is often missing in this communication, however, is an equally clear positioning towards their own scene.

Where is the clear distancing from misogynistic, racist or violence-glorifying comments from hobby hunting circles? How consistently are members held accountable who get carried away on social media with 'fun shots' at wolf protectors or brutal 'educational methods' for animal welfare advocates? And how credible is a moral sermon against 'hate' when animals are systematically devalued and protection organizations are built up as enemy images?

As long as associations only become loud when it comes to attacks on hobby hunters, and simultaneously look away when derailed statements come from their own ranks, the call for respect and de-escalation remains incredible. The problem is then not hate itself, but only who is affected by it.

Criminality of hobby hunters: From hunting violations to violence problems

While recreational hunting associations loudly complain about hurt feelings and harsh words on the internet, real criminality from hobby hunting circles has been filling entire files for years. Time and again, hobby hunters are convicted for illegal shootings, prohibited technology, animal cruelty or gross violations. In several cases, deployments by hobby hunters ended fatally not only for wild animals, but also for humans.

The IG Wild beim Wild continuously documents such cases in the category 'Criminality & Hunting': from illegal nighttime shootings and poaching to wire snares and prohibited traps, to hobby hunters who have their weapons licenses and hunting permits revoked.

These cases are not regrettable isolated incidents, but a pattern: Time and again prohibited weapons, night vision devices and traps surface, time and again wild animals are killed outside hunting seasons, time and again court decisions show massive knowledge and character deficits in the hobby hunting scene. Added to this are documented connections between recreational hunting and violence against humans, domestic violence or psychological problems that are particularly serious among weapon carriers.

Those who publicly complain primarily about 'hate online' but remain silent about this form of real crime and violence are inverting the situation. The real danger does not come from critical comments on the internet, but from armed recreational hunters who violate laws, illegally kill wildlife and repeatedly endanger and kill people. A serious approach to security, rule of law and violence begins with openly identifying one's own criminal record and not merely reacting sensitively to criticism.

What those affected can do: Strategies against digital violence

People who critically engage with recreational hunting, trophy culture or wolf politics 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 visible URL, date and time, profile name and context. Use platform reporting functions: Facebook, Instagram, X or YouTube offer categories for hate speech, threats of violence, harassment and bullying. Consistent reporting can lead to posts being deleted and accounts being restricted. For clear threats, persistent harassment or systematic campaigns against individuals, filing criminal charges can also make sense. Prior consultation with counseling centers or specialized lawyers helps to realistically assess opportunities and risks.

It is also important not to allow oneself to be isolated. Exchange with animal protection organizations, media projects like wildbeimwild.com or other initiatives against digital violence strengthens and increases pressure on platforms and associations to take responsibility.

Consistent criticism of violence instead of selective outrage

Hate and incitement online are a real problem, including for recreational hunters. But those who loudly demand respect and protection for their own group must not remain silent when insults, sexist outbursts and violent fantasies against animal rights activists, wolf protectors or critical citizens come from their own scene.

Credible criticism of violence begins on one's own doorstep. Those who speak of 'hate' among wolf protectors but talk about their own violent fantasies as 'hunter humor' or 'exaggerated rhetoric' forfeit all moral authority. A modern, democratically embedded wildlife policy needs no victim legends, but honesty about existing power relations, responsibility for one's own use of language and clear boundaries against any form of dehumanization, regardless of which side it comes from.

More on this in the dossier: Hunting and animal protection