"Hunting as a hobby isn't the problem"? When PR interviews replace journalism

Editor Georg Herrmann conducted the interview.

What appears to be a journalistic piece, upon closer inspection, turns out to be an unedited mouthpiece for the amateur hunting lobby: no counter-questions, no classification, no scientific contextualization. The following is a fact check of the central claims.

"Part of the solution when it comes to healthy wildlife populations and stable habitats"

This statement is completely out of place. It's repeated three times in the interview, as if repetition could somehow replace evidence. What Larcher presents as self-evident fact is, in reality, a circular argument: recreational hunting has eradicated all natural regulators in Central Europe—that is, wolves , lynxes , and bears . It artificially maintains high populations through systematic feeding of wild animals . It destroys social structures through hunting pressure, thereby promoting uncontrolled reproduction. And then it presents itself as "part of the solution" to the very problems it has created. That's like an arsonist being hailed as a firefighter.

In the language of the recreational hunting lobby, "healthy wildlife populations" means: enough animals to shoot, preferably with large trophies. "Stable habitats" means: habitats that serve the interests of recreational hunting, not wildlife. The definitions of the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the IUCN, and all established nature conservation organizations state the opposite: nature conservation means preserving habitats, promoting biodiversity, and minimizing human intervention. Recreational hunting does the opposite. It selectively intervenes according to recreational interests. A detailed analysis can be found in the dossier "Hunting Myths: 12 Claims You Should Critically Examine ."

"135,000 hobby hunters contribute to nature conservation"

The claim that around 135,000 recreational hunters are making a "contribution to nature conservation" deliberately conflates voluntary individual efforts such as rescuing fawns or maintaining habitats with the true purpose: the right to shoot animals for leisure. Those who rescue fawns and then shoot the same fawns in the autumn are not practicing nature conservation. They are pursuing a hobby that occasionally involves activities close to nature conservation. The actual work of nature conservation is carried out by biologists, rangers, national park administrations, and nature conservation organizations .

"Well-trained users of nature"

Larcher describes recreational hunters as "well-trained users of nature who are intensively engaged with ecology, wildlife biology, and sustainable management." The reality is quite different: In Austria, the training for new hunters lasts an average of about four months. There are even intensive courses that can be completed in just three weeks. Depending on the federal state, the formats vary between evening and weekend courses lasting a few months. The cost is around 800 euros. This short training is in no way comparable to a degree in wildlife biology or ecology, which lasts four to five years. The term "user of nature" is revealingly honest: It's about utilization, not conservation. Anyone who kills an animal for personal pleasure is not a conservationist, no matter how well-trained they claim to be. The psychology of recreational hunting sheds light on the underlying motives.

"Recreational hunting regulates wildlife populations"

The regulatory narrative has been refuted by population ecology. Ecologist Prof. Dr. Josef H. Reichholf summarizes: Recreational hunting does not regulate; it creates excessive and suppressed populations. Intensive hunting destroys family units and social structures, leading to uncontrolled reproduction. High hunting pressure drastically reduces life expectancy, leads to early sexual maturity, and increases the birth rate. In hunting-free areas such as the Swiss National Park, the Bavarian Forest, or Italian national parks, wildlife populations regulate themselves through natural mechanisms: food supply, climate, predators , and social structures. The dossier " Hunting in Switzerland: Numbers, Systems, and the End of a Narrative" substantiates this with extensive data.

Feeding wild animals: The vicious cycle of hobby hunting

What is also completely missing from Larcher's interview is the widespread practice of feeding wild animals in Austria. This represents a central contradiction in the self-portrayal of recreational hunting: On the one hand, recreational hunters claim they need to regulate wildlife populations, while on the other hand, they systematically feed these same populations. In Austria, around 350,000 roe deer and red deer were killed in the 2022/23 hunting season. At the same time, these same recreational hunters feed the wildlife from autumn well into spring.

Only ungulates, specifically roe deer and red deer with trophies, are fed. Foxes, martens, and other wild animals are not fed but hunted year-round. This selection alone reveals the motive: it's not about animal welfare, but about maintaining high populations for the thrill of hunting and trophy production. Specially developed concentrated feed encourages the animals to grow particularly large antlers.

The science is clear on this point: artificial feeding prevents natural selection, keeps population densities unnecessarily high, promotes the spread of diseases like tuberculosis, and exacerbates forest damage through increased browsing. Wild animals become semi-tame, dependent on humans, and lose their freedom and independence. In some regions of Austria, they are kept in winter enclosures for over eight months of the year. Even the Austrian Federal Forests have drastically reduced the number of wildlife feeding stations because wild animals are evolutionarily adapted to winter conditions and can survive the winter without artificial food, provided they are left undisturbed. A detailed analysis of the wildlife feeding problem can be found in the article "Austria: Animal Welfare Means Feeding Ban ."

The wolf as a "challenge"

Larcher frames the return of predators solely as a problem. He speaks of "conflicts" in the "cultural landscape" and demands "clear, legally sound solutions," by which he means culling. What he omits is that wolves perform precisely the regulatory function that recreational hunters supposedly fulfill. It is scientifically proven that wolves alter the spatial behavior of ungulates and measurably reduce browsing damage, as the WSL study on the Calanda region shows. The dossier "Forest-Wildlife Conflict: Browsing Damage Does Not Justify Hunting" documents this in detail. Livestock protection as a proven solution for coexistence is not even mentioned in the entire interview. Instead, the focus is directly on "culling wolves." The fact that recreational hunting was largely responsible for the extermination of wolves , lynxes , and bears in Central Europe is, of course, left unmentioned.

Game meat as a "sustainable food"

Larcher touts venison as a "high-quality, regional, and sustainable food" that is "free from factory farming." Technically, this isn't wrong, but it omits crucial facts: the lead contamination from conventional hunting ammunition, the stress hormones released in chased or wounded game, and the fact that a significant portion of the game is shot at artificial feeding stations or in fenced enclosures. This has little to do with "wild" game. The estimated 30 percent of shots going astray and the associated massive animal suffering also go unmentioned.

The IFDD survey: Contract research by the hobby hunting lobby

Larcher claims that "the vast majority of people" recognize "the necessity of hunting." He cites surveys conducted by the Institute for Demoscopy and Data Analysis (IFDD), commissioned by Jagd Österreich itself, as evidence. Commissioned surveys, where the wording and framing predetermine the results, are methodologically questionable and have no independent scientific value. Independent surveys paint a far more nuanced picture of public opinion regarding recreational hunting.

One editor, zero follow-up questions

The most serious problem with the article isn't what Larcher says. It's what editor Georg Herrmann of MeinBezirk.at doesn't ask. In a journalistic interview, follow-up questions would naturally have been expected: What about trophy hunting as a hobby? What does wildlife biology say about its supposed regulatory function? What about the misfires and the resulting animal suffering? What about the psychological dimension of killing as a leisure activity ? Why isn't livestock protection addressed? And why is there no mention of the scientifically criticized practice of feeding wild animals , which systematically maintains high wildlife populations in Austria? Not a single one of these questions is asked. The interview functions purely as an advertising platform for the Austrian hobby hunting lobby. This isn't journalism; it's PR with an editorial veneer.

Conclusion

The article on MeinBezirk.at reproduces, without any fact-checking, all the standard narratives of the recreational hunting lobby: recreational hunting as nature conservation, recreational hunters as experts, predators as a problem, game meat as sustainable, and society as supportive. Every single one of these claims fails scientific scrutiny. That a regional media outlet would offer such a platform to a lobbyist without seeking even a single critical voice is a disgrace to journalism. It also demonstrates how systematically the recreational hunting lobby feeds its narratives into the media. Anyone seeking nuanced information can find the facts behind the myths at wildbeimwild.com.