Defining hobby hunters

The rather brief segment from “True Talk” is no exception.

In this SRF broadcast format, people respond to well-known clichés and prejudices. For example, an autistic person responds to the prejudice-laden question of whether all autistic people are socially inept geniuses. In principle, a good format. The problem arises when hobby hunters make false statements and viewers, lacking any counter-position, simply believe them.

And the young hobby hunter Gina responds to hunter clichés. Unfortunately, these clichés are mostly not clichés at all, but rather reflect the reality that hobby hunters simply prefer not to hear. In debates, hunting opponents sometimes struggle against self-assured hobby hunters. But with some practice and the relevant factual knowledge, one can hold one's ground in such discussions with great composure. For, this much can be said: science is not the hunter's best friend, and there is no scientific basis for the current form of hunting.

Here, Gina's statements are analysed very rigorously, and certain behavioural patterns of hobby hunters are partly equated with those of serial killers and psychopaths. This does not mean that we are labelling hobby hunters in general, or Gina in particular, as psychopaths. In most cases, hobby hunters are simply shaped in their views. They have been conditioned from early childhood to certain social norms and have never objectively examined the motivations behind their behaviour.

No moral judgement of the individuals is intended here; rather, Gina's statements are to be examined in a straightforwardly analytical manner — even if this will naturally provoke an emotional response in many people.

1.

If I feel compassion, I make mistakes and cannot concentrate on the hunt.

Gina Imfeld

Anyone who engages in something harmful would likely say the same. An executioner of death sentences cannot allow compassion. This is only possible, however, by denying the other being the right to physical integrity. One devalues the other living creature. Where compassion is absent, so too is the felt participation in the pain and suffering of others. One must ask: what could an animal possibly have done to deserve being stripped of that right?

If a hobby hunter truly believed in the deepest part of themselves that they were in the right, they would not need to force themselves into a state of mercilessness. They are therefore compelling themselves to do something that goes against their nature, since compassion is a fundamental value of our society and social order.

If they do not force themselves, the hunter is simply free of empathy. Yet a lack of empathy is an antisocial personality disorder and one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy. So either the hobby hunter is devoid of empathy — which constitutes a psychological disorder — or they compel themselves toward mercilessness. This occurs, for example, in the form of self-deception. One convinces oneself that the animal had a good life and that the kill was simply necessary. In doing so, however, one makes the whole matter extraordinarily easy for oneself. For one thing, killing is always an act of violence, and it is irrelevant how good the life before was if it is then ended arbitrarily. For another, a kill is almost never truly necessary, since there are always alternatives. The vast majority of alternatives are preferable to the act of killing. This is not only the position of the ethical framework by which we all live — even the Christian religion recognizes no more negative an act than the taking of a life.

2.

Hunters are not murderers because: we harvest an animal, but in a fair-chase and species-appropriate manner.

Gina Imfeld

Fair-chase ethics constitute a kind of honor code for hobby hunters and, as such, are devoid of any scientific or philosophical foundation. Some aspects are admittedly commendable, but in practice they are barely enforceable, or are not and cannot be guaranteed. It may well be considered fair chase to kill an animal without suffering through a clean shot to the vitals, but missed or wounding shots are an everyday occurrence. It may be considered fair chase not to shoot a pregnant female, but who can determine that with any certainty while looking through a rifle scope, without a medical examination?

The entire hunting process is not species-appropriate in any case. Neither does today's hunting have anything to do with species-appropriate cycles and behavioral patterns, nor is the arbitrary shooting of living beings species-appropriate. Where humans act destructively, species-appropriateness is absent. It is an old wives' tale to believe that one can kill an animal in a species-appropriate manner. This is reserved for the wolf and the lynx.

Murder is a homicide offense. Our criminal law reserves this for humans. However, since there is no scientific basis for ranking higher forms of living beings against each other in terms of their value, today's application is flawed. Humans are animals. If it is murder to kill this animal, it is also murder to intentionally kill another animal.

3.

Hunters do not blast away at everything that moves, because hunting is subject to a law that includes limiting wildlife damage, protecting endangered species, and preserving biodiversity. “Thus, what I am allowed to hunt and what I am not is predetermined.

Gina Imfeld

Of course hunters do not blast away at everything that moves. Such inflammatory statements may appear in mindless Facebook debates, but not in substantive discussions. However, hunters do not shoot the old and the weak, nor the young animals, as true predators do, but instead fulfill a completely arbitrary hunting quota. Added to this is the factor of trophy hunting, which primarily affects healthy, strong animals. This is the opposite of species conservation. Endangered species such as the European hare are also still hunted, and species not native to this country at all, such as the pheasant, were first introduced by hunters and then promoted so that they could be hunted today.

A very revealing paragraph:

4.

Of course I take photos with the animal I have harvested. Because I am allowed to be proud and because I am glad that I was permitted to shoot it. But it has nothing to do with killing — it is about the whole experience. I encountered this animal in its habitat and measured myself against it. And was allowed to shoot it. I like to remember this beautiful experience.

Gina Imfeld

By this point at the latest, even those who are not outspoken opponents of hunting should slowly be gaining a clear picture of the situation. She, like most hunters, takes photos to remember the experience and associates a positive feeling with it. She is, as Gina herself says, even proud of her hunting success.

One must now differentiate, because is it not the case, as they claim, that hobby hunters are concerned with species protection, protection against wildlife damage, etc.?

Even if one believes in it, even if one considers hobby hunting to be necessary because one simply does not know any better, and one forces oneself to feel no compassion in order to carry out this supposed necessity, the experience of hunting — and in particular the shooting of the animal — should bring no joy whatsoever. There should certainly be no pride present either.

Pride is a joy accompanied by satisfaction with oneself or one's own achievements. But are hunters not merely fulfilling a necessary yet unpleasant task by shooting animals — one that simply has to be done by someone? If one must force oneself to feel no compassion, how can pride and joy arise in the very same situation?

Either the emotional situation is once again underpinned by a psychopathic component, or hunters deceive themselves so profoundly and so self-servingly that one must assume the presence of serious psychological disorders.

A little more honesty would do some good. The hunter who says: “I feel nothing for the animals. I don’t simply want to protect them either. I want to shoot them, eat them, and hang their heads on the wall” — at least does not hide behind dishonest platitudes, but stands by his convictions. How that is then to be judged ethically is, of course, a separate matter.

Trophies are in themselves a barbaric and primitive form of displaying pride. From a psychological perspective, it matters not at all whether one hung the heads of one’s enemies from castle walls or shrunken heads from one’s belt; whether one kept the foreskins of one’s adversaries or nailed antlers above the front door. The underlying causes are very simply structured and absolutely alike.

And yes, a photograph of the victim is nothing other than a trophy. All of this profoundly contradicts the ostensibly environmentally conscious goals of hunting, and reveals what the true objectives of most hunters really are. Of course, time spent in nature plays a role as well. These people surely enjoy being outdoors and in some way they probably do appreciate “the environment”. They are simply, unfortunately, entirely shaped by the wrong influences and subject to irrational traditions and long-outdated, no longer relevant belief systems.

Anyone who feels no remorse, who takes pride in their kill and keeps parts of their victim — or photographs of it — as souvenirs, is not acting like an animal protector, nor even like a murderer who perhaps killed in a moment of passion and was not in their right mind. No, such a person acts like a serial killer, a psychopath who follows specific rituals. Once again: this does not mean that hunters are fundamentally psychopaths, for their actions are modelled and instilled in them as traditions from an early age; the point here is merely to make apparent the uncomfortable behavioural comparison that can be drawn. No one wants to put on that shoe... but hunters will find it equally difficult to argue their way out of it...

5.

It is of course not true that hunters do not need to know much. In Switzerland, we must complete a one-year conservation year. There we learn everything about biology, ecology, hunting dogs and weapons.

Gina Imfeld

Oh, one learns everything in that one year? Strangely, does a biology degree not take several more semesters — and even then barely scratch the surface? Cathrin studied biology for 6 years and would not claim to have learned everything there is to know. We alone have completed a year of advanced training in dog psychology, and even then one is far, far from knowing everything about dogs that one ought to know. That knowledge is something one continues to acquire over time.

This means that while one can become a hunter in Switzerland within one to two years, anyone who believes they then know everything — or even a fraction — of biology, ecology, dogs, and so on, only demonstrates how little they actually know. In Germany, incidentally, the situation is even worse. There, hunting licences can be obtained through intensive courses lasting just a few weeks. The so-called “Green Abitur,” as it is grandly called, implying a high standard of qualification, is nothing more than a slightly more intensive workshop. It comes as no surprise, then, that scientific knowledge fails to prevail and that crude myths and hunters’ tall tales simply cannot be eradicated.

6.

We also honour the animals we have shot by placing “the last bite” in their mouths, and we take care to lay the animal on its right side, because the heart is on the left and is thus closer to heaven. For me, this is something entirely different from murder.

Gina Imfeld

Wow… Yes, hard to stomach. Gina believes she is honoring the animals by performing certain rituals. Some indigenous peoples and religious fanatics handle it the same way. The animal itself cannot even be indifferent to this, since it is dead. There is no more honor for the animal. People do this for themselves. To grant themselves absolution. The animal is dead, and which side it lies on is of no concern to anyone except the hunter, who then believes in some spiritual heaven. What does the animal have to do with our beliefs?

Hobby hunters thus attempt to diminish the moral weight of their actions in their own minds, or to make the act bearable for themselves. This is also something found among serial killers, who arrange their crime scenes accordingly, cultivate their own rituals, ultimately keep mementos of their victims, and legitimize themselves through their position of power. The exercise of power is a key concept in this context. Anyone who has followed the TV series Dexter will now easily recognize the parallels.

Whether one regards recreational hunting as murder, or merely as killing, because it affects not humans but only other mammals, is again purely a matter of belief. Biologically, humans are animals, and whether they are more valuable and the killing of them morally more reprehensible than the killing of another animal is open to debate. Scientifically, this position is in any case unjustifiable. Morality is the foundation of social coexistence. Therefore, animals are also subject to this morality. And anyone who believes that other animals — indeed the entire natural environment — do not belong to our society, and are therefore excluded from moral consideration, would need to be able to explain where the moral boundary lies.

Yet no hobby hunter, no meat-eater, not even astute philosophers have been able to do so thus far. The more we learn about animals, the more we must admit that all arguments for a unique status of humans are void. Capacity for pain, thought, communication, consciousness… Based on science, we cannot devalue animals to such a degree as to justify an act — such as killing — that would be considered immoral among humans.

Unlike meat-eaters, hobby hunters invoke the necessity of their “trade” for our ecosystem. However, this too is scientifically untenable — recreational hunting is completely unnecessary.

Here, our aim was to present a counter-position to the young huntress Gina Imfeld from Lungern in the canton of Obwalden, who stands as a representative of an entire wave of new, conservative, backward-thinking young people.

More on this in the dossier: Psychology of Hunting

Natural Disaster: Hobby Hunters

In the chaos in which nature finds itself after decades of so-called stewardship and management by hobby hunters, the proportion of endangered species is higher in no other country in the world than in Switzerland. For decades, these hired killers have been creating an ecological imbalance in the cultural landscape with sometimes dramatic consequences (protective forests, disease, agricultural damage, and much more). Over a third of plant, wildlife and fungal species are considered threatened. Switzerland is also at the very bottom of the European rankings when it comes to designating protected areas for biodiversity. It is precisely these same circles of hobby hunters, through their lobbying efforts via politics, media and legislation, who have been responsible for this for decades. They are the ones who notoriously block timely, ethical improvements to animal welfare and sabotage serious animal and species protection. Hobby hunters regularly oppose more Schweiz ist europaweit beim Ausscheiden von Schutzflächen für die Biodiversität ebenfalls Schlusslicht. Es sind genau immer auch diese Kreise aus Hobby-Jägern mit ihrer Lobbyarbeit, die über die Politik, Medien und Gesetze seit Jahrzehnten dafür verantwortlich zu machen sind. Sie sind es, die zeitgemässe, ethische Tierschutzverbesserungen notorisch blockieren und den seriösen Tier- und Artenschutz sabotieren. Hobby-Jäger wehren sich regelmässig gegen mehr national parks in Switzerland because their concern is not nature, biodiversity, species conservation or animal welfare, but rather the pursuit of their perverted, bloody hobby.

Did you know …

• that in Switzerland innocent young wolves are being liquidated?
• that hobby hunters lie about the assessment of game meat quality and that processed game meat, according to the WHO, is carcinogenic — like cigarettes, asbestos or arsenic?
• that according to studies, nowhere is the lead contamination of golden eagles and bearded vultures higher than in the Swiss Alps, due to ammunition used by hobby hunters?
• that the fair chase ethics of hobby hunters are diametrically opposed to animal welfare legislation and are nothing but a mirage?
• that hunting is war, where animal competitors are simply eliminated?
• that there are countless illegal and unmarked hunting stands in our countryside, some so rotten that they pose a danger to children and could cost people their lives?
• that year after year, countless people are killed or injured by hunters' weapons, some so severely that they end up in wheelchairs or have limbs amputated?
• that in Switzerland, approximately 120,000 perfectly healthy roe deer, red deer, foxes, marmots and chamois are killed each year, mostly without purpose?
• that because of hobby hunters, it is hardly possible today to live in harmony with wildlife or to see wild animals?
• that shotgun blasts make hares scream like small children and tear apart the entrails of "shot" roe deer and stags, so that they leave a trail of blood for the tracking search during their flight?
• that the claims made by hobby hunters that the cruel wildlife massacres are necessary to regulate animal populations have been scientifically refuted?
• that hobby hunters openly admit that hunting is about the "pleasure of killing" and "the joy of making a kill" — a pathological passion?
• that hobby hunters have no sixth sense and yet regularly claim that they only shoot sick and weak animals, which is of course not true in practice?
• that hobby hunters travel abroad for trophy hunting, far from any species protection and hunting regulations, and that there are even Swiss hobby hunter travel agencies catering to such degenerate hunting pursuits?
• that the vast majority are not legitimate professional hunters, but pursue hunting as a hobby, sport and leisure activity, which is morally unacceptable and in fact contradicts the Animal Protection Act?
• that 99.07% of civilised people in Switzerland are not hobby hunters, meaning only 0.3% of hobby hunters take pleasure in these bloody activities?
• that these wildlife killers do not hunt on the basis of scientific justifications?
• that protected species do not actually belong under hunting law, because hobby hunters are overwhelmed by the demands of species protection and repeatedly shoot animals listed on the Red List — such as lynx, wolf, brown hare, grey partridge, quail, etc. — for sport?
• that hobby hunters deliberately decimate certain animal species in order to eliminate competition for their unnatural behaviour (fox, lynx, wolf, birds of prey, etc.)?
• that wildlife dies before the hobby hunter can even fire a single shot, that this must be prevented, and that this is arguably the central idea behind wildlife stewardship, habitat management and hunting planning?
• that among wild boar (and foxes), normally only the lead sow gives birth to young, but that as a result of her being shot, all female animals within the sounder begin to reproduce — and that this is one of the reasons we are experiencing a wild boar population explosion?
• that grazing animals — deer, roe deer, etc. — originally lived primarily as diurnal animals in fields and meadows, like goats, sheep and cows, and not in forests?
• that the wolf is vitally important for the long-term health of wild ungulates, because it preys on sick or weak animals with incredible precision, for example, and is therefore vastly superior to hobby hunters?
• that foxes usually end up in the trash after being pointlessly hunted?
• that foxes today are hunted primarily so that there are more hares, etc. for hobby hunters to put in the frying pan? That the fox, however, feeds on hares in less than 10% of cases and would never catch a healthy hare?
• that in animal protection, one cannot deal with hobby hunters through gentleness alone, street festivals, prayer chains, etc. (you have to fight fire with fire)?
• that hobby hunters, with their hunters' tall tales engage in a disrespectful mockery of living beings?
• that it is frowned upon to shoot large game at feeding stations or during mating season, yet the hobby hunter has no scruples about doing exactly this to their competitor the fox?
• that in some cantons hobby hunters go hunting solely for the tender meat of a young animal?
• that hobby hunters shoot pregnant mother deer in front of their young, or target only young animals during the rearing period (supplementary special hunt)?
• that hobby hunters poison the environment, nature, humans and animals with their ammunition?
• that bestiality, barbarism, cruelty, bloodshed and senseless suffering cannot be considered cultural assets in a civilized society?
• that hobby hunters shoot approximately 10’000 roe deer fawns every year?
• that in harsh winters, hobby hunters lure starving animals with food only to shoot them in a cowardly and treacherous manner?
• that hobby hunters drive trained dogs into burrows to eliminate foxes and badgers (earth hunting)?
• that hobby hunters lure peaceful living beings into cage traps, where they may suffer for days awaiting their killer, or subject animals to an agonizing death struggle lasting hours (trap hunting)?
• that hobby hunters cowardly ambush and shoot or injure peaceful wild animals while they are sleeping or sunbathing, using state-of-the-art precision weapons?
• that hobby hunters support awards, fur markets, prize ceremonies for trophy worship, trophy exhibitions, the fur trade, etc.?
• that hobby hunters place firearms into the hands of underage schoolchildren and practice killing with them?
• that hobby hunters often carry out their cruel acts in isolation, which encourages animal cruelty?
• that hobby hunters merely seriously injure many wild animals, leaving the victims often suffer for hours under enormous pain and fear, until a tracking dog finds them and they are shot?
• that hobby hunters (apart from vivisection) inflict the most suffering and abuse on animals, including through the manner of killing?
• that the hunter's love of animals and nature does not delight in the existence of the beloved object, but rather aims to possess the beloved creature body and soul, culminating in making it prey through the act of killing?
• that hobby hunters actively promote browsing damage through hunting pressure, particularly on predators such as foxes, lynx and wolves?
• that hobby hunters open the door to antisocial, unethical and unchristian behaviour ?
• that hobby hunters deprive the public of normal, natural wildlife observations and interactions?
• that there is no greater product of cruelty and ammunition contamination than venison?
• that there is no uniform nationwide regulation concerning vision tests, shooting practice, etc. for hobby hunters?
• that there is no psychological assessment test for hobby hunters?
• that there is no alcohol ban for hobby hunters when they shoot at animals with their weapons?
• that hobby hunters intrude into educational institutions in order to foist their hunters' tales and their culture of violence upon children?
• that a court in Bellinzona recently confirmed that hunting associations promote virtually everything that is cruel, unnecessary and heartless?
• that the association «Jagd Schweiz» primarily cultivates disrespect and a culture of violence – precisely the opposite of what a civilised person in our society should aspire to.
• that in the canton of Graubünden alone, more than 1‘1000 complaints and fines are issued against hobby hunters every year?