Within the EU, the wolf has been downgraded from "strictly protected" to "protected".
The formal starting point was the amendment of the Bern Convention, which entered into force on March 7, 2025. Shortly thereafter, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted resolutions amending the Habitats Directive. This reclassification is being publicly presented as a pragmatic solution. In reality, it primarily means one thing: more political leeway for removals, culls, and symbolic power in the face of vocal interest groups.
What is systematically concealed is that even before the reclassification, there was no fixed numerical upper limit for the wolf population. Nature conservation law operates on the concept of a favorable conservation status, not on arbitrary numbers. The now-decided downgrading does not replace this principle of protection with science, but with administrative logic. The wolf becomes movable, available, and controllable.
The situation is quite different when it comes to recreational hunting itself. In Germany, there is no legal upper limit on the number of hunting license holders. Anyone who passes the exam, is considered reliable, and provides proof of insurance receives a hunting license. The often-cited increase of 42 percent refers to a period of approximately three decades. Currently, there are just under half a million hunting licenses. This number can continue to grow. From an ecological, social, and security policy perspective, this is hardly considered problematic.
Herein lies the real scandal. While there is constant discussion about limiting wolf populations, recreational hunting remains virtually unregulated as a human disturbance. The ecological effect is clear: more recreational hunters mean more hunting pressure. More presence in the forest, more driven hunts, more dogs, more nocturnal activity, more shots fired. Stress for wildlife increases, habitats shrink, and sensitive periods such as breeding season and hibernation are systematically disregarded.
The frequently asked question, "How many recreational hunters can a biotope tolerate?" is deliberately misleading. A biotope cannot tolerate just any disturbance. What matters is not the absolute number of hunting licenses, but the intensity of hunting. And that is precisely where any real limit is lacking. Hunting licenses serve as an entry ticket to a system of hunting grounds, hunting guests, and shared hunts. As the number of hunters increases, so does the pressure to meet culling quotas and create hunting opportunities.
The pattern is not limited to Germany
In Switzerland, this double standard even becomes institutionally visible when, alongside criticism of hunting pressure, political decisions relieve or normalize hunting structures. One example is reduced lease rates and newly advertised hunting areas, which demonstrate how the canton treats recreational hunting as a use to be promoted. This is politically significant because it views the forest not as a protected area, but as a managed resource for a hobby.
This imbalance is politically reinforced by portraying recreational hunting as a means of maintaining order. It is not considered an environmental burden, but rather an instrument for "regulation." This contradicts the very logic constantly applied to wolves. Wild animals are counted, but recreational hunters are not restricted. Wild animals are expected to adapt, while hunting is allowed to expand.
This double standard is not a fringe issue. It shapes legislation, enforcement, and public debate. Anyone who criticizes hunting practices quickly comes under pressure, as demonstrated by cases in which civil society protest is criminalized or delegitimized. One example of this is the handling of criticism of animal cruelty and hunting practices at the local level.
Institutional proximity between hunting authorities, marketing, and interest groups is also not an isolated case:
Anyone who seriously discusses nature conservation must acknowledge this asymmetry. It is inconsistent to demand flexibility regarding wolves while refusing any restrictions on recreational hunting . An ecological debate that only considers animals but ignores human use is not science, but power politics.
The central question, therefore, is not whether a population cap for wolves is needed. The question is why there is no ecological limit to hunting pressure. As long as this question remains unanswered, any discussion about species conservation is incomplete and politically distorted.
Disfigurement of the landscape by hunting blinds
Hunting blinds are built to give recreational hunters an elevated view and a fixed position. They often stand in the same section of forest for years or even decades, thus representing a permanent alteration to the landscape. For many people, they are not merely disruptive elements in nature. They appear as monuments to an old order from which broad segments of society have long since distanced themselves.
In critical contexts, this visual impression is linked to historical memories that extend far beyond mere hunting practice. Many citizens perceive the numerous, mostly wooden, hunting blinds as images from a past they associate with authoritarian structures. This is often openly addressed in discussions on social networks or in letters to the editor. A fitting analysis of this can be found on wildbeimwild.com under the title " Shooting Ramps in Tradition ."
This perception is not a trivial affect. It demonstrates how deeply hunting practices permeate everyday life and how difficult it is for many people to identify with symbols like hunting blinds. For a growing number of forest users, walkers, and families enjoying nature, the landscape is not perceived as a free habitat, but rather as a space segmented by human use. Lines, edges, and seating platforms mark territorial boundaries, "shooting axes," and hunting zones. This is not natural forest aesthetics, but an anthropogenic intervention.
The ecological dimension is equally clear: hunting blinds can create clearings, alter plant structures, disturb bird breeding grounds, and act as barriers for shy animals. Many wild animals avoid areas with a high human presence, especially those with stationary infrastructure like hunting blinds. This leads to fragmented refuges that deprive particularly sensitive species of their habitat. The supposed "nature conservation through hunting" thus loses all ecological basis.
When hunting blinds become increasingly dense, driven hunts more frequent, and retreat areas shrink, it's not just a problem for wildlife. Anyone discussing upper limits must also address infrastructure and hunting density. It's a landscape problem for all of us.
Basic information and classifications regarding hobby hunting can be found in the dossier .
