Nidwalden: Hobby hunter killed two red deer after the end of shooting hours

A hobby hunter in the canton of Nidwalden killed two red deer around 15 minutes after the end of the permitted shooting hours.

On 7 November 2024, the Higher Court of Nidwalden upheld the conviction for multiple counts of negligent contravention of the hunting act. Together with the fine, replacement value and procedural costs, the man has to pay 8,270 francs to the court treasury. The anonymised judgment was published on 17 April 2026.

Two shots at dusk

On the evening of 6 September 2022, at around 7.30 pm, the hobby hunter went to a forest clearing above a property in the municipality of X. During the high hunt from 1 to 20 September 2022, shooting hours in the canton of Nidwalden were limited to 6.00 am to 8.30 pm. When the deer emerged from the forest, the hobby hunter fired two shots and killed a deer calf as well as a spiker, a young red deer.

A report from a local resident to the police set the case in motion. Two witnesses stated that they had only heard the shots after 8.40 pm. The hobby hunter himself maintained his account that he had fired the second shot as the church bell struck 8.30 pm. The court, in his favour, assumed the earliest times mentioned and concluded that both shots were fired after 8.30 pm.

Dispute over intent or negligence

In March 2024, the Cantonal Court of Nidwalden had punished the man for the negligent commission of the offence with a fine of 2,500 francs. The public prosecutor appealed the judgment to the Higher Court. It demanded a conviction for intentional contravention and a suspended monetary penalty of 15 daily units of 115 francs each.

The prosecution argued that the hobby hunter had last looked at his watch at 8.20 p.m. and knew that he was only permitted to shoot until 8.30 p.m. As an experienced hobby hunter with around 40 years of practice, he should have been aware that time was running short. He had not wanted to miss out on the “extreme hunting experience” and had accepted the breach of the shooting time.

The Higher Court did not follow this line of argument. It concluded that, owing to the excitement of the situation, the hobby hunter had misjudged the time and had been convinced that he was still shooting within the permitted shooting time. The element of knowledge and intent required for wilful conduct was therefore lacking. With due care, however, he should have kept the time window in mind, for instance by looking at his watch again before the shots. The case therefore remains one of negligent conduct.

Over 8,000 francs to pay

The Higher Court confirmed the fine of 2,500 francs, with ten days’ imprisonment as an alternative in the event of culpable non-payment. In addition, there is a compensation payment of 4,000 francs in favour of the canton of Nidwalden, as well as procedural costs of 1,770 francs. In total, the hobby hunter has to pay 8,270 francs to the court treasury. The seized realisation proceeds of 272 francs for the cow calf that was shot were confiscated.

As the public prosecutor failed with its motions, the costs of the appeal proceedings of 1,500 francs are to be borne by the state treasury. No longer contested was an additional conviction for an offence against the Weapons Act: the hunter had transported a firearm without separating the weapon and ammunition.

Strictness on form, leniency on intent

The case illustrates a fundamental tension within hobby hunting. Shooting times are not bureaucracy but protective rules. They are intended to ensure that shots are only fired in sufficient light, that animals are safely identified and not merely wounded, and that hunting remains controllable. Anyone who shoots at dusk increases the risk of missed shots and of animals ending up in agony.

What remains remarkable is the reasoning: a hobby hunter with four decades of experience is granted the benefit of the doubt, on the grounds that, in the excitement, he had misjudged the time. What is treated as a mitigating circumstance can also be read differently. If routine and experience precisely fail to prevent someone from disregarding the simplest rule at the decisive moment, this raises questions about the reliability of the system as a whole. Here, the difference between “still permitted” and “already prohibited” determines the life or death of wild animals.