Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of St. Gallen

In the canton of St. Gallen, recreational hunting resembles a laboratory experiment, testing how much pressure to shoot, how many perceived enemies, and how much bureaucratic absurdity a democracy can tolerate. Under the guise of regulation and tradition, a system is operated that treats wild animals like factors of production, glorifies recreational hunters as conservationists, and brazenly tells the public that this is wildlife management.

Editorial Team Wild beim Wild — February 12, 2026

The extended hunting season until New Year's Eve is not an accident in the canton of St. Gallen , but rather a planned procedure.

When weather and snowfall hamper hunting success, the Office for Nature, Recreational Hunting and Fishing doesn't see this as protection for exhausted wildlife, but rather as an opportunity to extend the season and organize driven hunts. Where others would talk about animal welfare, in St. Gallen they think in terms of target numbers, fulfillment levels, and urgency.

The legally problematic aspect is that while wild animals are declared ownerless, recreational hunting of them is managed like a controllable production process. Anyone who continually shifts hunting seasons further into winter while simultaneously increasing hunting pressure is structurally accepting that stress, misfires, and agonizing searches are inherent to the system. From the perspective of modern animal welfare law, this is not wildlife policy, but rather a systematically organized escalation.

Hunting season until New Year's Eve: Shooting pressure instead of wildlife management

Hunting administration as a stage for amateur hunters

Anyone who compares the team at the St. Gallen Hunting Department with the dossier on hunting administration quickly realizes: This isn't an expert body for wildlife law, but rather an office for hunting and nonsense. The appointment of a "liar hunter" as department head, who has distinguished himself through manipulative communication and pursuing hunting interests, is symbolic of this.

Psychologically, this administration acts less as an independent authority and more as an extension of the hobby hunt. Loyalty to the scene seems more important than loyalty to the law; science is selectively cited when it fits the narrative and ignored when it is inconvenient. Instead of a rule-of-law culture of error correction, an environment of mutual reinforcement is emerging, while outside, credibility is imploding.

St. Gallen Hunting Authority: Wolf management without science and without credibility

The wolf as a projection surface for fear and power

In the canton of St. Gallen, the wolf is not only a biological predator, but also a legal stress test for administration andpolitics . The unlawful shooting permit exemplifies how little respect for the rule of law can be shown when hunting interests take precedence. Instead of taking the law seriously, the wolf was made a pawn until a court had to explain to the hunting authorities what the legal basis is.

Psychologically, this reveals much about the actors' understanding of power. Anyone who authorizes the shooting of a protected predator despite inadequate legal grounds wants to demonstrate: We have the final say, not the law, not biology, and certainly not the wolf. This is more reminiscent of feudal hunting privileges than a modern wildlife law based on proportionality and fundamental rights.

Dumbing down the masses as a business model

Public communication regarding recreational hunting in the canton of St. Gallen reveals a familiar pattern: complex ecological issues are reduced to simplistic slogans. Instead of engaging in nuanced discussions about habitats, forestry, climate change, and agriculture, emotions and buzzwords like "problem wolf," "damage," and "regulation" dominate. This is precisely where the term "dumbing down of the public" comes into play.

Psychologically, this business model operates through constant exposure: Repeating long enough that wild animals are like fruit waiting to be harvested, and that we would descend into chaos without recreational hunting, creates a mental climate in which violence is presented as care. It becomes legally problematic when authorities reflect these narratives in their communications, thereby contributing to the relativization of fundamental animal welfare principles . A segment of the population is lured into a simplistic narrative through fear-mongering, half-truths, and selective statistics, portraying recreational hunters as effective problem solvers. Those who ask questions, demand scientific evidence, or point to animal ethics disrupt this narrative and are therefore marginalized. This reinforces a milieu that relies on approval but shies away from honest debate.

Dumbing down of the people in the canton of St. Gallen

Patented hunting of red deer: When increased culling becomes ideology

The debate surrounding the hunting of red deer in St. Gallen exemplifies how a simple logic can take on a life of its own: when conflicts arise, shooting occurs. Instead of analyzing the causes, recreational hunting itself is presented as the primary instrument of the "solution."

Psychologically, this strategy provides the hunting community with a sense of security: They can take action, and this action is familiar. The fact that high culling numbers don't automatically lead to fewer conflicts, but rather create new problems, doesn't fit with the self-perception of recreational hunters. Therefore, contradictory data is ignored, downplayed, or dismissed as "misinterpreted." In this way, a tool becomes an ideology that eludes scientific scrutiny.

Patented hunting as a solution to red deer conflicts?

Fox and badger massacres: Desensitization and devaluation

The online dossier on the " fox and badger massacre " in St. Gallen sheds light on the dark side of a hunting culture in which certain animal species are effectively devalued. Foxes and badgers no longer appear as social, sentient individuals, but as abstract "populations" that must be "kept in check." The more deeply this devaluation is internalized, the easier it becomes to carry out killing as a routine act.

From a psychological perspective, this is a classic desensitization process. Empathy is trained out by reducing the animal to numbers and functions. At the same time, the positive self-image is maintained: The hobby hunter sees himself as a "beneficial animal" that "prevents damage," while the suffering of the animals is rendered invisible. Such mechanisms are in direct contradiction to a modern animal ethics that recognizes the individuality and capacity for suffering of wild animals.

St. Gallen: Stop the fox and badger massacre

Wolf hunting in Russia: Disinhibition as further education

The participation of St. Gallen's head of hunting, Dominik Thiel, in a wolf hunt in Russia , presented as professional development, demonstrates the next level of escalation in this hunting psychology. Instead of engaging with livestock protection, jurisprudence, or modern wildlife ecology, he travels to a country under sanctions for an illegal war of aggression to witness driven hunts of wolves and small game. A supposed methodological review of hunting practices thus becomes a trophy hunt and adventure trip.

The images are unambiguous: grey squirrels are being shot out of trees with small-caliber rifles, for training purposes, while in Switzerland there is simultaneous talk of protection and regulation. This has nothing to do with wildlife management, respect, or science, but rather points to a deep-seated lack of inhibition and a worrying shift in moral boundaries. Anyone who wants to hone their "expertise" in such an environment primarily demonstrates one thing: that their own frame of reference for ethics and animal welfare has long since become distorted.

Against this backdrop, the reassurances from St. Gallen politicians, claiming that conflicting objectives must be tolerated, seem like an invitation to further shifting boundaries. When officials who participate in hunts and use small mammals for sighting-in are simultaneously deciding on the protection of wolves and wildlife, the question of suitability is not an activist knee-jerk reaction, but a democratic necessity.

Instead of addressing wolves, livestock protection , and wildlife ecology within the framework of Swiss law and reality, officials and game wardens travel to Russia, where four wolves are shot within a few days. This seems more like trophy hunting than serious professional development.

The claimed learning effect is weak from both a technical and legal standpoint: As critics point out, hunting with a sled is not feasible in Switzerland for animal welfare and legal reasons. Further training whose core method cannot even be applied here undermines the argument of professional competence.

Politically and in the media, the image emerging is of an administration that is too closely aligned with the interests of hunters seeking recreation. Conservation groups and political parties speak of insensitive behavior and a lack of scientific rigor, which weakens trust in the independence of the office.

Along with unlawful wolf shooting orders and other scandals, the trip to Russia fits into a pattern: a hunting administration that acts at the expense of taxpayers and its own credibility, and whose priorities are far removed from modern, legally compliant wildlife policy.

Controversy surrounding Swiss officials involved in wolf hunt in Russia

Scandals, "liar hunters" and the rotten apple

The scandals surrounding a "liar hunter" as department head and the proverbial "bad apple" in the St. Gallen hunting administration demonstrate how strongly group-dynamic loyalty takes precedence over professional integrity. Those who belong to the hunting community are protected, even when their credibility is severely damaged. Admitting mistakes or consistently removing those responsible would call the entire system into question.

From a psychological perspective, this is a case of ingroup protection: external criticism is experienced as an attack on one's own identity, not as an opportunity for improvement. This shifts the focus from the objective level (correct conduct of official business, legal certainty, animal welfare) to the defense of the group. The result is a loss of trust in the authorities and the perception that different rules apply to recreational hunters than to the rest of the population.

Hunting training and cognitive dissonance

When the Office for Nature, Hunting and Fishing "modernizes" its hunting training, it may seem like progress at first glance. From a psychological perspective, however, it often serves to further stabilize the self-image of recreational hunters: they define themselves through supposed "tests," "competencies," and "expertise," while the core of the activity—killing animals for leisure—remains untouched.

Cognitive dissonance is at play here: The amateur hunter wants to see himself as a responsible conservationist, not as someone who has sentient beings killed for a hobby. This internal tension is reduced by emphasizing exams, courses, and official certificates, and discrediting criticism as uninformed. Articles about figures like the amateur hunter Simon Meier illustrate how far such self-deception can go when amplified by the media.

The Office for Hunting and Nonsense in St. Gallen is modernizing hunting training

St. Gallen as a reflection of a hunting culture crisis

The psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of St. Gallen is not a local anomaly, but rather a magnifying glass for a nationwide cultural crisis within recreational hunting in Switzerland. The pressure to shoot animals until New Year's Eve, wolf hunting as a symbol of power, hunting permits as a knee-jerk reaction, massacres of foxes and badgers, scandals in the administration, and training that primarily polishes the hunter's self-image – all of this combines to create a picture of control, defense against fear, and a denial of reality.

Where science, animal ethics, and democratic oversight were taken seriously, this system would have to be fundamentally questioned. Instead, it defends itself with populism, demonization, and the same old claim that nature would collapse without recreational hunting. This is precisely where a responsible public comes in: it sees through the psychological mechanisms at play and demands wildlife management that treats animals not as targets for recreation, but as fellow creatures in a shared habitat.

More on this topic in the dossier: Psychology of Hunting

Cantonal psychology analyses :