Experts emphasize that the desire of many politicians, farmers and hunting associations to limit rising populations of protected species through hunting is scientifically unfounded.
Hunting not only fails to resolve conflicts, it can even exacerbate them. Experts argue that shooting individual wolves would destroy the pack structure, leading to more, not fewer, attacks on livestock. Conversely, research has shown that there are proven, effective, non-lethal management methods for beavers and rooks that mitigate conflicts with agriculture and infrastructure without undermining the protective function of these species.
This position stands in stark contrast to recent political initiatives and laws that have attempted to open up or expand hunting rights. In Baden-Württemberg, for example, the wolf was included in the hunting law – a decision that, according to the researchers, achieves precisely the opposite of what was intended: It makes shooting wolves more bureaucratically difficult while simultaneously leaving the species' protected status unaffected.
In the Swiss context, the failed revision of the hunting law, which was put to a vote in 2020, illustrates the risks inherent in legally linking hunting and species conservation . At the time, the proposal included making lynx, wolf, beaver, and grey heron generally huntable before they caused damage – a step that was ultimately stopped by a referendum because it would have undermined the protection of these species.
The scientists argue that the protection of endangered species is a success of modern conservation policy that must not be undermined by hunting interests. These species fulfill functional roles in ecosystems: wolves, for example, promote tree regeneration, beavers contribute to maintaining open wetlands, and rooks are an indicator of successful habitat restoration. Protecting them leads to functioning, resilient landscapes, not to ineffective hunting practices.
Furthermore, it is critical that debates on hunting laws are often shaped by political or lobbying interests, while scientific findings are ignored or selectively interpreted. Experts are calling instead for policymakers and administrators to rely on proven protection and conflict resolution models that do not rely on lethal methods, but rather on prevention, livestock protection, fencing, and adaptive management strategies.
For wildlife and nature conservation, this means that debates related to hunting must not be shifted behind hunting officials or hunting associations. They belong in the realm of scientifically sound species conservation and management strategies. The open letter from Freiburg and Hohenheim sends a clear signal in this direction – also beyond Germany's borders.
Integrating endangered species into hunting laws is not only scientifically flawed, it also jeopardizes long-term ecological functionality and conservation efforts. Instead of hunting laws, modern, non-lethal management concepts must be at the forefront to resolve conflicts between agriculture, nature conservation, and wildlife sustainably and in a way that respects animal welfare.
