How hobby hunting portals celebrate themselves and what remains of their nature conservation claims.

At the same time, amateur hunters portray themselves on their own portals as the "backbone of nature conservation".

Anyone who only reads these online portals might think that nature would be hopelessly lost without hobby hunters. However, a look behind the headlines reveals that it's a self-contained PR system that contributes to problems and then uses them to legitimize itself.

Further reading: The wolf in Europe: Why hobby hunting is not a solution and Hobby hunting starts at the desk .

"The positive influence of hobby hunters on nature" – a narrative is gaining traction

On March 24, 2026, the Italian portal "Caccia Passione" published an article about the supposedly "positive influence" of European recreational hunters on nature. This was based on the "Manifesto della Biodiversità" by FACE, the umbrella organization of European hunting associations, which portrays recreational hunters as active conservationists: not just users, but also stewards of biodiversity.

The line of reasoning is always the same: First, real problems are identified – damage caused by wild boars, traffic hazards, land-use conflicts, the climate crisis. Then, it is suggested that these problems are unsolvable without recreational hunters; recreational hunting appears as an indispensable "tool" of wildlife management. Finally, it is claimed that recreational hunting is inherently sustainable because it is "regulated" and recreational hunters support specific "nature conservation projects."

What is systematically missing from this narrative is the structural context: that overpopulation of certain species, such as wild boar, is strongly linked to intensive agriculture, feeding practices, corn monocultures, a lack of predators, and hunting practices. That many "management problems" are a consequence of political decisions specifically tailored to the needs of recreational hunting. And that recreational hunting—especially in the form of trophy hunting, leisure hunting, and game hunting in enclosures—incurs significant ecological and ethical costs that cannot be eliminated by isolated nesting box projects.

The dossier "Hobby Hunting Starts at the Desk" details how much administration, lobbying, and narrative cultivation are needed to maintain this positive self-image.

Patronage ecology: When hobby hunters first pollute and then "clean up"

A striking example of this PR logic is the "I cacciatori per l'ambiente" (Hunters for the Environment) campaign in Giffone (Calabria), which Caccia Passione is celebrating as the "13th Ecological Day for the Operazione Paladini del Territorio" (Palladians of the Territory Operation). Amateur hunters collect empty cartridge cases, take photos, and present themselves as role models for environmental protection.

On a small scale, removing litter from the landscape might be a positive step. However, on a larger scale, this is patronage ecology – symbolic environmental actions used by stakeholders to celebrate problems to which their practices significantly contribute. Millions of shotgun pellets and projectiles end up in soils, waterways, and wetlands every year, with documented contamination from lead and other metals. Widespread disturbances caused by recreational hunting – noise, dogs, driven hunts – indiscriminately affect non-target species, from ground-nesting birds to large mammals. "Clean-up operations" do nothing to address these fundamental problems; they merely provide images that polish the image of recreational hunting.

Instead of systematically addressing the root causes – banning lead, strict controls, restricting hunting seasons, establishing large-scale protected areas, and providing independent game wardens – responsibility is being shifted to the symbolic politics of recreational hunting associations. Those who first create pollution and then clean up for public relations purposes are not driving an ecological transformation, but rather damage control for their own image. The scientific research on the effects of recreational hunting on wildlife impressively demonstrates these connections.

"Project Mallard": Species conservation or optimizing the shooting?

The imbalance in the management of waterfowl becomes even more apparent. Under the headline "Cacciatori migratori acquatici" (Waterfowl Migratory Hunters), Caccia Passione reports on the "Progetto Mallard" (Mallard Project) of the ACMA (Associazione Cacciatori Migratori Acquatici – Association of Waterfowl Migratory Hunters) in the Marche region. The ACMA installs artificial nests for mallards in wetlands and describes the project as a measure for the "protection and monitoring" of the species and the promotion of biodiversity.

According to the project description, this is intended to increase the reproduction rate of mallards, protect nests from predation by corvids and foxes, and strengthen the migratory bird population in the region in the long term. At the same time, however, it is a classic case of population manipulation in favor of a game animal by the very groups that later hunt these animals.

Artificial nests, predator control – specifically the targeted hunting of corvids and foxes – and local population support increase the biomass available for hunting. The ecological role of predators, complex food webs, and the overall function of wetlands are reduced to the question of how many "pieces" are available per season. There is no genuine species conservation in the sense of protection from exploitation; rather, it is about more intensive use under a green label.

Hunting organizations market such projects as "nature conservation"—but consistently ignore the fact that the actual goal of conservation would be to avoid shooting these animals. From a wildlife conservation perspective, it is contradictory to invest heavily in promoting a species only to then systematically kill it.

German Hunting Association: "Wolf in hunting law" as a success story

While Italian websites are busy polishing their "nature conservation" facades, the German Hunting Association (DJV) is openly celebrating political victories. On March 5, 2026, the association published the announcement "Bundestag votes for wolf in hunting law." The gist: The Bundestag had voted by a large majority to include the wolf in hunting law. With the amendment to the Federal Hunting Act, the conditions were created to "remove problem wolves quickly and without bureaucracy" and to implement "active population management." DJV representatives spoke of a "major success for the association's political agenda."

The fact that it became possible to declare the wolf a huntable species again is directly linked to the downgrading of its protected status in the Bern Convention and the subsequent EU decisions – a political watershed moment that many biologists and conservation organizations had warned against. The hunting lobby is now trying to sell this regression as modernized "population management." How this issue is being implemented in Germany has already been documented by the magazine "Wild beim Wild."

What's striking about the DJV's communication is the lack of a transparent presentation of the actual conservation status of the population, its genetic situation, and the role of wolves in ecosystems. An honest cost-benefit analysis of livestock protection measures compared to recreational hunting is needed, including the question of whether culling actually reduces conflicts. And above all: the perspective of the wild animals themselves. Wolves only appear as a resource to be managed or as a problem, not as sentient beings with their own interests.

Hobby hunting portals as a normalization machine

Besides the major topics – wolves, predators, wetlands – hobby hunting portals fulfill another function: they normalize hobby hunting as an everyday routine. Websites like the "German Hunting Portal" or the news sections of national associations are full of reports about hunting licenses, training courses, shooting competitions, and association anniversaries.

Politically sensitive topics – trophy hunting, hunting in enclosures, wolves, lynxes, bears, lead bans – are addressed, but embedded in the language of administrative routine: "Hearing in committee," "Implementation of the coalition agreement," "Necessary adjustments to EU law." The underlying message is always that nature conservation, while a nuisance, is manageable through clever lobbying.

These online platforms create an impression of inevitability: recreational hunting appears as a constant of nature, not as a politically desired hobby that could be restricted or abolished at any time. This is precisely where the critical perspective on hunting begins: recreational hunting is not a law of nature, but the result of legislation and lobbying. The "normality" of recreational hunting is administratively produced – through hunting licenses, leases, association structures, examinations, training courses, PR, and media relations. The question of whether, in light of today's ethical standards and ecological challenges, it is even legitimate to kill wild animals out of "passion" is deliberately ignored in the recreational hunting discourse.

How FACE in Brussels and the European hunting industry are pushing for this normalization at EU level has been extensively documented.

FACE and the "Biodiversity Manifesto": Science as a backdrop

Many of these portals are influenced by the communication strategy of FACE, the European umbrella organization of hunting associations. In its "Manifesto sulla Biodiversità" and the "FACE Report," it attempts to position recreational hunting as an indispensable contribution to the implementation of international biodiversity goals.

The core messages: Hobby hunters are portrayed as "biodiversity managers" who maintain habitats, conduct monitoring, and control invasive species. International processes such as AEWA, CITES, and the EU Biodiversity Strategy are framed in such a way that "sustainable use"—i.e., hobby hunting—is considered an equal pillar alongside protection and restoration. Critical voices from animal welfare and nature conservation organizations are discredited as "ideological," "out of touch with reality," or "urbanized."

The problem isn't that recreational hunters don't collect data or carry out individual habitat management measures – they certainly do. The problem is that these activities are being instrumentalized in public discourse to legitimize a completely different practice: the recreational killing of wild animals, including trophy hunting , hunting in enclosures, and intensive small game management.

From a wildlife conservation perspective, the crucial point is this: science is being selectively used here to make culling appear as "management," while ethical questions and alternative conflict resolution methods—herd protection, spatial planning, agricultural regulation, non-lethal approaches—are marginalized. The welfare of individual animals plays virtually no role in the argument; it's about "populations," "utilization quotas," "acceptance"—in other words, about manageable numbers, not lives.

What a realistic view of "hobby hunting and nature conservation" requires

Reading through current hobby hunting websites reveals a clear pattern: problems are sometimes correctly identified, but their causes are oversimplified – industrialization of agriculture, traffic planning, spatial planning, the climate crisis, the historical extinction of predators. Hobby hunting is presented as a universal solution, even though it is often part of the problem itself: overhunting, feeding, trophy focus, disturbance, bycatch. Individual PR-friendly projects – nest boxes, shell collecting, "ecological days" – serve as a fig leaf for a system based on the systematic killing of wild animals for recreation.

A realistic, common-sense perspective would have to acknowledge at least this: Genuine nature conservation policy addresses the root causes – agricultural, forestry, and transport policies, spatial planning, climate and energy policies, and the protection of predators and habitats. If "species conservation projects" primarily serve to increase huntable populations, they are not neutral nature conservation measures, but rather optimizing hunting quotas under a green guise. And the question of whether a modern society can afford to kill wild animals for leisure and tradition is an ethical one, not a technical one. It cannot be replaced by nesting boxes, ammunition drives, and fine-sounding manifestos.

This is precisely where platforms like Wild beim Wild can make a difference: by not only refuting hobby hunter narratives, but also revealing their internal logic – and consistently putting the perspective of wild animals at the center.