How amateur hunters sort animals and why this is reminiscent of dangerous thought patterns.
Follow Us
Anyone who talks to hobby hunters will hear the same terms again and again: “pests”, “predators”, “beneficial insects”, “regulation”, “population control”.
This language reveals a worldview that categorizes animals according to their usefulness. Foxes, badgers, crows, and more recently, raccoons, occupy the lowest rungs of this hierarchy. Deer and stags rank higher, but even they are ultimately considered “game” to be “killed” or “taken.”
This way of thinking isn’t simply a matter of taste for a hobby group. It’s an expression of speciesism: the conviction that human interests fundamentally outweigh the lives and suffering of other animals. And it bears traits reminiscent of ideologies we know from the darkest period of the 20th century.
Wildlife sorted by usefulness
The hunting worldview is surprisingly simple:
- Animals that are meant to be hunted are called “game animals”.
- Animals that compete with recreational hunting or are considered disruptive are labeled “predators” or “pests”.
- Animals that are not of interest for hobby hunting are, at best, a backdrop.
This classification can be found in legal texts, hunting association brochures, and at local pubs. It determines who is intensively persecuted year-round and who receives at least occasional protection. Not because the individual has intrinsic value, but because a species is defined as “worthy of promotion” or “worthy of control.”
If an animal’s value depends on its usefulness, then compassion is merely decoration.
The fox is a classic example of this. In many hunting areas, it is persecuted almost year-round using traps, hunting in its den, decoys, and night vision technology. The justifications vary: sometimes it is said to “protect” small game populations, sometimes to prevent diseases, sometimes to protect young deer. Evidence for a genuine ecological benefit of this constant control is lacking, but that fits the pattern: the crucial point is that the fox is labeled as a problem.
deindividualization: Living beings become “predators”
Speciesism only works if you turn sentient individuals into abstract categories. Hobby hunters rarely speak of a specific fox that feels fear, experiences pain, and wants to live. They speak of “the predator” that needs to be regulated.
In this logic, it is no longer relevant whether an individual fox has been inconspicuously hunting mice and feeding on carrion for years. It is a carrier of a category, not a subject with a biography. Similarly, crow colonies, martens, or raccoons are declared problem groups whose “population must be controlled.”
This is a psychological mechanism we know from other contexts: when a large, heterogeneous group is reduced to a single negative characteristic, it becomes easier to justify violence. Responsibility shifts from the individual perpetrator to a supposed logic of necessity. It is no longer “I am killing this animal,” but “It has to be regulated.”
Parallels to totalitarian thought patterns
This is where things get tricky, because terms like “Nazi” are quickly used excessively to defame opponents. This is neither objective nor respectful to the victims of National Socialism. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to identify structural parallels in this way of thinking.
Totalitarian ideologies operate with three building blocks:
- Hierarchy of Life:
There are lives of value and lives of less value. In National Socialism, this was applied to humans, resulting in cruel, industrial-scale mass murder. In recreational hunting, this hierarchy is applied to animals. The moral weight is not comparable, but the underlying thought process is similar. - Utility logic as a moral standard
: Those who are useful are promoted. Those who are harmful are persecuted. In recreational hunting: Pheasants and deer are released or fed so that they can later be shot. Foxes, martens, and crows “harm” this system and are therefore controlled. Not because they are morally inferior, but because they disrupt an artificially created hunting and agricultural system. - Linguistic Defusing of Violence:
In hunting circles, those who speak of “making a kill,” “number of animals killed,” “harvesting,” “fox weeks,” or “predator control” describe killing with technocratic terms. Violence becomes accounting. Totalitarian regimes, too, have concealed violence behind administrative and technical language to make it more palatable. The difference in scale and objective remains enormous, but the mechanism is comparable.
Pointing out these parallels does not mean equating hobby hunters with historical perpetrators. It means showing how dangerous it is when we begin to systematically categorize lives according to usefulness, efficiency, and systemic logic.
Beware of cheap comparisons
Those who criticize recreational hunting sometimes resort to exaggeration: “It’s just like the Nazis.” While such statements may be emotionally charged, they are analytically weak and morally problematic. They blur distinctions where differentiation is crucial.
- National Socialism was a legally permitted practice, a misanthropic system of rule with industrially organized extermination of entire population groups.
- Recreational hunting is a legally permitted practice in which people kill non-human animals, often as a hobby, often based on false ecological narratives.
Lumping both together ultimately serves no one. Neither the victims of the Holocaust, who have a right to historical accuracy, nor the wild animals, whose suffering should be taken seriously. Serious criticism of hunting can demonstrate how certain ways of thinking lead to the devaluation of life, without equating everything with everything else.
The hunting system’s classification of animals into pests, predators, and beneficial creatures follows a pattern of thought familiar from totalitarian ideologies: life is hierarchized, de-individualized, and measured by its usefulness. This is not the same as the crimes of National Socialism, but it shows how easily empathy erodes when we prioritize categories over the individual.
Speciesism is not a law of nature, but an ideology.
Amateur hunters often claim to be “on the side of nature.” In reality, they represent a specific ideology:
- Humans take it upon themselves to decide over the life and death of other animals.
- The interests of leisure, tradition and trophy collecting are given higher priority than the animals’ right to physical integrity.
- Nature is understood as a backdrop in which certain species are promoted and others are combated in order to achieve hunting objectives.
All of this is imbued with terms like “game management,” “ethical hunting,” or “ecological responsibility.” At first glance, it sounds like care. On closer inspection, it’s control: who is allowed to live, how many are allowed to live, who is considered an “enemy”—all of this is determined by people who derive emotional gratification or prestige from it.
Speciesism is so persistent because it’s familiar to us from childhood. We learn early on that some animals are for petting and others for eating, some for admiring and others for killing. Hobby hunting is just one particularly visible symptom of this ideology.
Every fox killed is a massive intrusion into the life of an individual. The fact that the number of hares might increase slightly in some statistic doesn’t change the fact that this one fox’s life is irrevocably ended.
Anyone who takes animals seriously should not pretend that a few extra hares along the way can morally compensate for the death of the foxes.
Stocks feel nothing. Individuals do.
There is a natural ecological relationship between foxes and hares. Foxes eat hares, but also mice, carrion, and fruit. Hares have evolved through predation over millennia.
The massive problems facing brown hares in Central Europe are primarily due to us humans:
- Intensification of agriculture
- Loss of structures, cover, fallow land
- Pesticides, mowing losses, traffic, recreational hunting
The logic of “destroying habitats, then blaming the fox as the main problem and shooting it” is ethically highly flawed. It shifts the responsibility onto an animal that is simply fulfilling its ecological role.
Why language is the first lever
Anyone who wants to change thought patterns must start with language. As long as foxes are considered “predators,” they are easier to shoot. As long as crows are called “pests,” it is easier to destroy their colonies. As long as wild animals are referred to as “kill,” their deaths become mere statistics.
A critical approach to hunting therefore starts with questions like these:
- Why do we call an animal a “pest” simply because it has interests that contradict ours?
- Why do we accept that the suffering of foxes and deer disappears behind abstract concepts?
- Why is it so difficult for us to see the individual when the system only recognizes categories?
When we begin to describe animals as individuals with their own needs and feelings, hunting ideology begins to crumble. Killing a “piece of deer” is different from taking the life of a specific deer that uses the same path every night, has social relationships, and wants to avoid pain.
Consequences for a modern ethic
Where life is hierarchized, devalued, and sorted according to usefulness, empathy diminishes. This is not harmless when it comes to animals. It reveals much about how a society fundamentally treats its vulnerable members. In this sense, recreational hunting is a magnifying glass for speciesism.
Those who criticize recreational hunting because it is based on such patterns are not engaging in a side debate. They are posing a fundamental question: Do we want to continue accepting that sentient beings are categorized in ways that determine their right to life, or are we prepared to question our traditional privileges?
The answer to that question not only determines the fate of the foxes in the area. It also says something about what kind of society we want to be.
Hunting ban for hobby hunters
Recreational hunting is a controversial practice that has been the subject of much discussion in recent years.
While hobby hunters claim that hunting is an essential tradition for biodiversity, hobby hunting provokes strong reactions from citizens and animal welfare organizations.
What some consider a hobby is, in reality, cruelty. An activity in which participants take pleasure in killing. Recreational hunting is not beneficial; it is responsible for numerous ecological damages, such as the destruction of ecosystems, the decline in biodiversity, and, above all, the decline in animal populations.
hobby hunters claim that hunting is necessary to regulate species populations, the opposite is true. Quite the opposite: hobby hunting is often conducted without any regulatory purpose and without respect for wildlife . Hobby hunters kill protected or endangered species such as birds or natural predators, which has a direct impact on the food chain.
95% of the animals killed during recreational hunting do not require regulation. The wild boar, which everyone complains about, accounts for less than 8% of the species hunted annually in Switzerland.In addition to the harmful effects on flora and fauna, it also poses a danger to humans. Numerous accidents occur every year, some of them fatal. A large proportion of citizens no longer dare to walk on public sidewalks for fear of being hit by a wild animal to be confused.
Recreational hunting poses a threat to the environment and animals. Therefore, it is imperative to put an end to this cruel practice from a bygone era.
Here are some friendly and convincing arguments for a permanent hunting ban for hobby hunters:
Animal welfare and ethics: A hunting ban protects animals from suffering and death. It respects animals’ right to a life free from human interference and promotes an ethical attitude toward nature.
Preserving biodiversity: The ban helps maintain animal population balance. Without hunting, endangered species can be protected and ecological balance maintained.
Nature conservation and ecosystems: Many animals play an important role in ecosystems. A hunting ban supports the natural development and stability of the environment.
Preventing abuse and illegal hunting: A permanent ban reduces the risk of illegal activities and protects animals from uncontrolled and often cruel hunting.
Tourism and nature experiences: Many people appreciate nature without the threat of hunting. Natural wildlife populations attract visitors and promote sustainable tourism.
Alternatives to population control: Instead of hunting, populations can be kept in balance through natural regulation, habitat management and conservation measures.
Social change: Many people and organizations are increasingly committed to animal welfare and sustainable use of nature, which supports a permanent hunting ban.
If you too want to get involved in this cause, join us, IG Wild beim Wild. We will support you so that your efforts are heard. Yes, add me to the mailing list!Sign now
Exposing the Big Game 