EXCLUSIVE: Top school lands in hunting row after fox dies
Reply
Author Archives: Exposing the Big Game
5N1 Bird Flu Could Trigger Pandemic More Deadly Than Covid-19, Experts Say
Marine mammal hospital tests bird flu vaccine on Hawaiian monk seals
Coyote trapping season begins as IOP police reports dog snatched from yard
Italy is waging war against its own population – with hunting rifles.
Just a few days after the start of the 2024/2025 Italian hunting season, the first “Bollettino della guerra,” the “war bulletin,” from the Associazione Vittime della Caccia (AVC) is on the table. A document that sounds like a situation report from a conflict zone, not like statistics on a state-sanctioned recreational activity. It lists the dead and wounded, day after day, region after region.
https://wildbeimwild.com/en/italy-is-waging-war-against-its-own-population-with-hunting-rifles./
Follow Us
What the figures show is that recreational hunting in Italy is not only a massacre of wild animals, it is also an underestimated safety risk for the population.
AVC is a citizens’ organization of victims and their families that has been systematically collecting media reports and local police reports on hunting accidents for years because the state itself does not maintain complete official statistics. The organization has made its dossiers publicly available since 2007 and explicitly permits the further use of the data, provided the source is acknowledged.
The first bulletin of the 2024/2025 season already documents several deaths and injuries in the first two weeks of the so-called “pre-season”:
- Two amateur hunters who died while pursuing their hobby
- Other amateur hunters who were seriously injured
- Two women killed by their own father or husband with a hunting weapon, in a private setting, but with the same weapon that is supposed to be used as “sports equipment” on weekends.
This pattern runs through all years of the AVC dossiers: It is not only the shooters themselves who die or are maimed, but also people who have nothing to do with hobby hunting, except that they happen to be nearby or live with someone who has access to a hunting rifle.
68 victims in one season, over 800 in a decade
The 2023/2024 season gives an idea of the scale of the problem. According to the AVC, 68 people were hit by hunting weapons in that single hunting season: 12 died and 56 were injured.
The breakdown reveals the implications for the general public:
- 28 of the victims were not hobby hunters, including 6 dead and 22 injured, 7 of whom were children and teenagers.
- 40 of the victims were amateur hunters, including 6 dead and 34 injured.
Hobby hunting therefore not only kills those who participate voluntarily, but also regularly affects walkers, farmers, mountain bikers, local residents and children on their way to school.
A report on the work of the “Vittime della Caccia” observation center summarizes long-term data: In the last ten years, 630 people have been injured and 204 killed in Italy in direct connection with hunting activities or hunting weapons.
In addition, there are seasonal figures that reflect a permanent state of emergency: Between September 1, 2024 and January 5, 2025 alone, AVC registered 53 people killed or injured by hunting weapons, including 13 minors.
These are not “tragic isolated incidents.” This is a structural problem.
A walk in the woods as a safety risk
Animal welfare organizations like OIPA are now openly speaking of a “public safety problem” and are calling on the government and parliament to take action. In a joint analysis with AVC, OIPA points to the same finding: year after year, it also affects people who are “simply in the wrong place at the wrong time,” for example, while taking a walk in the woods or on the path in front of their own house.
The case studies in the reports read like a horror chronicle of normality:
- An elderly man standing in the garden is hit by a stray bullet.
- A family traveling by car is shot at near a gathering.
- Children playing outdoors are caught in the line of fire.
Many of these cases only make it into the local news, not into national awareness. That’s precisely why the activists speak of “Bollettini della guerra” (newspapers of war): they are trying to make the diffuse, invisible violence visible.
The invisible dead in the system
Particularly concerning: Italy still does not maintain comprehensive, official statistics on hunting accidents resulting in human casualties. Environmental lawyers have been pointing out for years that there are no centrally maintained, government-run figures, even though people are regularly killed or seriously injured.
What is known comes almost exclusively from civil society, from painstakingly compiled overviews like those from AVC. The organization analyzes press reports, police reports, and local media. What no one reports doesn’t appear in the statistics.
It must therefore be assumed that the actual number of incidents is higher. Several years ago, a major Italian daily newspaper reported that between 2011 and 2021 alone, there were over 200 deaths and almost 700 injuries due to hunting accidents.
How the hunting lobby downplays the danger
While AVC and animal welfare organizations warn of an ongoing “human tragedy”, the hunting lobby tells a different story.
Associations like the “Cabina di regia del mondo venatorio” and hunting-related magazines publish their own analyses and frequently report declining numbers and “ever-increasing safety.” In a joint report on the 2024/2025 season, they point out that the number of injuries in 2024 was 34, significantly lower than the previous year. However, they also acknowledge that between September 1, 2024, and January 30, 2025, there were a total of 62 hunting accidents resulting in 14 fatalities.
On hunting websites, these figures are often put into perspective by comparing them to the number of hunting licenses or the number of “hunting days completed” to give the impression that hobby hunting is practically as safe as a Sunday outing.
What is consistently ignored in this process is:
- This is not about a voluntarily accepted risk, as in climbing or mountaineering, but about people who are involuntarily affected.
- There are no protected areas in the landscape that are free from hunting.
- The risk is borne by the general public, not by the hunting community alone.
The message from the hunting lobby is: Everything is under control. The reality, as told in the “war bulletins,” tells a different story.
Hunting weapons in the house: From “hobby” to domestic violence
The AVC’s statistics include not only classic hunting accidents in the field, but also homicides in domestic settings involving hunting weapons. The first bulletin of the 2024/2025 season already lists two women who were shot dead by a family member with a hunting rifle.
Here, too, the pattern is clear: Every additional firearm in a household increases the risk of lethal violence. Studies from other countries have shown for years that legally available weapons play a central role in mass shootings, suicides, and domestic violence. The Italian situation confirms this on a smaller scale.
Those who legitimize recreational hunting not only legitimize the killing of animals in practice, but also create easier access to deadly weapons that can become the “solution” at any time in a family conflict or a psychological crisis.
Europe’s blind spot: Hunting as a security problem
The Italian example is not an exotic exception. In Switzerland, an average of around four recreational hunters die each year while pursuing their hobby; serious accidents involving third parties also occur regularly here.
What is particularly noticeable in Italy, however:
- The density of hunters in some regions
- The long hunting season with pre- and post-openings
- The proximity between settlements, agricultural areas and hunting grounds
In addition, there is a close connection between hunting associations and politics, which critics have been documenting for years.
The result is a security regime in which the right of a minority to recreational ballistics is given greater weight than the right of the majority to move about outdoors without fear of rifle bullets.
What this means for politics
When a civil society organization calls its accident statistics “war bulletins,” it’s not an exaggeration, but a sober description of the record. The numbers speak for themselves:
- Dozens dead and injured every season
- Hundreds of victims in a decade
- Children, women, and bystanders were among those affected.
- No complete government statistics, no serious political debate about drastically restricting recreational hunting
As long as politicians ignore this reality, they bear partial responsibility for every additional bullet that hits a pedestrian, every child hit by a shotgun blast, every woman shot dead in her own living room with a “sporting weapon”.
Hunting is not a “hobby”, it is a risk for everyone.
The first war bulletin of the 2024/2025 season from the Associazione Vittime della Caccia is more than a press release; it is a distress call. It makes it unequivocally clear: recreational hunting in Italy is not a harmless traditional sport, but a persistent security problem that affects society as a whole.
Anyone who continues to claim that hunting “only” affects animals ignores the fact that people die every year because someone, somewhere, feels the need to shoot at living targets in their free time.
As long as governments in Rome, Bern or Brussels dismiss this violence as an unavoidable side effect of a “nature-oriented hobby”, the war bulletins of the victims’ associations will only get thicker.
The only responsible response would be to do exactly what OIPA, AVC and many others have been calling for for years: recognize recreational hunting as a safety risk, massively reduce hunting weapons and actually protect nature instead of turning it into a shooting range.
Hunter accused of illegally harvesting deer
Hunter accused of illegally harvesting deer
Santa backs calls for a proper ban on fox hunting as campaign launches in Midlands
Speciesism in the hunting grounds
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 