What are arguments against hunting

Arguments for the Abolition of Hunting

Hunter lie No. 1
Hunters protect forests and fields from damage caused by game.

NOT CORRECT!

On the contrary, hunting often provokes damage to game. Deer, for example, by their nature inhabit meadows and the edge of the forest. It is only when they are hunting that they drive the animals into the forest, where they cannot find any grass and herbs that are vital for them and they have nothing left but to nibble on buds. Hunting causes the animals to be scared off unnecessarily, which often further increases their need for food and thus the damage caused by eating. The widespread argument that wild animals cause considerable damage only serves as a pretext for hunters to enforce longer hunting times or higher shooting rates. The damage to people and property caused by hunters is often greater than the damage caused to agriculture by wild animals.

As shown in the standard work, "From the absurdity of the hunt" by the zoologist Carlo Consiglio from the University of Rome, browsing damage is minimal in most cases and usually affects significantly less than 2% of plants or the timber yield. In addition, conservation areas and young forest plantings can be protected from browsing, e.g. by protective fences or nets. A study for the ministers for agriculture in Brussels also shows: Game damage could be almost completely avoided if humans were to extend game feeding throughout the year (Ueckermann: Influence of feeding on the circumference of the deer peeling, 1985). Finally, the authorities could also compensate for damage, as is customary in the case of maneuver damage caused by troop exercises, for example.

In unhunted areas of Europe, such as the Swiss National Park (no hunting for almost 100 years), the size of the forest is constantly increasing!

"Eating damage" in the forest and field occurs because the animals are no longer given any food today:

In the past, when harvesting in the fields, a lot of grain fell on the ground or potatoes remained in the ground. As a result, there was always something for the animals in the field.

Today there is nothing left over by modern machines - every grain is taken from the animals.

In the past, wild animals could graze on meadows, on fallow land or on extensive forest edges.

Today the meadows are largely used intensively for agriculture, the natural forest edges have disappeared, there are only a few fallow land.

In the past, fields and meadows were naturally cultivated.

Today fields and meadows are poisoned by sprays, fertilizers, dung and slurry, no herbs are allowed to stand still. This leads to the decline or even extinction of animal species such as the brown hare.

Modern agriculture has robbed wild animals of their sources of food. The hunter "regulates" the imbalance: When wild animals go into the fields to get food, they are gunned down. The habitat for animals has narrowed more and more in the last few decades - it is caused by humans. Wouldn't it be man's job to give animals back their habitat?



Hunter lie No. 2:
Hunters are replacements for extinct "predatory" animals

NOT CORRECT!

Research shows that so-called predators are not responsible for the regulation, i.e. the numerical control of their prey. Predators prefer to prey on old, sick and weak animals or eat carrion and thus contribute to a healthy game population. A hunter who shoots at a great distance can only rarely judge whether an animal is sick or old. However, since hunters are primarily after magnificent animals, namely trophy-bearers, the hunt practiced by humans, on the other hand, usually leads to an incorrect selection that is contrary to nature. Voice of a hunter: "Hunting also means not only killing the weak and the sick, but also" surplus "perfectly healthy animals (who wants to eat the cripples and the sick?)." (WILD UND HUND 13/2001)

Wolf, lynx and brown bear have been practically exterminated in Europe by hunting, the eagle has been severely decimated - and the return of these species is actively prevented, as the example of the shot bear Bruno shows. With the shooting of around 700,000 martens, foxes and weasels nationwide every year, hunters also decimate the predators that still exist - with the schizophrenic claim: "Carnivores take the hunter's prey." So that the hunters have enough to shoot, deer, deer and wild boar are created massively fed (often illegally or semi-legally at so-called "feeding places"). According to studies by the Aulendorf Wildlife Research Center (Baden-Württemberg), for every wild boar shot there are 250-300kg of maize brought by hunters.



Hunter lie No. 3:
Hunting is applied nature conservation

NOT CORRECT!

Hunting means disrupting the natural balance of the ecological systems. It can lead to the thinning or extinction of animal species. Hunters are nature users, but not nature conservationists. At best, they cherish the animal species that are of interest to them as prey. Incidentally, hunters refute this claim themselves: "Hunting as applied nature conservation" or "hunters as the true conservationists" and so on - all well and good. Despite everything, we are not accepted by the officials of the nature conservation associations. Why don't we finally stand by the meaning and purpose of our hunting? (...) Hunting is not primarily about cherishing, but rather taking prey in the very original sense, and we want to take prey. It is not reprehensible to feel joy when a piece of game has been successfully shot. No, it can be a pleasure when a piece of game dies painlessly with a clean shot ... «(WILD UND HUND 13/2001)

In 1975 the population of the Swiss canton of Geneva decided in a referendum in favor of a general ban on hunting mammals and birds. In the years that followed, the number of waterfowl hibernating on the shores of Lake Geneva and the Rhone increased spectacularly - no doubt a consequence of the lack of interference from hunting. Before the referendum, hunting representatives had claimed that the brown hare would be threatened with predatory extinction in the canton of Geneva without the hunt. The opposite was the case: the canton of Geneva now enjoys a healthy, reproductive brown hare population, the largest population density of brown hares in Switzerland. The farmers' fear that the hunting ban would cause more damage to crops has not come true: the damage figures in the canton of Geneva are comparable to those in Schaffhausen - although hunting is allowed in Schaffhausen.

Numerous species that can still be hunted in Germany (brown hare, pine marten, woodcock, partridge) are on the red list of endangered species. Hunting is not always the only endangerment factor, but shooting down threatened species certainly does not help to preserve them. Hunting and the destruction of natural habitats by humans have been responsible for 57% of extinct bird species and 62% of extinct mammal species since the 17th century.
Hunters also shoot 1,500 tons of highly toxic lead into our natural environment every year. This leads to an accumulation of toxic heavy metals in the food chains. This is not applied nature conservation, but applied natural poisoning!



Hunter lie No. 4:
Without the hunt, the wild animals take over

NOT CORRECT!

Field studies by ecologists have shown that the animals have an internal mechanism for regulating population growth: the regulation of wild animal populations does not come about through hunting. If there is a threat of overpopulation, the birth rate will be reduced. Even where hunting has been banned in Europe, such as in the extensive Italian national parks, in the Swiss national park or in the Swiss canton of Geneva, no excessive wild animal populations have so far been found. In almost every other country in the world, hunting in nature reserves is prohibited without the natural balance being upset there.



Hunter lie No. 5:
Hunters kill painlessly

NOT CORRECT!

Often the animals are just shot at. The search lasts, if it takes place at all, hours and days. Until the fatal shot, the wounded animals drag themselves through the forest for hours or days with their torn bodies, entrails hanging out, broken bones fleeing from the hunters. Countless animals, especially wild birds, are also hit by the shot of the hunters, but do not die immediately because no vital organs were hit. Often they only die hours or days later from their injuries. Every fourth duck lives with a gunshot wound.
Trapping is particularly cruel: manslaughter traps are still allowed - the animal is rarely killed immediately. If the box traps are supposed to be "unharmed", the trapped animal usually panics at the moment when the box closes with a loud noise and moves violently and is often seriously injured. So the "piece" (hunter's language) lies bloody, tormented by cruel pain, often starving or thirsting for hours, often days in a narrow box and waits for a cruel death.



Hunter lie No. 6:
The hunters protect the population from rabies

NOT CORRECT!

In Europe, a real campaign of destruction is waged against the fox: with shot, trapping irons, traps, gassing in construction and poisoned bait - all year round. However, none of these measures stopped the spread of rabies. The hunt for foxes even leads to the spread of rabies due to the accelerated relocation of the surviving animals. The Swiss canton of Valais has been rabies-free since 1981 thanks to vaccination campaigns. This campaign cost the Valais 106,800 francs a year, while the neighboring canton of Bern - only slightly larger in terms of area - spent 818,148 francs on killing a large number of foxes and vaccinating cattle without curbing rabies.
Incidentally, the probability of people contracting rabies in Germany is 1: 171,875,000 (Horst Hagen, 1984).



Hunter lie No. 7:
Hunting is a cultural asset

NOT CORRECT!

Culture is understood to mean "the totality of the intellectual and artistic expressions of life ... of a people" as well as "fine way of life, upbringing and education" (cf. Duden, Volume 5, 1982). Does that include killing wild animals? - Definitely not!
That people presume the right to kill living beings who feel the same way as they do and feel pain for the sake of pleasure is absolutely unacceptable from a moral standpoint.



Hunter lie No. 8:
Man has always hunted

NOT CORRECT!

In the early days, humans were initially collectors. Only later did he become a hunter. The wear patterns on the tooth surface of the molars of many hominids and hominoids clearly show that these human precursors ate plant foods (plant fibers, hard-shelled fruits, nuts, etc.). Typical predators (e.g. wolf, lion) and omnivores (e.g. shrew, hedgehog) have different tooth and enamel structures on the molars and molars than today's humans.

The early vegetarian phase of mankind is still reflected in the creation story when God speaks in Genesis 1.29: "See, I have given you all the plants that bring seeds all over the world, and all the trees with fruits that bring seeds, for your food. ”But as man began to wage war against his brother, he also began to slaughter the animals. In the case of "primitive" peoples, the hunt is used to obtain food. In Europe, humans no longer hunt to ensure their nutrition. It's all about a leisure activity, about pleasure - the desire to kill. Hunting is now the bloody hobby of a small minority: only 0.3 percent of the population are hunters - the vast majority of them are hobby hunters.

80% of Germans are against hobby hunters! More and more people are realizing: Animals also have a right to life! Animals feel like we do - joy, but also sorrow. Animals love life as much as we do. It is reprehensible to kill animals for low motives!

Scientific studies show: Hunting damages our nature and damages the ecological balance in our forests. It is high time that legislation in Germany was finally adapted to the current level of scientific knowledge and the will of the majority of the population.

Animal welfare has been part of the Basic Law since 2002 and has been made a national goal. The hunt is no longer up to date!

Theodor Heuss, who as the first President of the Federal Republic of Germany often had to take part in diplomatic hunts for reasons of representation, put it aptly: “Hunting is just a cowardly paraphrase for particularly cowardly murder of a fellow creature without a chance. Hunting is a subsidiary form of human mental illness. "

The "passion for hunting" that the hunters are proud of is a dangerous perversion! Leo Tolstoy said: "There is only one step from animal murder to human murder!"
pdf-download: Arguments for the abolition of hunting