Dear Hunting.be reader.
Whether you are a hunter or not, you probably read the report about the acquittal of a hunter from Zoersel on the page of Hubertusvereniging Vlaanderen or in the wider media this week, just like me.
What was this case about?
In 2018, a hunter shot a parrot out of the sky. The man was perfectly legal with his weapon in his hunting field. As a motivation for his shot, he cited that a macaw is an exotic species. See what we should do with ring-necked parakeets, raccoons, Egyptian geese. The owner of the animal was very appalled and did not agree with this action. He indicated that he did free flights and that he also had permission from the landowner to fly on these plots. The necessary findings were made and the case came before the correctional court of Antwerp for the first time
In the first instance, our colleague hunter was convicted. However, on appeal, the hunter was acquitted across the board. Mr. Nauwelaerts, who is a passionate hunter himself, has defended his client very well in this matter. We do not have the verdict in our hands but are writing to you on the basis of what was heard in other media as being the motivation of the Court of Appeal in Antwerp.
According to the Court of Appeal, free flying[i] amounts to the introduction of exotic birds into the wild[i]. Free flying, in this case, would be an illegal activity, so the hunter did not have to take into account the fact that the parrot was private property and was wearing a harness. The hunter in this case therefore acted correctly.
This judgment can now only be appealed in cassation. This would have been noted by the owner of the parrot. Cassation only looks at the judgment and not at the facts. If cassation overturns the decision of the Court of Appeal, the case will be sent back to another court of appeal for a ruling. We wait and follow up.
But what I think is also important here is common sense and an internal debate that we need to have as a hunting community. I will try to explain my vision to you.
If you follow the letter of the law, our colleague should eventually be acquitted. His lawyer has pleaded here with reason according to the letter of the law. Legally, the matter is settled.
But as a hunting community, we also need to look at the spirit of society if we want to guarantee the future of hunting. Just because something is legally legal according to the letter of the law does not mean that it is also in line with the spirit of society.
We have to look at our own conscience and realize that we live in a different society than a hundred years ago. If we want hunting to have a place in the process, we must also ensure that our behaviour and actions are proportionate. Even if the letter of the law proves us right, acting accordingly does not bring us the sacred right according to the spirit of the law and certainly not that of the society in which we live. Also realize that laws are man-made and therefore easy to adjust.
Hunting should not be defended but explained, says the hunters’ league. If we are honest with ourselves then the act of the hunter in this case cannot be explained to most people. I have to conclude this for myself and I hope you join me. Even now that the Court of Appeal in Antwerp considers this act to be completely legal, it is not defensible as a gracious hunter towards the wider society. So our regulations are not well drafted or have a gap. This man should not be convicted for that, but the law must be made better to prevent this from happening in the future.
Exotic species control is a very important task of hunting that should not be made impossible. In various countries there are plenty of examples where hunters do their bit. Raccoons, Egyptian geese, ring-necked parakeets, muntjac and so on. However, it should not be a free pass that legally allows you to take a macaw out of the air immediately.
The question also arises when a species is invasive. But this question goes too far here in the present case of this analysis.
I think that things can be better arranged legally to prevent problems in the future. A good exhaustive list of recognized exotic species that meet these conditions can be a good start. In addition, permission could then be issued for the removal of other exotics/animals and the way in which this is done on a case-by-case basis. The Nature and Forest Agency can be a good partner in this.
Suppose a walibi escapes. The owner can try to catch his animal. A hunter can report the presence of the animal. Only after exemption and the failure of attempts by the owner can the animal be stretched, for example. This is to prevent accidents or damage.
In other exceptional cases, it should be possible immediately, for example. Take the very rare case that a lion escapes and a hunter catches sight of it. Here, common sense should allow the immediate elimination of the animal in order to protect society. There is a precedent in which a hunter in the Durbuy region shot a panther when he was sitting down (years ago). There is also a case in Germany from a few years ago.
Furthermore, it seems good for the legislator to examine whether free flights, and under what circumstances, are entitled whether a legal framework can be created under strict conditions. I am not opposed to people being given the space to practice their hobby and that we as a society allow this under certain conditions. So is shooting, moto crossing, etc. Unfortunately, our legislator and politics are failing here too.
Falconers could also be concerned about this matter. They sometimes also fly with exotic birds of prey. There is a framework for falconry and falconers who also hunt with their birds also have a hunting permit. Suppose you are a hunter and see a desert hawk flying: would you shoot it? I hope your answer is in the negative.
I am happy for the hunter that he was acquitted. I am pleased that Mr. Nauwelaerts defended his client well as can be expected from a lawyer. I am glad that as a hunter you are not just convicted, but that the court also effectively analyzes the law and judges on the basis of this.
But as a hunter and hunting community, we have to decide that if we want to give hunting a long future, we should not be happy with this action. I hope that everyone who reads this and will find themselves in a similar situation will think twice and decide not to pull the trigger. We do ourselves and other colleagues a lot of pleasure by thinking first, consulting and only then acting. You don’t call back a shot and neither does the media storm and the lawsuit that society is making about our passion, not to mention the trial in court that hangs over your head.
In this way, a simple act and ruling of a Belgian court becomes more than dry analysis and application of legislation. This will make it a social and internal debate where hopefully we can all grow together. The articles that exist on this subject are often rather sensational and emotional. Let us not do this on hunting.be and as a hunting community.
Let us act in good conscience in spirit of gracious behavior, continuing to allow our future generations to live our passion.
[i] https://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20230504_94739652
