Written proof of hunting rights: a hot topic that has not cooled down since the introduction of the Hunting Decree of 1991

The current situation

The article originally introduced by the Hunting Decree of 1991 with regard to proof of hunting rights was worded as follows:

“It is prohibited to hunt on other people’s land at any time and in any way without the express permission of the owner or his rightful claimant, under penalty of a fine of fifty francs, without prejudice to compensation if there is reason to do so. In the event of a dispute regarding the hunting right on the same plot, the person who can submit a written agreement from the owner has the hunting right.

During the discussion of the decree of 3 July 2015 amending the Hunting Decree, the issue of a written proof of execution was discussed in detail in the Environment Committee. A brief overview of the most recent discussion:

• District Commissioner
  The current working method is extremely labour-intensive. It is therefore argued that a model of written evidence is being used;
• Vogelbescherming Vlaanderen
  Written evidence for problems with colouring on hunting plans of property without permission;
• Natuurpunt
  supports the proposal as it was presented and it has also been introduced that written proof is required when changing hunting plans;
• HVV
  , on the other hand, is strongly in favor of maintaining the current state of affairs and only requiring written evidence when it comes to contestation. Written proof of any hunting right does not bring any added value, as it must be decisive, especially in the event of disputes. In addition, HVV emphasizes the administrative burden that would be imposed with written evidence.
• Landelijk Vlaanderen
  rightly cites that written agreements are a serious aggravation that overshoots its goal;
• Boerenbond and Algemeen Boerensyndicaat
  see a general obligation to provide written evidence as totally out of the question. No unnecessary restrictions should be imposed on hunting, as heavy damage can be done if sustainable wildlife management cannot be done.

Of course, the political positions can also be deduced from the discussion in the Environment Committee. It is clear that the political playing field is just as divided as civil society itself. Largely the same arguments are put forward as mentioned above. In the end, the amendment of the decree introduced an additional possibility to impose an obligation to provide written evidence:

Art. 7
It is forbidden to hunt on other people’s land at any time and in any way without the express permission of the owner or his successor in title. In the event of a dispute regarding the hunting right on the same plot, the person who can submit written proof of the hunting right has the hunting right.
…
The Flemish Government shall determine the form, time and manner in which the plans are to be submitted to the official designated in the second paragraph, and the additional information to be provided.
…
In certain circumstances, the Flemish Government may require that written proof of hunting rights be submitted when the plan is filed or amended.”

This was necessary because the provisions on written evidence included in the decision of the Flemish Government of 25 April 2014 were the subject of proceedings initiated by HVV on the grounds that no legal basis was provided for such a provision. The provisions were therefore annulled by the Council of State this year in September. The contested provisions were worded as follows:

Art. 30, last paragraph
Article 31, §6

These provisions have therefore disappeared from our legal order since the publication of the judgment on 10 September 2015. However, it seems that this will only be of a temporary nature and that the provisions will soon be reintroduced now that a decree legal basis has indeed been provided by the amendment of the decree of 3 July 2015. This is also confirmed by an answer recently given by Minister Joke Schauvliege in the Environment Committee (for a full report see: https://www.vlaamsparlement.be/commissies/commissievergaderingen/1013914/verslag/1014444

It therefore seems that the submission of written proof of hunting rights can become the norm in the longer term as a result of this provision. After all, changes or adjustments will mean that one is forced to prove them in writing.

What about hunting itself?

There are a number of undeniable advantages associated with written agreements, such as legal certainty for all parties involved, evidential value vis-à-vis third parties, public perception as there can be transparency if the agreements can be consulted by the district commissioner and specifically for the democratization of hunting, there is the fact that written agreements cannot be perpetual by operation of law. This means that hunting rights do not simply pass from father to son in the event of death, as can often be the case with verbal agreements when it comes to old hunting rights (although this can be contracted to a limited extent).

In addition, there are a number of undeniable disadvantages such as the administrative burden that can become a real stumbling block for hunting plans in view of the surface area requirements (just think of WBEs that require 1000 hectares), the refusal of owners to contract in writing for fear of public opinion and demonization,… The latter in particular can be expected as a serious problem given the image problem that hunting is already facing. The fact that the regulations that govern hunting must be discussed/voted on by openly anti-hunting politicians plays an extra role here. Under the guise of legal concerns and transparency, it is all too easy to restrict the hunt. A good example of this is the position taken by the committee member of Groen Hermes Sanctorum who, on the one hand, expressed his concerns during the hearing with all interest groups, which seems to stem mainly from transparency, attention to sustainable hunting with scientific substantiation,… While in the same breath he clearly speaks out against hunting tout court:

“Hermes Sanctorum-Vandevoorde does indeed abhor hunting and cannot understand that people enjoy shooting animals.” (from the report on behalf of the Committee for the Environment, Nature, Spatial Planning, Energy and Animal Welfare, document 344 (2014-2015) no. 6)

Although there are undeniable advantages for hunting in providing written agreements, this must be handled with caution as the opponents of hunting mainly want to use it to prevent hunting. It remains to be seen how the delegation provided for in the new hunting decree will be fleshed out in concrete terms. The interest groups that consider hunting to be of paramount importance should not fail to monitor this closely.