Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criminalising the right to hunt: European law perspectives on anti-hunting legislation

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Although the article notes that a range of different hunting practices and cultures exist across Europe and that the UK experience at the centre of this article differs from other hunting cultures. The article discusses these differences while noting that the ECtHR takes a European view not one that applies solely to the UK context.

  2. It should be noted that in a wider context there are discussions that consider some fluidity between different types of hunters and hunting activity [26]. However, this article’s focus is criminological and legal classifications predicated primarily on the behaviours involved and how they are defined by legal systems. Particularly in respect of the hunting outlawed by the UK’s Hunting Act 2004, both sides of the debate seemingly acknowledged hunting as a specific activity with defined characteristics. As this article discusses, the courts also make distinctions between different types of hunting and hunter.

  3. See, for example, Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

  4. The House of Commons is the elected main chamber, the House of Lords is an unelected upper chamber whose powers to delay and scrutinize legislation are a vital part of the legislative process. But in reality the Lords’ powers are limited and a constitutional principle exists that the Lords should not ‘block’ Government legislation.

  5. Arguably the reasons why the public disapprove of hunting are of limited relevance it is the legitimacy of the Government action that is at issue. Indeed in July 2015 a Conservative majority Government, that largely believes hunting is a choice issue rather than an animal protection or wildlife law one, failed in its attempts to amend/repeal the Hunting Act 2004. Parliamentary arithmetic and widespread public protest suggested that the Government lacked the required support and parliamentary votes needed to change the law.

  6. The case predates the setting up of the UK Supreme Court, thus at the time the House of Lords was the highest UK court.

References

  1. Pohja-Mykrä, M., & Kurki, S. (2014). Strong community support for illegal killing challenges wolf management. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 60(5), 759–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hagstedt, J., & Korsell, L. (2012). Unlawful hunting of large carnivores in Sweden. In R. Ellefsen, R. Sollund, & G. Larsen (Eds.), Eco-global crimes: contemporary problems and future challenges. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Harris, M. R. (2011). Environmental deliberative democracy and the search for administrative legitimacy: a legal, positivism approach. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 44(2), 343–382.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Woods, M. (2003). Deconstructing rural protest: the emergence of a new social movement. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(3), 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nurse, A. (2015). Policing wildlife: perspectives on the enforcement of wildlife legislation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Lynch, M., & Stretesky, P. (2014). Exploring green criminology: toward a green criminological revolution. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stallworthy, M. (2008). Understanding Environmental Law. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Weston, B., & Bollier, D. (2013). Green governance: ecological survival, human rights and the law of the commons. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. White, R. (2008). Crimes against nature: environmental criminology and ecological justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Benton, T. (1998). Rights and justice on a shared planet: more rights or new relations? Theoretical Criminology, 2(2), 149–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cooper, J. (2009). Hunting as an abusive subculture. In A. Linzey (Ed.), The link between animal abuse and human violence (pp. 302–316). Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nurse, A. (2013a). Animal harm: perspectives on why people harm and kill animals. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nurse, A. (2013b). Privatising the green police: the role of NGOs in wildlife law enforcement. Crime, Law and Social Change, 59(3), 305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eliason, S. L. (2003). Illegal hunting and angling: the neutralization of wildlife law violations. Society and Animals, 11(3), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rollin, B. E. (2006). Animal rights & human morality. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Meagher, M. S. (1985). Police patrol styles: how pervasive is community variation? Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13(1), 36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Marshall, B., & Johnson, S. (2005). Crime in rural areas: a review of the literature for the rural evidence research Centre. London: Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College London.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mingay, G. E. (1989). The rural idyll. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Beirne, P. (2009). Confronting animal abuse: law, criminology, and human-animal relationships. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gupta, R. (1995). Indigenous peoples and the international environmental community: accommodating claims through a cooperative legal process. New York University Law Review, 74(6), 741–1785.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eliason, S. L. (1999). The illegal taking of wildlife: toward a theoretical understanding of poaching. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 4, 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schneider, J. L. (2008). Reducing the illicit trade in endangered wildlife: the market reduction approach. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24(3), 274–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wyatt, T. (2013). Wildlife trafficking: a deconstruction of the crime, the victims and the offenders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Preece, R. (1999). Animals and nature: culture myths, cultural realities. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bischof, R., Nilsen, E. B., Brøseth, H., Männil, P., Ozoliņš, J., Linnell, J. D. C., & Bode, M. (2012). Implementation uncertainty when using recreational hunting to manage carnivores. The Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(4), 824–832. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02167.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kuentzel, W. F. (1994). Skybusting and the slob hunter myth. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973–2006), 22(2), 331–336.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Brymer, R. A. (1991). The emergence and maintenance of a deviant sub-culture: the case of hunting/poaching subculture. Anthropologica, 33, 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith, R. K. (2010). Texts and materials on international human rights. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fenwick, H. (2007). Civil liberties and human rights. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Groombridge, N. (1998). Masculinities and crimes against the environment. Theoretical Criminology, 2(2), 249–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nurse, A. (2011). Policing wildlife: perspectives on criminality in wildlife crime. Papers from the British Criminology Conference, 11, 38–53.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Linzey, A. (Ed.) (2009). The link between animal abuse and human violence. Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sollund, R. (2008). Causes for speciesism: difference, distance and denial. In R. Sollund (Ed.), Global harms: ecological crime and speciesism. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pardo, I., & Prato, G. (2005). The fox-hunting debate in the United Kingdom: a puritan legacy? Human Ecology Forum, 12(1), 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  35. von Essen, E., Hansen, H. P., Källström, N. H., Peterson, N. M., & Peterson, T. R. (2014). Deconstructing the poaching phenomenon: a review of typologies for understanding illegal hunting. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 632–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cohn, P., & Linzey, A. (2009). Hunting as a morally suspect activity. In A. Linzey (Ed.), The link between animal abuse and human violence (pp. 317–328). Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Burns, L., Edwards, V., Marsh, J., Soulsby, L., & Winter, M. (2000). Committee of Inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Borgström, S. (2012). Legitimacy issues in Finnish wolf conservation. Journal of Environmental Law, 24(3), 451–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Epstein, B. (1997). The environmental justice/toxics movement: politics of race and gender. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 8(3), 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Florence, L. R. (2014). When ferae Naturae attack: public policy implications and concerns for the public and state regarding the classification of indigenous wildlife as interpreted under state immunity statutes. Hamline Journal of Public |Law and Policy, 35(1), 156–194.

    Google Scholar 

  42. de Klemm, C. (1996). Compensation for damage caused by wild animals, nature and environment. No. 84. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Schaffner, J. (2011). An introduction to animals and the law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Radford, M. (2001). Animal welfare law in Britain: regulation and responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Barnett, H. (2011). Constitutional and administrative law. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Stone, R. (2010). Textbook on civil liberties and human rights (8th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: a political theory of animal rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Skidelsky, R. (2003). If Labour bans foxhunting, civil disobedience would be justified. The Telegraph, 08 October (Online). www.skidelskyr.com/site/article/if-labour-bans-foxhunting-civil-disobedience-would-be-justified/. Accessed 12 Aug 2015.

  49. Situ, Y., & Emmons, D. (2000). Environmental crime: the criminal justice System’s role in protecting the environment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Clarke, R. V., & Cornish, D. B. (2001). Rational choice. In R. Paternoster & R. Bachman (Eds.), Explaining crime and criminals: essays in contemporary criminological theory (pp. 23–42). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Middlesex University, School of Law, London, UK

    Angus Nurse

Authors
  1. Angus Nurse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angus Nurse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nurse, A. Criminalising the right to hunt: European law perspectives on anti-hunting legislation. Crime Law Soc Change 67, 383–399 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9669-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9669-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation