Why should a hunter bother with denial?

On May 15, a review of Alice Agneskirchner's documentary "On the hunt - who belongs to nature" by Björn Hayer appeared in the feature section of the Neue Züricher Zeitung (NZZ).

In it he complains about the alleged one-sidedness of the representation of the hunt. wrongly, as JÄGER editor Dr. Nina Krüger thinks.

"Mr. Hayer considers the documentary" On the hunt - who owns nature "by Alice Agneskirchner to be problematic because the director devotes herself to an emotionally charged topic without using foreseeable clichés. She approaches the topic meticulously from a broad angle. It is therefore much more problematic that Hayer was entrusted with the film review, although he does not seem to be able to differentiate this observational approach stylistically from a scripted documentary drama like “Safari”. Ulrich Seidl's staging of Africa is supposed to appear realistic, but does not claim to be more truthful than a caricature. Hayer took it for granted. A NZZ-unworthy cardinal error. In addition, “Safari” lacks the votes against, which Hayer Agneskirchner demands. For example that of the IUCN as the publisher of the Red List of Threatened Species. Regardless of personal motives, the organization considers legal trophy hunting to be a legitimate means of protecting species. Against this background, it seems almost amateurish to accuse Agneskirchner of a lack of reflection.

The fact that Hayer apparently did not want to deal with the subject of hunting beyond the extent of his personal sensitivities is reflected in further superficial arguments. Things like fun and company party hunts, if they exist at all in German-speaking countries, are the exception to all hunting activities. The occurrence of missed shots is just as useful in argumentation as the risk of an accident when driving a car. In addition, it is by no means scientifically proven that hunting increases the reproductive activity of wild animals. This is simply an invention of those organizations that campaign for the abolition of hunting. Or can research results that have been published in an internationally respected specialist journal be cited? Hardly, because they don't exist. If this were so, endangered species would simply have to be hunted more heavily. If the rate of reproduction increased, they would be saved quickly.

In the final sentence it becomes clear that Hayer's real problem is a personal one. He himself considers the hunt to be "a fossil from a bygone era". Agneskirchner's differentiated approach violates this image. Hayer couldn't be further wrong. More young (and young at heart) men and women than ever before are acquiring hunting licenses. The number of hunters, and especially women hunters, has been increasing steadily for years in German-speaking countries. The reasons for this are as numerous as there are hunters. They range from the desire for species-appropriate meat production to the longing for the roots of the incarnation to a holistic understanding of nature. What they all have in common is that in addition to birth, they also accept death as inevitable. This seldom comes gently for a wild animal. Especially not when a predator like the wolf brings it. This cannot be denied even with the strictest ethical vaccination. Forbidding modern people to enjoy everything archaic and morally depriving them is the main symptom of our urbanized society, alienated from nature. It is the most arrogant elevation of man above nature. Hunting, on the other hand, has been part of the natural cycle for millions of years. It will still exist when man and his philosophers, animal rights activists and hunters have long since disappeared from the face of the earth. "

You can find the original NZZ article here: https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/ist-es-die-natur-des-menschen-die-ihn-zur-jagd-triebe-ld.1385448