In Western Europe, consideration for animals largely revolves around their sentience — in other words, whether they can experience positive and negative mental states. Western society tends to reserve its moral consideration for animals known to be sentient. However, the authors of this study wonder whether hunters also recognize and appreciate animal sentience.

The authors explored the websites of four prominent hunting organizations in Finland and the U.K. (The Finnish Wildlife Agency, The Finnish Hunters’ Association, The British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and The Countryside Alliance). They aimed to understand how these entities describe commonly-hunted animals, the act of hunting, and ethics. 

One commonality across the organizations was that they tended to portray animals in terms of their utility or harm to humans. The sites described species with phrases like “causes car accidents” or “is greatly valued as game.” Animals were typically framed in terms of their relevance to human interests rather than individuals in their own right. When referring to hunted animals, the sites often used terms that focused on their function (like “game”) or lumped them into a group (like “quarry,” “wildlife,” or “pest”).

The study also revealed what the authors felt was an obvious denial of animal sentience and cognition. They suggested that this is a form of dementalization, a process that denies animals’ subjective inner experiences. In one booklet, The Countryside Alliance wrote that wild animals are unable to understand fear and death. The organization also argued that hunting does not have a net impact on animals’ well-being. Even when animals’ mental abilities were acknowledged, such references were framed in terms of practicality rather than morality. The Finnish Hunters’ Association wrote, for instance, that “due to the [fox’s] intelligence, it is difficult to catch her.”

Further, the researchers argued that the narratives justified dementalization with “mechanomorphism,” which is the projection of machine-like qualities onto animals. One example of mechanomorphism is the tendency to describe animal behavior on a species level rather than the result of individual choice. 

The researchers also noticed that hunting organizations used the word “respect” and advised hunters to “avoid unnecessary suffering.” However, the authors argued that the organizations manipulated these terms to justify causing harm to animals. For example, they pointed out that suffering caused by hunting can never be “necessary” when the hunting is done for recreational purposes. 

Hunters typically positioned themselves as caretakers of nature. However, the study suggested that these actions are often motivated by self-interest (like maintaining good hunting conditions) rather than genuine concern for animals. The websites described hunters who took part in tracking injured animals, but lethal solutions were preferred over rehabilitation. The authors questioned if these practices amount to “welfare washing,” which is paying lip service to ethical awareness.

Finally, the study demonstrated that hunting organizations actively worked to normalize beliefs around treating animals as instrumental objects to be killed and consumed at will. They noted that some of the organizations have upwards of 150,000 members, meaning that these beliefs may be influential in society. The websites also targeted youth with materials portraying hunting as socially desirable, possibly to ensure that future generations continue the practice. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation congratulated children on their hunting success, including recognizing a baby who was brought on a hunt at five months old.

It’s important for animal advocates to be aware of the beliefs and promotional strategies of hunting organizations. Although more and more consumers recognize wild animals as sentient beings, recreational hunters remain a significant part of the Western population. Advocates need to hold these groups accountable when their claims blatantly violate scientific evidence, while humane education and early intervention for young people may help ensure that future generations shift away from such an objectifying view of animal lives.