Those who want to hunt in Flanders better think twice

In the light of this judgement(Corr. East Flanders (Dept. Ghent) 5 September 2017), here are some considerations regarding the theme of hunting laws in general and false hunting plans in particular.

The relevant legislation is the Flemish Hunting Decree of 24 July 1991. This decree aims at the wise use of game species and their habitats (Article 2), a better wildlife management, nature conservation and improved monitoring. Article 7 specifies that it is prohibited at any time and in any way to hunt on other people's land without the express consent of the owner or rightful claimant.

First of all, a clear definition is important. A hunting ground or hunting area is the set of all contiguous lots for which a hunter has hunting rights. In the light of the objective of Article 2 of the Flemish Hunting Decree, the minimum area of a hunting ground is 40 hectares. There is an exception to this rule regarding waterfowl. In this case, the contiguous water area must be at least 3 hectares in size. For other forms of hunting (for example, with a bird of prey or ferret and pouch) no minimum area has been specified (Article 8). Each year, each hunter must submit a hunting plan of his hunting ground. This plan indicates the current situation on the lots for which the hunter has hunting rights.

Since 2015, the non-profit organisation Vogelbescherming Vlaanderen(Bird Protection Flanders) has been campaigning against false hunting plans to make hunting plans more transparent and more accurate. This non-profit organisation is a nature protection association and is committed to the protection, preservation and welfare of wild bird species (Article 2 of its statute). It is actually committed to the protection of nature, as a result of which its claim was positively received by the court. Digital hunting plans exist since 20 July 2017. The district commissioner will check whether the lots can be assigned a different status if it turns out the grounds are indeed in the hunting plans. The commissioner will, however, not verify the property titles. It is the responsibility of the citizens to have the status of their lots be amended in a hunting plan.

The problem in the above-mentioned judgement is twofold. The hunter in question did not have hunting rights for most of the lots that had a hunting status, nor were these plots in fact suitable for hunting. This is clearly a case of deceptive undermining of the hunting rules. Deceptive in the sense that the hunter provides a sufficiently large hunting ground for himself. Undermining in the sense that falsifying hunting plans undermines the entire system.

Not only compliance with the hunting rules but also the protection of nature is of fundamental importance. For the densely populated Flanders, the sparse nature is something one must treat with proper care. Not doing so is harmful to both human and nature. The constitutional right to a healthy environment on the basis of Art. 23, 4° of the Belgian constitution is thus affected. The government plays an important role in ensuring the protection of a healthy environment.

Besides the government, the non-profit organisation Vogelbescherming Vlaanderen ensures the right to a healthy environment as laid down in the constitution (Corr. East Flanders (Dept. Ghent) 12 April 2016, TMR 2016, issue 5, 614). The non-profit organisation, in this case a civil party in the procedure, in my view rightly notes that the government should take more responsibility regarding the right to a healthy environment as ensured in the constitution. At this moment, the responsibility mainly rests with citizens. It is, after all, up to the citizens to take the initiative to have the status of their lots amended in a hunting plan. Citizens must ask for the removal of their lots from the hunting plan by themselves.

In concrete terms, hunters may amend the status of the lot in existing hunting plans without permission and then it is up to the owner himself to prove that he has not given permission and to have the status of the lot amended. If citizens, however, do not notice this, there is a good chance that such facts will repeat themselves. I think that it is important that hunters are sensitised by complying with all rules, at all times. In addition, the hunting plans should be as accurate as possible.

The use of false hunting plans discredits the hunters who do strictly follow the rules. In other words, there is damage to the reputation of hunters who do comply with the rules. The accuracy of the hunting plans is an element the government that issues the hunting license, the government that oversees the hunting and the citizens must be able to rely upon.