Hunting, tracking, and duty to kill after wounding

I have assisted a hunter who found himself in a difficult situation after a lynx hunt.

A hunting party goes lynx hunting somewhere in Norway in the winter of 2014. All aspects of the hunt are legal, both in terms of quotas and the necessary qualifications for each individual hunter. My client, whom we can call Petter, is one of several sitting in a line of posts. The lynx is being driven towards the line of posts with dogs and dog handlers. Everyone in the team has a hunting radio. The weather conditions were good, with some fresh snow, light cloud and good visibility.

The hunting team was informed via the hunting radio that a lynx had been shot at Petters' neighboring post. The shooter was known to be particularly skilled, having participated in high-level competitions. It was not recorded whether the lynx was injured, but it was established and reported that it did not fall at the shooting site.

Petter, who is sitting at his post with a shotgun and coarse shot no. 1, observes after a while that the lynx is passing his post. He fires two shots at a distance of 49 meters, but the lynx continues on its way. It is finally shot at the next post. When the animal is examined, it turns out that it was first shot at the post where it fell.

The Norwegian Nature Inspectorate (SNO) became aware of the case and reported Petter to the police. The police dismissed the case due to lack of evidence. SNO appealed the decision and Petter was then given a fine of NOK 12,000 or, alternatively, 15 days in prison. Petter did not accept this.

Petter has consistently maintained that under normal circumstances he would never have fired at the lynx from such a long distance. However, he had received a message via the hunting radio that the animal had been shot. As he sees it, it was then his absolute duty to try to kill the lynx. Any animal that has been shot must, by definition, be considered injured until proven otherwise.

In a circular from the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management dated June 2012, which deals with the Wildlife Act – hunting, shooting, and trapping, the following is quoted from § 27, page 33:

Anyone who injures a lynx, wolverine, bear, wolf or golden eagle while hunting or trapping must immediately notify the county governor and the nearest police authority. The county governor shall decide on the continuation and conclusion of the search. Those who have participated in the attempt to cull or hunt shall assist the administrative authority or police authority in the further search without compensation.

In a circular from the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management dated June 2012, which deals with the Wildlife Act – hunting, shooting, and trapping, the following is stated regarding Section 27:

General

The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management strongly emphasizes the obligation to search for large game or golden eagles that have been wounded by gunfire, and to ensure that they are killed quickly and efficiently so that unnecessary

suffering is avoided. Any shot fired at big game or golden eagles shall be considered a hit by the hunter, and the hunter shall search the field if the animal does not fall from the shot. (my emphasis). If there is any reason to believe that the animal may have been hit, the hunter and the hunting party are obliged to search for the game in the best possible way. It is important that the search is planned carefully.

In our view, Petter had a duty to try to kill the lynx when it was considered to have been hit. There is, of course, a limit to how far away he could reasonably have fired the shot. However, in our opinion, 49 meters is within this limit. On the other hand, if the distance had been too great, the lynx would not have been injured and the attempt would have been futile.

In my opinion, the fundamental question is how far the duty to kill extends. As I see it, it is obvious that one will be able to shoot at distances and in situations that would not be acceptable if the animal being hunted had not been shot at previously. The consideration of quickly killing an injured animal takes precedence.

As a hunter and lawyer, however, I think it would be interesting to get an assessment from the court of how far the duty to search for and kill an animal goes.

The case never went to court. Petter chose to accept a fine when the burden of a criminal case became too great.