Blood Sports in Greece – Opening of the New Hunting Season 2025-2026
By Constantinos Tokatlides, Ph.D.
Starting today, the 20th of August, the new hunting season begins, which will officially last until the 28th of February 2026. This is provided for by the decision of the Minister of Environment and Energy with number ΥΠΕΝ/ΔΔΔ/88144/3151 of 06.08.2025, published in the Government Gazette (ΦΕΚ) B’ 4348/07.08.2025.
Thus, as every year, a new hunting period is re-proclaimed, lasting about six months, during which the State permits the hunting of the wildlife of Greece.
In this ministerial decision there is an extensive preamble, consisting of fifty-two paragraphs, in which are listed, among other things, international conventions on the protection of the environment, European Union and Greek law, both environmental and administrative, as well as a series of studies on which the estimation of the hunting limits is based, an estimation that is actually referred to as “management of game fauna.” In these studies an estimation is apparently made of many parameters, such as the disruption of ecosystems due to wildfires, the shrinking of natural habitats, the preservation of biodiversity, as well as “the need to maintain the populations of all species of wild fauna at satisfactory levels, so that they meet ecological and scientific requirements, taking into account economic and recreational needs” (preamble, paragraph 31, point d).
It seems that the wildlife of Greece, according to the competent authorities, does not have any intrinsic value; the life of the animals and birds that manage to survive is not in itself respected and protected. Instead, according to the philosophy of hunting legislation, the populations of all species of wild fauna must simply be maintained at “satisfactory levels,” not because their lives carry any inherent significance, but so that they fulfill certain obligations (to respond to ecological and scientific requirements) and indeed this under the lens of “economic and recreational needs.”
However difficult the analysis and understanding of these parameters may be, their practical result is nevertheless clear. Thus, indicatively, according to the “Table of Huntable Species” that accompanies the ministerial decision and forms an integral part of it, it is permitted, during the period from 15.09.2025 to 28.02.2026, for every hunter to kill an unlimited number of foxes (Vulpes vulpes), on every day of the week.
For those of us who are not experts, it is not clear what need (economic, nutritional, recreational perhaps, or some other) is served by the hunting of foxes, an intelligent and appealing animal with social and communicative characteristics not far from those of the dog. Not that in order for an animal not to become a hunting target it must be “appealing.” But the example of the fox is characteristic of the inability to understand the reasoning and purpose behind, in essence, a license for the extermination of every fox in the Greek territory (if that were practically feasible). The potential argument that some foxes may cause nuisance (because they attempt to feed on small animals or birds in farms) does not seem convincing. Likewise, the potential argument that they may become carriers of the rabies virus is not convincing either, since the matter has been dealt with for years by suitable means and rabies has essentially disappeared from Greece: it has not been transmitted to a human in Greece since the 1970s. It is therefore not clear in what logic the potential complete extermination of foxes in Greece is permitted, in this example.
But even in cases of animals or birds for which the ministerial decision provides certain restrictions on hunting, many question marks arise. Thus, for instance, for the turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur) it is stipulated that hunting is permitted for the period from 15.09.2025 “until the national harvest limit is reached and no later than 30/10,” on all days of the week, and with each hunter having the right to kill up to four turtle doves.
The turtle dove is a species of bird that resembles the pigeon; it is a migratory species (travelling thousands of kilometers every year between Africa and Europe) and, of course, is endangered with extinction… The species is so strongly threatened that for a number of years the European Commission had prohibited its hunting in several member states, due to its meagre numbers. Yet its hunting is permitted, supposedly with restrictions (quantitative), which certainly presupposes the existence of reliable regulatory and monitoring mechanisms. In Greece, therefore, an “annual national harvest limit” of 36,000 individuals is set, and it is stipulated that once this “harvest limit” is filled, hunting of the turtle dove in Greece … ceases automatically. Apart from the fact that the notion of “harvest” is not very suitable when applied to free birds that are shot, the important thing here is that the monitoring of the fulfillment of the annual limit of 36,000 turtle doves essentially relies on the voluntary declaration by each hunter of the turtle doves killed by him, so that the Ministry may monitor the progressive filling of the national limit. Therefore, the entire system of permitted hunting of a threatened species relies, on the one hand, on the voluntary cooperation of hunters in declaring to the Ministry, and on the other hand on the existence of a reliable and effective control mechanism (monitoring) on which this whole construction is based.
Such a construct, like the one provided for by the ministerial decision regarding the monitoring of the filling of hunting limits of the species of our fauna, raises a series of obvious scientific, environmental, ecological, and technical questions—not only as regards the assumptions and methodology on which it rests, but also as regards the adequacy of the monitoring mechanism on which this entire construction depends. Legally, one could argue that if in fact there is no such monitoring mechanism on which this whole construction rests, then the ministerial decision is legally baseless and voidable (by the Council of State, upon an application for annulment), due to a mistake as to the facts (as it incorrectly rests on assumptions about things that do not exist).
But beyond the scientific, environmental, ecological, and technical questions and the legal issues that arise, the fundamental ones are ultimately ethical in nature.
Regardless of the findings of however well-documented studies and research, how legitimate is it that the still-surviving wildlife of Greece continues to be persecuted, when nature has already been pressured so greatly by climate change, heatwaves, drought, wildfires, the degradation of natural habitats? What need is served by the killing of animals and birds that still survive in this context?
And how is it compatible with the idea promoted by the State, through legislation and the educational system, that violence (and especially violence against the weak) is denounced and prohibited, when violence is at the same time treated as a permissible means of … recreation?
How can a young person, who learns that it is acceptable and lawful to kill an unlimited number of, for example, certain canids (foxes) for amusement, understand and internalize that, at the very same time, it is illegal and is punished with the utmost severity—with imprisonment and fines of tens of thousands of euros (Law 4830/2021)—to kill another canid, the dog? When the act is accepted in principle, how are its limits subsequently defined? What do we ultimately, as Society and State, ask this young perhaps, who is the future citizen and possibly parent, to understand? That the act itself is to be condemned and prohibited regardless of the victim, or that the act itself is, in principle, permitted, but may be prohibited in certain cases and as deemed appropriate, depending on the victim?
The internal contradiction of this system of values is reflected in the lack of logic and coherence of the corresponding system of legal rules, which, as long as it has this structure and content, will not be able to prevent violence in any form, to respond to it convincingly, and to lead to its elimination.
References:
https://dasarxeio.com/2025/08/08/145713/
https://dasarxeio.com/2020/05/12/81098/
https://dasarxeio.com/2025/04/03/143308/
A version of this article in Greek has been published at https://www.topontiki.gr/2025/08/20/nomika-eolo-ithika-mempto-ke-pedagogika-antifatiko-to-plesio-gia-to-kinigi/