Dutch Anti-Hunters Harass with Near Impunity in the Netherlands
Hunting Under Siege in The Netherlands: Dutch Anti-Hunting Extremists Harass with Legal Impunity
by Ramsey Russell, GetDucks.com, 2025
Licensed hunters in the Netherlands are under siege. Dutch anti-hunters – radical animal rights activists – have been escalating a campaign of harassment, intimidation, and hunt sabotage across the country. They spit on hunters, scream insults, film and dox them online, disrupt lawful hunts, and even stalk hunters to their homes. Yet thanks to one-sided legal protections and lax enforcement, these anti-hunting extremists operate with near-impunity, rarely facing consequences for their actions. This blunt exposé shines a light on the brazen tactics of these activists, and the hypocrisy of a system that shields the harassers while vilifying the hunters. Goose hunting in Netherlands is not only legal, but is partial solution to a man-made tsunamis of overpopulated geese sure to governmental missteps.
Brazen Harassment Tactics in the Field: Radical Activists Target Legal Hunters Across the Netherlands
Activists from Animal Rights NL (“Ban de Jacht”) confront Dutch hunters in the field, using noise and obstruction while police look on. They remain on public roads and claim to be “peaceful demonstrators,” which often prevents police from stopping their disruptive antics.
Out in the hunting fields, Dutch anti-hunters employ an array of aggressive tactics to sabotage hunts and harass hunters. They will trespass or hover at the edges of hunts, armed with air horns, megaphones, and whistles to scare away game at the critical moment. They shout abuse – calling hunters “moordenaars” (murderers) and “sadists” – and have even spat on hunters during confrontations. (One Dutch politician was infamously spat on by an animal rights activist during a protest , showing the level of contempt these extremists exhibit.) Often clad in masks or balaclavas, they provoke and goad hunters, hoping to elicit a reaction. Their stated goal is explicitly to “verzieken hun moordfeestjes,” as one activist put it – “to ruin [the hunters’] killing parties” . In short, they behave like self-appointed vigilantes in the countryside, determined to interfere with anyone engaged in hunting in the Netherlands.
Common Harassment Tactics Used by Dutch Anti-Hunters: Noise, Doxing, Threats, and Intimidation
• Hunt Sabotage with Noise: Blasting horns, whistles, or merely yelling to startle game animals and alert them to flee, thereby spoiling the hunt. During goose and duck hunts at dawn, saboteurs station themselves to scare flocks away from hunters with air horns at the last moment . This means hunters end up “standing around with their guns doing nothing” while game escapes – “exactly as we like to see!” one saboteur crowed .
• Physical Obstruction: In group hunts (such as drive hunts or pheasant shoots), teams of activists will literally insert themselves between the hunters and the game. In one case, saboteurs in the Hoeksche Waard swarmed a field where 25 hunters were conducting a drive; the activists placed themselves on a public road in the line of fire, forcing the hunt to halt completely for over an hour . The frustrated hunters were left milling about while police argued with protesters – a huge victory for the saboteurs’ cause.
• Filming and Doxing: Anti-hunters constantly film hunters with cameras and smartphones, not only to “document” what they consider cruelty, but also to capture identifying footage. They then post these videos and photos online (often without context) to shame hunters and incite online harassment. In one egregious example, an online activist group stole a hunter’s personal photos and blasted them on social media along with his name and info – effectively a public doxing meant to invite threats . Hunters have reported receiving death threats and torrents of abuse after being exposed by these digital hate campaigns.
• Verbal Abuse and Threats: Screaming “murderer” in a hunter’s face is standard fare for these activists. But it doesn’t stop at insults. There have been numerous death threats against hunters coming from the anti-hunting camp. The Dutch police even opened an investigation in one case where activists posted messages like “jagers moeten dood” – “hunters must die” – and “not the animals, but the hunters should die” on social media . When hunters legally culled invasive mute swans in 2016, they were inundated with such threats of violence. The pattern is clear: these extremists feel justified wishing (and promising) harm upon people who lawfully hunt wildlife.
The Case of Heidi Looy: When Political Hunters Are Stalked at Home
Not even hunting officials or pro-hunting politicians are safe. Heidi Looy, a Dutch hunter and provincial council member, became a prime target after speaking up in defense of sustainable hunting. Activists from the group Animal Rights NL took to stalking her in real life – showing up at her private 40-hectare estate, skulking just offshore in boats to film her home and make a ruckus . “That is very intimidating,” Looy said, describing how they’d cruise behind her house with cameras and bullhorns. The harassment escalated to the point that Looy received a chilling anonymous death threat in the mail, saying she deserved to die for being a hunter . Police are investigating the threat (they even took DNA samples from the letter), and Looy has been issued an emergency alarm button for her personal safety . She’s had to install cameras around her home and remains on edge: “I am on my guard, and it limits my joy in life,” she admits . All this simply because she legally hunts and speaks out about wildlife management. The anti-hunting extremism in the Netherlands has verged into outright terrorism against individuals – and yet, so far Animal Rights NL and their allies have largely gotten away with it.
One-Sided Legal Protection for Harassers: How Dutch Law Protects the Harassers, Not the Hunters
How do these activists operate so boldly without ending up in jail? The answer lies in a one-sided legal protection that they have learned to exploit masterfully. The Netherlands, like many democracies, strongly protects the right to protest and demonstrate. Animal Rights NL and their “hunt saboteurs” deftly abuse these freedoms to shield their harassment campaigns. They claim to be “peaceful demonstrators” fighting for a cause, and thus often avoid prosecution for what is essentially legalized bullying.
Activists deliberately stay just within the letter of the law. They typically remain on public land (roads, trails, waterways) where they technically have a right to be, rather than trespassing on private hunting grounds. They refrain (only when there’s a chance of being caught themselves) from directly threatening violence in person – sticking instead to making noise, filming, and hurling non-stop verbal provocation. By not physically assaulting anyone, they give police little immediate grounds to arrest them. And if police officers try to intervene or ask for IDs, the saboteurs are prepared: they literally carry printouts of Dutch law to quote at authorities.
One veteran hunt saboteur, who goes by “Jeffrey,” bragged to NRC Handelsblad about how they stonewall police. “Niemand kan ons wat maken,” he said – “Nobody can do anything to us.” Police frequently ask these activists for identification, but “they don’t get it,” Jeffrey smirked, explaining how he demands officers first identify themselves properly and cite a lawful reason, otherwise “I ask them to leave because they are disturbing my right to demonstrate.” This brazen inversion – treating the police as the intruders – had his fellow activists laughing, as Jeffrey recounted how he often literally schools “ignorant officers” on the law and hands them legal leaflets . He’s right: as long as the saboteurs are officially engaging in a “demonstration,” the police cannot do much without an order from the mayor. “Because we’re demonstrators, it’s not the police who have a say over us, but the mayor,” Jeffrey pointed out smugly . And local mayors are often reluctant to interfere with protests unless things turn truly ugly.
Saboteurs Exploit Legal Loopholes While Hunters Face Consequences
In effect, the activists hide behind legal hunter harassment loopholes. They know exactly how far they can push. They coordinate via WhatsApp group chats to show up at hunts on short notice, execute their disruption, and melt away once the hunt is aborted or sufficiently delayed . If a hunter, in frustration, were to retaliate with force – say physically shove an activist or get into a scuffle – that hunter would likely be the one in legal trouble for assault. The saboteurs count on this asymmetry. In one incident, a frustrated female hunter on horseback snapped and struck a masked protester with her riding crop; footage of that out-of-context moment was promptly spread to paint the hunter as violently unhinged, feeding the anti-hunting narrative. Meanwhile, the provocateurs who trespassed and menaced her in the first place escaped any penalty. It’s a hypocritical double standard: the activists claim moral high ground and legal immunity, while the hunters are painted as aggressors if they dare defend themselves or their livelihood.
Animal Rights NL is well aware of this dynamic. In their own materials, they emphasize that their hunt sabotage in the Netherlands is “legaal en niet-agressief” – legal and non-violent – “contrary to what some claim” . They stress that they “act peacefully, with an eye on de-escalation,” merely trying to save animals, and that they film only from public roads respecting privacy laws . This all sounds nice on paper, but it is deeply disingenuous. The very purpose of their “peaceful” action is to aggressively interfere with lawful hunting activities and to intimidate hunters. Indeed, in the next breath, these activists proudly tout how they regularly cause hunts to be “vroegtijdig beëindigd” – cut short early – calling it “mission accomplished” when hunters give up and go home . They know exactly what they are doing, and they revel in it. The fact that it’s technically legal for them to stand by a road and blare horns doesn’t make it any less harassment. Yet because of the one-sided way the law is applied, nobody is holding them accountable for this harassment. As one NRC headline put it, they use “herrie als wapen tegen de jacht” – “noise as a weapon against hunting” – and brag that “niemand kan ons wat maken.” (Nobody can do anything to us) .
Even when authorities attempt to set reasonable limits, the activists play the victim. A telling example occurred in the Hoeksche Waard in 2019: the mayor, concerned about public safety, tried to ban an anti-hunt demonstration that was likely to cause dangerous confrontations. Rather than accept the restriction, Animal Rights NL filed complaints and blasted the mayor for “criminalizing our activists for no reason.” Jessica Smit of Animal Rights fumed that it was a “gross violation of our activists’ rights,” and vowed “we will definitely come back to take action”. The ban was later overturned on procedural grounds, and the activists celebrated the precedent. The irony is rich: these are the same people who think nothing of criminalizing hunters in the court of public opinion – painting all hunters as sadistic criminals – yet they scream oppression the moment their own behavior faces any scrutiny. It’s a one-way street with them: they demand full protection of the law for their provocations, but deny hunters any protection from harassment.
Hypocrisy and Extremism on Full Display
When “Peaceful Protest” Turns into Coordinated Hunt Sabotage: A Hunter Nearly Loses His Life
The hypocrisy of the Dutch anti-hunting movement is staggering. These activists loudly proclaim themselves the compassionate defenders of animals, yet exhibit outright cruelty and malice toward their fellow humans who hunt. They preach about non-violence, yet some among them secretly commit violent acts in the name of “animal rights.” Consider the extremes: in July 2017, a 66-year-old Limburg hunter named Mart Triepels nearly lost his life after his hunting tower was sabotaged. He climbed into his tree stand before dawn, only for the seat to collapse underneath him – sending him plummeting to the ground, breaking his pelvis . Police investigators later determined that the stand had been deliberately tampered with – the bolts were loosened or removed – indicating an anti-hunting saboteur had snuck in and rigged it . “I could have broken my neck and been killed,” Triepels said, calling the perpetrator “incredibly low” . Whoever did it has never been caught. Think about that: an elderly hunter was nearly paralyzed or killed, very likely at the hands of an animal-rights extremist, and to this day no one has been held accountable. That is attempted manslaughter, all in the name of “saving animals.” So much for the “non-violent” narrative.
Dehumanizing Rhetoric and the Demonization of Hunters
Meanwhile, the mainstream of the anti-hunting movement winks and nods at such extremism while continuing to harass hunters openly. They demonize hunters with a broad brush, using the most toxic language imaginable. On Animal Rights NL’s own website, one can find statements like: “Wie een dier bejaagt moet toch minstens een harteloos persoon zijn.” – “Anyone who hunts an animal must surely be a heartless person.” . This blanket characterization shows the absolute contempt they have for hunters as human beings. Is it any wonder that some of their followers take this dehumanization to the point of sending death threats and committing sabotage? If you tell people often enough that hunters are monsters, eventually someone will feel justified treating hunters as such. The activists disavow violence publicly, but the fire of hatred they stoke inevitably leads to exactly that.
What’s more, these zealots utterly dismiss the legal process and scientific management behind hunting. In their rhetoric, hunting is always framed as “plezierjacht” – “pleasure hunting” or a cruel hobby. They refuse to acknowledge that Dutch hunters are heavily licensed and regulated, working under strict seasons and quotas. For example, every year the government of the Netherlands pays out enormous sums (around €55 million annually) to farmers for crop damage caused by wildlife . Licensed hunters play a key role in controlling species like geese and wild boar to mitigate these damages and protect the landscape . Hunters don’t just wander out and blast animals for fun – they are often executing carefully planned wildlife management tasks. As Heidi Looy explained on NPO Radio, “Hunters don’t just shoot whatever for the heck of it. We manage the numbers to protect biodiversity.” Indeed, in a small densely populated country like the Netherlands (with 18 million people and very limited wild space), conservation through hunting is not just a slogan but a necessity. Without controlled culling, certain animal populations would boom out of control, causing mass crop loss, disease outbreaks, habitat collapse, and thousands of road collisions with deer and boar. “Niet beheren is creperen,” as Looy succinctly put it – “not managing is dying a slow death.” In other words, if humans don’t manage wildlife here, the wildlife (and human interests) suffer terribly.
The anti-hunting activists ignore all of this. They cling to a fantasy that nature will magically self-balance in our modern landscape, and that any hunting is just bloodlust. Their agenda is purely ideological, not grounded in ecology or reality. Animal Rights NL and groups like Fauna4Life or the Dutch Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) push for banning virtually all hunting, dismissing proven conservation science. Yet none of these activists will take responsibility for the consequences if they got their way – the 12,000+ deer that end up smashed on car bumpers each year , the waterfowl wasting away from avian botulism in overcrowded wetlands, or the farmers driven to ruin by uncontrollable wildlife damage. The activists don’t care; their mindset is absolutist. They would rather see animals die “naturally” (by starvation, disease, or highway) than have a single animal lawfully harvested by a hunter who might actually eat it or put it to use. It’s a perverse stance that they dress up as moral purity.
And yet, these same activists feel morally entitled to harass, threaten, and intimidate real people with families – the hunters, gamekeepers, and even wildlife biologists who disagree with them. They rail against “violence” toward animals, but unleash violence (physical or psychological) toward fellow humans without remorse. That is the definition of hypocrisy. When confronted, they double down and claim they are the victims – of police bias, of “criminal” hunters, of government conspiracy, you name it. It would almost be comical if it weren’t so destructive.
The Toll on Hunters and the Call for Accountability
For the Dutch hunting community, this situation is untenable. How much abuse are law-abiding hunters expected to take while the Dutch authorities turn a blind eye? Hunters have shown tremendous restraint in the face of relentless provocation. They’ve endured being spat on, having their hunts ruined, their personal information splashed online, and their loved ones frightened. They watch as anti-hunting activists enjoy near-total legal impunity – protected by permissive protest laws and, arguably, by sympathetic media coverage that often skews in favor of the “animal lovers” over the “cruel hunters.” It’s no surprise some hunters feel the system is deeply one-sided. As one Dutch hunting association member lamented, if a hunter so much as raises his voice at an activist, he risks losing his license, yet activists can stalk and scream at hunters all day with no consequences.
This imbalance cannot continue. Hunting in the Netherlands is–to date–a legal and legitimate activity, backed by the government’s own policies on wildlife management and conservation. Hunters have a right to carry out their work or recreation without being harassed and terrorized. Conversely, those who vehemently oppose hunting have every right to voice their opinion – but not to engage in criminal harassment. Free speech is not a license to spit on people or send them death threats. Demonstration rights do not extend to physically sabotaging lawful activities or endangering lives. It’s high time Dutch authorities draw a hard line and enforce the law equally. If an anti-hunter stalks or threatens someone, that should be treated no differently than if the roles were reversed.
Legislators should consider updating laws to specifically address hunter harassment, as has been done in some other countries. At the very least, police and prosecutors must start pursuing the clear crimes that have been committed – such as explicit death threats (a felony) and acts of vandalism/sabotage against hunting equipment. So far, it appears few if any perpetrators of these acts have been brought to justice. That lack of accountability only emboldens the extremists further.
The media and general public in the Netherlands also need to see through the one-sided narrative. Peaceful protest is one thing; organized stalking and harassment is another. By giving animal rights radicals a pass for too long, society has implicitly condoned their bullying of hunters. We must not tolerate activist mobs spitting on people, or chasing them with cameras, any more than we would tolerate such behavior against, say, farmers or researchers (who, incidentally, have also been harassed by similar extremists in the past). Harassment is harassment, no matter the supposed cause behind it. And hypocrisy is hypocrisy – the public should recognize that a movement which condones hatred and intimidation in the name of “compassion” deserves strong criticism.
Dutch anti-hunting activists have exploited legal protections to become de facto above the law, engaging in legal hunter harassment that would be unacceptable in any other context. It’s a twisted situation where those inflicting the abuse paint themselves as righteous, and the victims (the hunters) are portrayed as villains simply for being themselves. This anti-hunting extremism needs to be called out for what it is: fanaticism that undermines both the rule of law and sound wildlife management. Hunters, wildlife managers, and indeed moderate animal welfare advocates should demand an end to the near-impunity enjoyed by these harassers.
No one is saying protesters can’t voice their dissent – but when that dissent crosses the line into personal harassment, stalking, and endangerment, it ceases to be legitimate. It becomes thuggery under the banner of virtue. The hypocrisy and one-sided protection of Dutch anti-hunters must end. It’s time to restore some balance and ensure that those who pursue legal, sustainable hunting can do so without fearing for their safety or being treated as fair game for abuse. Conservation through hunting has a valuable role to play in the Netherlands; it should not be sabotaged by extremists who answer to no one. Until authorities find the backbone to hold these people accountable, Dutch hunters will continue to be harassed in the field, in the media, and even at home – a disgraceful reality that should outrage anyone who cares about fairness and the truth.
References
1. NRC Handelsblad – “Herrie als wapen tegen de jacht: ‘Niemand kan ons wat maken’” (7 Dec 2023). In-depth report on hunt saboteurs in NL. Quotes a saboteur: “Niemand kan ons wat maken” (“Nobody can do anything to us”) regarding their legal immunity . (Full article in Dutch). URL: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2023/12/07/niemand-kan-ons-wat-maken-a4183489
2. NPO Radio 1 – “Het jachtseizoen is begonnen: jagers worden met de dood bedreigd” (Radio segment, 17 Oct 2024). Covers opening of hunting season and threats to hunters. Features Heidi Looy’s story: activists boating behind her house to film and intimidate, Looy receiving a death threat . Also cites Animal Rights NL calling hunters “harteloos” (heartless) . URL: https://www.nporadio1.nl/nieuws/binnenland/645adbb5-d06b-4786-905e-4167483aec80/ (in Dutch)
3. Animal Rights NL – “Hunt Saboteurs leggen drijfjacht stil” (News release, 17 Dec 2017). Describes an Animal Rights hunt saboteur action in Hoeksche Waard. Boasts that a drive hunt was halted for an hour and hunters stood idle “precies zoals wij dat graag zien” . URL: https://www.animalrights.nl/hunt-saboteurs-leggen-drijfjacht-stil
4. Nederweert24 – “Gesaboteerde uitkijktoren kost jager bijna het leven” (16 Aug 2017). News report on a Limburg hunter (Mart Triepels) who was seriously injured in a fall after his high seat was sabotaged. Police suspect foul play by anti-hunting activists . Triepels: “Ik had mijn nek kunnen breken en dood kunnen zijn” (“I could have broken my neck and died”) . URL: https://www.nederweert24.nl/2017/08/16/gesaboteerde-uitkijktoren-kost-jager-bijna-leven/
5. Algemeen Dagblad (AD) – “Zwanenschietende jagers worden bedreigd” (11 Mar 2016). Article on serious threats made against hunters who legally culled invasive mute swans. Activists shouted slogans like “jagers moeten dood” (“hunters must die”) and “niet de dieren, maar de jagers [moeten] sterven” (“not the animals, but the hunters should die”) . Police opened an investigation into the death threats. URL: https://www.ad.nl/alphen/zwanenschietende-jagers-worden-bedreigd~aaaad902/ (Dutch)
6. Animal Rights NL – “Demonstratie Hoeksche Waard onterecht verboden” (News, 14 Jan 2020). Animal Rights protests a local mayor’s ban on their anti-hunt demonstrations. Jessica Smit complains: “Onze activisten werden zonder reden gecriminaliseerd” (“Our activists were criminalized for no reason”) and calls the ban “een grove schending van de grondrechten” (a gross violation of fundamental rights) . The ban was later overturned. URL: https://www.animalrights.nl/demonstratie-hoeksche-waard-onterecht-verboden
7. Animal Rights NL – “Succesvol jaar voor de Hunt Saboteurs van Animal Rights” (22 Dec 2022). Reflects on a year of hunt sabotage actions (focused on Flanders/Belgium, but principles apply). States: “Het saboteren van jachtpartijen… gebeurt – in tegenstelling tot wat sommigen beweren – op een legale en niet-agressieve manier.” (“Sabotaging hunts is done – contrary to what some claim – in a legal and non-aggressive way.”) Also mentions sabotaging hunts early (“ervoor kunnen zorgen dat een jachtpartij vroegtijdig werd beëindigd: missie geslaagd”). URL: https://www.animalrights.nl/succesvol-jaar-voor-de-hunt-saboteurs-van-animal-rights
8. De Telegraaf – “Jagers hekelen ‘spastisch’ natuurbeleid… ‘Elk jaar 12.000 reeën op bumper auto’” (7 Mar 2025). Article highlighting consequences of limiting wildlife management. Notes that “Elk jaar eindigen ten minste 12.000 reeën… op de bumper van een auto.” (“Each year at least 12,000 deer end up on the bumper of a car.”) This statistic underscores the need for hunting to prevent road accidents, which activists often overlook. URL: https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1521574420/ (Dutch, paywall)
9. Animal Rights NL – “Animal Rights huntsabs in het nieuws” (9 Nov 2024). Describes an October 2024 hunt sabotage action. Uses extreme language for hunters: “Deze ganzenmoordenaars waren net klaar met hun bloed’sport’” (“These goose murderers had just finished their blood ‘sport’ for the morning”) . Illustrates the derogatory, inflammatory terms activists use for hunters. URL: https://www.animalrights.nl/animal-rights-huntsabs-het-nieuws
10. AfricaHunting.com Forum – “Harassment From Anti Hunting Group” (post by user MarkH, 4 Apr 2025). A hunter recounts how an online activist group (“Xpose Trophy Hunters” on Twitter) took his photos and personal info without permission and incited thousands of people to send him abuse and threats . Example of online doxxing tactics used by anti-hunters. URL: https://www.africahunting.com/threads/harassment-from-anti-hunting-group.91419/
