HUNTING and FISHING (auccipium, venatio, piscatio). These are arts of acquiring wild game and aquatic animals which, living in their native freedom and therefore ownerless, can become the object of occupation (v.). Hunting and fishing may be regarded simply as a healthy and exciting pastime open to all, subject to special restrictive laws enacted in the interest of the public good (in this respect, V. DIVERTIMENTI). Here they are considered exclusively as a means of exercising man’s native right to acquire material goods, and as such of interest both to morality and to law.
Objectively, hunting and fishing express a natural right of man, ordinarily regulated in various civil laws, directed toward the acquisition of ownership over animals, fish, or game that are naturally free. Subjectively,
they consist in the faculty of pursuing and capturing such animals, which, living in their natural freedom and beyond human control, are considered as belonging to no one (res nullius). This faculty, granted by natural law, which placed inferior creatures at man’s service, constituted one of the earliest forms of sustenance for man, especially if nomadic (Gen. 9:3; 27:3-4), and was among the themes of legislation when, having attained higher forms of civilized life, man organized his social life more effectively, including juridically. For general concepts on the subject, V. occupazione.
I. CIVIL LAWS IN GENERAL AND ITALIAN LEGISLATION IN PARTICULAR
Civil laws ordinarily restrict, while regulating, the right of hunting and fishing, primarily in view of the interest that wild and aquatic resources hold for the entire community. Such restrictions usually pertain to time and sometimes also to place, and to the instruments used.Italian legislation (Civil Code, arts. 842, 924-26; Royal Decree No. 1016 of June 5, 1939, for fishing; Royal Decree No. 1604 of Oct. 8, 1931, and Royal Decree-Law No. 1183 of Apr. 11, 1938, for hunting) is concerned, among other things, with harmonizing hunting and fishing with the rights of third parties, to avoid damage to private property as well as to the national ichthyological and zoological heritage through destructive catches and killings. Thus: 1) resident game (called “first nobility”) is distinguished from harmful game, and young fish from mature ones; 2) the exercise of these activities is made subject to the granting of a license by the competent authorities; 3) means or weapons likely to lead to destruction rather than capture are excluded, as is the use of dogs and decoy birds; 4) hunting and fishing are prohibited in certain zones or reserved exclusively to those who hold such rights (game preserves and reserves), as well as for certain species of game (swallows); 5) the exercise of these activities is limited to times when they do not cause damage to ongoing agricultural crops or to the game itself; 6) the right to compensation for damages suffered is established. However, the owner of a piece of land cannot prevent others from entering to hunt, unless the land is properly fenced or during times when crops are vulnerable to damage; the owner of private waters, on the other hand, has exclusive rights to fishing in those waters (Civil Code, art. 842). In open terrain, game belongs to whoever kills or captures it; moreover, it belongs to the hunter who has flushed it out until he abandons the pursuit, and wounded game to the one who wounded it (Royal Decree of June 5, 1939, art. 2).
Swarms of bees that migrate may be pursued even onto another’s land by the owner, provided he compensates for any damage caused; he may take and keep possession of them if the owner has ceased to pursue them for two days. The owner of tame animals that have escaped has the same right; only if the owner does not reclaim them within twenty days of learning their whereabouts do they belong to whoever has taken possession of them. Rabbits, fish, and non-migratory pigeons that move from one rabbitry, fishery, or dovecote to another, provided they have not been lured there by artifice or fraud, immediately become the property of the owner of the rabbitry, etc., where they have taken refuge (Civil Code, arts. 924-26). Concealment to prevent the owner from learning their whereabouts impairs the good faith of the one who has taken possession of them. Each year, the administrative authority sets the season and conditions for hunting the various species of game (Hunting Calendar).
II. ETHICAL VALUE OF LAWS ON HUNTING AND FISHING
Among moralists, there is lively debate over the ethical value of legal provisions in this area. It is beyond dispute that when a judicial intervention has occurred to settle any disputes in accordance with civil law, a duty arises in conscience to respect the assignment of ownership of the game or its confiscation, the determination of damages to be compensated, or any penalties imposed. This is due to a general principle, for otherwise public order would be gravely compromised.However, apart from this concrete determination, the binding nature in conscience of hunting and fishing laws is much debated. In practice, according to the most equitable position:
1) Laws that directly protect the reproduction and maintenance of species (for Italy, cf. Consolidated Law, arts. 12, 38, 43) bind in conscience, for it is understood by all that such a heritage must not be extinguished.
2) Laws that prohibit hunting in places where its exercise could cause real damage to crops or property also bind in conscience (for Italy, cf. Consolidated Law, arts. 30).
3) Laws that assign ownership of game to the first occupier and determine compensation for damages, being specifications of natural law, must be considered binding in conscience. All other laws that merely regulate the exercise of hunting and fishing (licensing, prohibition of certain weapons, exclusive grants, time limits for reclaiming escaped bees or wild animals) are generally regarded as merely penal in nature. However:
a) the hunting of wild animals in enclosed areas;
b) the use of fraud to lure rabbits, pigeons, or fish into one’s own rabbitry, etc.;
c) resistance to wardens, attempts to bribe them, etc.,
are considered to be governed by strictly moral laws.
4) In the case of reserved hunting or fishing, it must be considered whether a kind of monopoly or privilege is involved (in which case the restriction is merely penal) or a true lease (and then the prohibition binds in conscience along with the obligation to make reparations). In the overall evaluation of all these norms, the judgment given locally by common opinion may also carry weight.
In the field of canon law (can. 138): clerics are strictly forbidden from participating in so-called "clamorous" hunting (i.e., hunting done by many people with a great display of weapons and dogs); however, "quiet" hunting (done alone or by a few) is not forbidden unless it leads to excesses or other inconveniences in one's ministry. Participating once or twice in clamorous hunting is not considered gravely forbidden, provided there is no scandal; whereas the bishop cannot forbid quiet hunting unless it exceeds the bounds of discretion or is detrimental to the care of souls.