Why Hunting Accident Figures Across Europe Cannot Be Compared

A comparison published by Le Chasseur Français brings together data from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Finland to highlight differences in hunting accident statistics. Its main conclusion is relevant: without a common definition of an accident, the same reporting period and a consistent denominator, raw figures cannot establish which country is safer.

A review of the responsible authorities confirms the need for caution. The French Office for Biodiversity —OFB— limits its figures to bodily injuries caused by the use of a hunting weapon. Germany’s agricultural social insurance body, by contrast, includes a broader range of accidents associated with the activity, including incidents on tracks or at hunting stands.

France: 92 firearm-related injury accidents

The official OFB report records 92 accidents and 92 victims during the 2025-2026 season. Of these, 4 were fatal, 57 serious and 31 minor. The authority expressly defines a hunting accident as a bodily injury caused by the use of a hunting weapon.

That definition therefore excludes incidents in which no weapon was involved, although these may appear in other European records. The French report also states that 89% of the victims were hunters and that accidents have fallen by 49% compared with 2006, although they have remained stable over the past six seasons.

The document also provides useful information for guiding prevention efforts. 66% of accidents occurred during big-game hunting, and failure to observe the 30-degree safety angle remained the leading cause in these forms of hunting. The OFB attributes 92% of the big-game hunting accidents analysed to human error.

Germany’s 460 cases measure a different reality

The SVLFG, Germany’s social insurance body for the agricultural, forestry and horticultural sectors, reported 460 hunting-related accidents in 2025 and no fatalities. However, the institution itself notes that incidents occur mainly on unpaved tracks, at hunting stands and during their maintenance.

Its statistics also cover reportable occupational accidents resulting in more than three days of incapacity for work, as well as fatal accidents. Directly comparing those 460 cases with France’s 92 would therefore mix a broad occupational safety record with one focused on firearm injuries.

This methodological difference also prevents reliable rates from being calculated by dividing each figure by the number of licences. It would first be necessary to clarify which population each system covers, whether all hunters are insured in the same way and whether calendar years or hunting seasons are used.

Spain does not provide the same indicator either

In Spain, the MITECO Annual Hunting Statistics compile information on licences, hunting land and hunting activity supplied by the autonomous communities. The source notes that these administrations are responsible for issuing licences. The public documentation reviewed does not include an annual national accident series based on the definition used by the OFB.

Nor does the number of licences necessarily correspond to the number of people who hunt. The same holder may have permits in several autonomous communities, so using the administrative total as the denominator could count hunters more than once and artificially lower a rate.

Finland highlights another denominator problem

The Natural Resources Institute Finland reports that 301,963 people paid the wildlife management fee in 2024, but estimates that only around 196,000 actually hunted. Even before examining accidents, choosing one figure or the other significantly changes any rate per hunter.

Italy and Finland complete the comparison published by the French outlet, but their accident figures still need to be checked against official data series explaining the reporting period, coverage and exclusions. Based on the verified documentation, only one conclusion can be supported: Europe has no single benchmark in this area, and rankings built from raw figures may describe statistical differences more accurately than the actual safety of hunting.