Damage Caused by Wildlife; Report

"Game damage" refers to damage caused by wild animals to land used for agriculture, horticulture, and forestry.

The Federal Hunting Act, the Bavarian Hunting Act, and the implementing regulation issued thereunder, as well as the Civil Code, contain the legal basis for compensation for damage caused by wildlife (see “Legal Basis”).

According to Section 29(1) of the Federal Hunting Act (BJagdG), compensation for wildlife damage is required if

• the damage was caused by game species specified by law (hoofed game, wild rabbits, or pheasants) and
• the affected properties belong to a hunting district (Exception: There is no obligation to pay compensation if hunting is suspended on the land or is permanently prohibited, e.g., in wildlife sanctuaries.)

In principle, the hunting association is liable for compensation for game damage to properties that belong to a communal hunting district. However, the hunting association may transfer this liability to the hunting leaseholder in the hunting lease agreement and, if necessary, extend the leaseholder’s liability to include, for example, damage caused by other game species. The hunting association’s liability for compensation remains in effect, however, to the extent that the injured party cannot obtain compensation from the lessee (subsidiary liability).

If the right to hunt is leased in privately owned hunting districts, the hunting lessee’s liability for damages to the owner—who manages the land himself—is generally governed by the agreement reached between the person authorized to hunt and the owner. Unless otherwise specified, the hunting lessee is liable for damage caused by inadequate culling.

The liability for damages extends to damage caused by game, e.g., to

• standing crops (crops between sowing and harvest)
• harvested but not yet brought in crops
• browsing damage to young forest plants (browsing of terminal and lateral buds)
• root damage caused by wild boars turning over the forest soil and damage to fences caused by wild boars breaking through crop fences
• wild rabbits digging up plants and seeds and burrowing beneath the forest floor

The obligation to compensate for wildlife damage does not apply, for example, to vineyards, gardens, or forest plantations that are exposed to an increased risk due to the introduction of tree species other than the primary species found in the hunting district, if standard protective measures were not implemented.

Damage resulting from wildlife-related accidents—such as a vehicle collision with a wild animal—does not count as “wildlife damage” in the sense described above.

The party liable for compensation must restore the situation to the state it would have been in had the circumstance giving rise to the liability not occurred. In principle, damages must be compensated through restitution in kind (e.g., leveling mounds of earth on a meadow churned up by wild boars and reseeding the damaged areas). Instead of restitution in kind, the injured party may demand the monetary amount necessary for restoration. In addition to direct damage to the property, any consequential damages and lost profits are also eligible for compensation.

Competent Authorities

• Generally, municipalities
• For damage to unincorporated land:
  • if the property is part of a communal hunting ground, the municipality in which the communal hunting ground is located
  • otherwise, one of the adjacent municipalities

• The damage was caused by game species specified by law (hoofed game, wild rabbits, or pheasants).
• The affected properties are located within a hunting district. (Exception: There is no obligation to pay compensation if hunting is suspended on the land or is permanently prohibited, e.g., in wildlife sanctuaries.)

If the party liable for compensation and the injured party cannot reach an agreement on compensation for the damage, the injured party may not seek legal redress for the damage caused by wildlife until they have first reported it to the competent municipality (a so-called preliminary proceeding). The municipality will attempt to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties involved.

If an amicable settlement is reached, a written record is drawn up specifying, among other things, the party entitled to compensation, the party liable for compensation, and the amount of compensation.

If an amicable agreement is not reached, the municipality must, if it has not already done so, consult a wildlife damage appraiser, who will prepare a written report on the damage incurred. Based on the expert report, the municipality issues a written preliminary decision that identifies the person entitled to compensation, the party liable for compensation, and the amount of compensation, and includes a provision regarding who is to bear the costs.

The municipality shall reject late or manifestly unfounded applications for compensation for wildlife damage by means of a written notice of rejection.

The preliminary decision and the rejection notice may be reviewed by the ordinary courts (the competent local court) by means of a lawsuit.

The lawsuit must be filed within a mandatory four-week period following service of the decision.

The record of the amicable settlement becomes enforceable one week after service, and the preliminary decision becomes enforceable four weeks after service, unless a lawsuit is filed against them within the prescribed time limit.

The right to compensation for damage caused by wildlife expires if the entitled party fails to report the incident to the responsible municipality within one week after becoming aware of the damage or after would have become aware of it had due diligence been exercised.

In the case of damage to forested areas, it is sufficient to report the damage to the municipality twice a year, by May 1 or October 1. The report must identify the person from whom compensation is being sought.

• Written report of game damage or a statement taken on record by the relevant municipality