Why can you kill a snake but not a red deer?
In the early modern period, status, symbolism, and power relations determined which animals were protected and which were not. From the Science Editor
If a farmer killed a snake in the Veluwe region in 1650, you wouldn’t hear a word about it. But a red deer? Hunting it by farmers was forbidden and even punishable, sometimes with eye gouging. “How people interact with animalsâwhether they protect them, consider them important, and divide them into groupsâoften has to do with power and the meaning people assign to certain animals,” explains Jim van der Meulen. At the Huygens Institute, he researches how people and animals shared their space between 1350 and 1700, and how both influenced how it was used.
In his research, Van der Meulen focuses, among other things, on how legislation concerning animals in the early modern period influenced social relations between groups of people. The framework for studying this is called political ecology. “It’s about the mutual influence between humans and nature: how people use, manage, or harm nature, and how animals or natural conditions, in turn, influence social structures, legislation, and conflicts.” In Van der Meulen’s definition, animals are more than passive beings. They are active players who, through their behaviour or simply their presence in an area, influence laws, land use, and conflicts between people.
The law protects the animal, but not the farmer
The reason why animals can influence conflicts between people is evident, for example, from how people treat red deer in the area we now know as the Veluwe. Since the late fifteenth century, it has been legally forbidden to kill red deer unless you have permission to hunt them within the designated area. However, red deer can escape and cause damage to agricultural land outside these demarcated areas. “The hunting law stipulates that deer are protected, but meanwhile, they devour farmers’ fields. âThat creates tensions,â explains Van der Meulen. The law protects the animal, especially the privileged hunter, but not the farmer who suffers the burdens of the red deer. Not only do deer regularly breach their fences, but sometimes they are not fenced and move unhindered across invisible property lines. In this way, animals could influence social conflicts between groups of people in the early modern period.
A red deer is a prestigious animal
To understand why some animals were protected by law and others were not, it is important to look at the broader power structures of the time. Hunting game, particularly red deer, allowed the elite to display status in the Veluwe region. The red deer is considered a prestigious animal because of its graceful build, size, and impressive antlers. Moreover, the animal has a religious significance: in Christian saintly stories, such as that of Saint Hubertus, a red deer appears with a glowing cross between its antlers, which causes Hubertus to repent (See image 1). By associating themselves with this animal, members of the nobility emphasised their rank on the social ladder.
Detail of a red deer (St. Hubertus) on Portrait of an unknown woman, Jan Jansz Mostaert, ca. 1525.
The Veluwe was the exclusive hunting domain of the nobility
Hunting and power are closely linked, Van der Meulen explains: âOwning a vast hunting ground demonstrates wealth. Forests teeming with game emphasised high status and thus became a prestige project, a way to position oneself above farmers and commoners. Furthermore, the Veluwe wasn’t just a piece of ‘wilderness’ at that time, but a domain with a special status,â Van der Meulen explains. âIt was a hunting ground belonging to the Prince of Gelderland. Specific laws applied there, primarily aimed at protecting large game, such as red deer, so that the Prince and a handful of noble beneficiaries could use the area for hunting.â However, the area wasn’t always clearly enclosed (see image 2), Van der Meulen adds. âFences weren’t everywhere; sometimes there were ditches, sometimes there wasn’t anything at all. So it was quite common for a red deer to escape.â
The Rheder ferry on the IJssel opposite the Valeweerd, with a view of the Rheder Enk, the Rheder forest, the Wildbaan and Rheden, ca. 1690 (note the red deer behind the fence at the top right).,/em>
Unlawful killing of red deer sometimes carries severe penalties
The nobility benefits from legislation that protects red deer. Landlords and the central government issue strict hunting edicts for red deer. Edicts are laws that stipulate who, where, and when may hunt which animals. Usually, only the rural elite have this right. Ordinary citizens and farmers who hunt secretly (poachers) can be severely punished. “The penalties for killing red deer can be extreme, sometimes even including gouging out the eyes,” Van der Meulen explains. “Such a punishment serves as a deterrent, but it also exposes the social hierarchy. Anyone who hunts red deer without permission undermines the symbolic authority associated with the red deer and the nobility.”
Hunting red deer is harming those in power
The legal protection of red deer is not so much about care, but about the importance the elite attaches to the symbolism and control surrounding this specific animal and its habitat. Most other animals are not legally protected because they serve no status-enhancing function. Snakes, for example, are associated with evil, temptation, and danger. This negative image also has its roots in Christianity. Why a farmer in 1650 was not allowed to kill a red deer, but was allowed to kill a snake, therefore has to do with, among other things, the status and symbolic value ascribed to these animals. Animals function within the social system, and legislation makes that visible. Whoever harms an animal, harms power.
A contribution by Jim van der Meulen, “Early Modern Animals in the Netherlands,” will be published in Nieuwe Tijdingen on October 30, 2025.
