在非法狩猎罪等涉及保护动物的案件中，机械司法与客观归罪的现象非常严重，必须根据罪刑法定原则和罪过理论在主客观两个层面对犯罪进行限缩。客观上，非法狩猎罪所援引的前置法要进行必要的限缩，刑法上的禁用的工具、方法不能超越《野生动物保护法》所列举的类型。在实质上，非法狩猎罪是实害犯而非危险犯。无论是在禁猎区或者禁猎期单纯使用禁用的工具或者方法狩猎，都不能直接论以犯罪；非法狩猎罪和危害珍贵、濒危野生动物罪是互斥关系，并非竞合犯。在主观上，必须坚持罪过原则。非评价性错误是事实认识错误，评价性错误则是法律认识错误，前者属于构成要件的阻却事由，辩护人只需要承担合理怀疑的提出责任和说服责任；后者则属于责任阻却事由，辩护人需要承担优势证据的说服责任。总体而言，坚持道义责任论是机械司法与客观归罪的破局之道。

In cases involving the protection of animals, such as the crime of illegal hunting, the phenomenon of mechanical justice and objective culpability is very serious. So the crime must be limited on both subjective and objective levels according to the principle of statutory crime and punishment and the theory of guilt. Objectively, the prerequisite law invoked by the crime of illegal hunting needs to be narrowed down as necessary. The prohibited tools and methods in the criminal law cannot exceed the types listed in the Wildlife Protection Law. In essence, the crime of illegal hunting is a damage offense, not a potential damage crime. Whether it is simply using prohibited tools or methods for hunting, it cannot be directly regarded as a crime. The crime of illegal hunting and the crime of endangering precious and endangered wild animals are mutually exclusive, not co-operating. Subjectively, the theory of guilt must be adhered to. Non-evaluative errors are cognition errors of facts, while evaluative errors are cognitional error in law. The former belongs to the negative reason of the constitutive elements, and the defender only needs to bear the responsibility of raising and persuading with reasonable doubts, while the latter belongs to the negative reason of responsibility, and the defender needs to bear the responsibility. The claim of preponderance of evidence is responsible. Adhering to the theory of moral responsibility is the way to break the situation between mechanical justice and objective incrimination.