Cantonal Popular Initiative – Canton of Graubünden

«For Professional Wildlife Protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of a detailed draft

Based on Art. 12 of the Constitution of the Canton of Graubünden of 18 May 2003 and on the Law on Political Rights in the Canton of Graubünden

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Initiative Text

The undersigned persons eligible to vote in the Canton of Graubünden submit the following constitutional initiative:

The Constitution of the Canton of Graubünden of 18 May 2003 shall be supplemented with the following articles:

Art. [new] Professional Wildlife Protection

1 The practice of hunting by private individuals (licence hunting, recreational hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Canton of Graubünden.

2 The protection, care and, where necessary, regulation of wild animals shall be the exclusive responsibility of professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the Canton.

3 The killing of wild animals is permissible only as a last resort, when all other suitable measures for damage prevention or hazard mitigation have been exhausted or proven insufficient. It requires prior approval from the Wildlife Commission.

4 The Canton shall establish an independent Wildlife Commission composed of representatives from animal and nature conservation organisations, the scientific community, and the relevant authorities. The Commission shall oversee wildlife management and decide on regulatory measures.

5 The Canton shall promote the natural regulation of wildlife populations, the connectivity of habitats, and the coexistence of humans and wildlife.

6 The details shall be regulated by law.

Art. [new] Protection of Endangered and Protected Wildlife Species

1 The Canton shall refrain from submitting requests for the preventive population regulation of protected wildlife species under the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds, in particular of wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden jackal, golden eagle, common merganser, and other species protected under federal law.

2 It shall focus on promoting the coexistence of humans and wildlife, passive damage prevention, the ecological enhancement of habitats, and the scientific monitoring of wildlife presence.

3 Measures against individual wild animals that pose an immediate and significant threat to humans remain reserved. Such measures must be limited to the absolute minimum and carried out by the competent cantonal authority.

4 The canton actively advocates for the protection and conservation of endangered wildlife species within the framework of intercantonal cooperation and vis-à-vis the federal government.

Transitional Provision

1 The government shall enact the necessary implementing provisions within two years of the adoption of this constitutional amendment.

2 Existing hunting licenses shall expire upon the entry into force of the implementing provisions. Patent fees already paid for the current hunting season shall be reimbursed on a pro-rata basis.

3 The government shall ensure the continuity of wildlife management during the transitional phase.

Explanatory Notes

1. Background

In the Canton of Graubünden, the largest canton in Switzerland by area with approximately 200’000 inhabitants across 7’105 km², today's hobby hunting is a system that serves neither species conservation nor contemporary wildlife management. It is the practice of a bloody recreational pastime at the expense of sentient beings, legitimized by outdated narratives that do not withstand scientific scrutiny. The claim that ecological balance would collapse without hobby hunting has been empirically refuted for over 50 years by the Geneva model (cf. the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban at wildbeimwild.com).

Hobby hunting in Graubünden is organized as a patent hunting system. The Graubünden high hunt and the Graubünden low hunt are deeply rooted in cantonal culture. Yet cultural tradition does not legitimize animal cruelty. Private individuals obtain a cantonal patent and hunt without fixed district responsibility (cf. the psychology of hobby hunting in the Canton of Graubünden as well as the critical analysis of hunting education at wildbeimwild.com).

Graubünden is the canton where the return of predators to Switzerland began: in 2012, the first wolf pack of modern Switzerland was confirmed on the Calanda above Chur. Since then, additional packs have established themselves. Bear M13 was shot in Graubünden in 2013. The lynx has been native to the region for decades. The golden eagle breeds throughout the canton. The bearded vulture is present in the Engadin. With the Swiss National Park in the Engadin, Graubünden is home to the oldest and largest protected area in Switzerland, where no hunting has taken place for over 100 years (cf. the analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com and the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The Canton of Graubünden has the opportunity to send a clear signal here: not only for professional wildlife management instead of hobby hunting, but also for the consistent protection of endangered wildlife species at the cantonal level. As the largest canton in Switzerland, this signal would have an impact that could shift the entire national debate.

2. The Model: Canton of Geneva

On May 19, 1974, roughly two-thirds of voters in the Canton of Geneva voted to abolish militia-based hobby hunting. Before the ban, large game in the canton had been virtually eradicated. Around 300 hobby hunters were massively releasing pheasants, partridges, and hares for recreational hunting.

The results since the hobby hunting ban are unequivocal:

– Biodiversity has increased markedly. The number of wintering waterbirds has multiplied from a few hundred to approximately 30’000. Geneva today harbors the largest brown hare population and one of the last grey partridge populations in Switzerland.

– The roe deer population has stabilized at a healthy level, with an annual special cull by professional game wardens of merely 20 to 36 animals.

– In 2005, 90 percent of Geneva's voters supported the retention of the hobby hunting ban. In 2009, a motion to reintroduce hunting was rejected by a vote of 70 to 7.

– Total costs amount to approximately 1.2 million francs annually: around 600’000 francs for personnel, 250’000 francs for prevention, and 350’000 francs for damage compensation. This corresponds to roughly 2.40 francs per resident per year.

Geneva's fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker describes the hobby hunting ban as the most cost-effective alternative. A detailed account can be found in the dossier «Geneva and the Hunting Ban» on wildbeimwild.com.

The efficiency of the Geneva model is evident in a direct comparison: A professional game warden in Geneva requires, on average, for a sanitary cull of a wild boar 8 hours and a maximum of 2 cartridges. A hobby hunter in the Canton of Zurich requires 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 cartridges. The European hare density in Geneva is 17.7 animals per 100 hectares (the highest in Switzerland), while in the Canton of Zurich it is only 1.0 per 100 hectares (cf. Fact Check Zurich Cantonal Government).

With the Swiss National Park, Graubünden has had its own reference example since 1914: No hunting has taken place in the National Park for over 100 years. Wildlife populations regulate themselves autonomously. The National Park proves that natural self-regulation works even in high-alpine environments (cf. wildbeimwild.com on National Parks and Protected Areas).

3. The Concept: Professional Wildlife Wardens Instead of Hobby Hunting

The initiative does not replace hobby hunting with a vacuum, but with professional wildlife management based on the game warden model. This model is founded on the following principles:

Professional expertise instead of recreational amusement. Professional wildlife managers act on a scientific basis (cf. the critical analysis of hunting education on wildbeimwild.com).

Ultima ratio principle. A cull is only permissible when all non-lethal measures have been exhausted.

Democratic oversight through a wildlife commission. The independent commission prevents political pressure from diluting wildlife management.

Natural self-regulation as a guiding principle. The Swiss National Park has proven for over 100 years: Wildlife populations regulate themselves autonomously in high-alpine environments. The experience from Geneva, from National Parks and from numerous scientific studies confirms this principle.

4. Why Graubünden?

The Canton of Graubünden is suited for the introduction of professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

Largest canton in Switzerland. At 7’105 km², Graubünden is the largest canton in Switzerland by area. A success here would transform the entire national debate. If professional wildlife management works in Graubünden, it works everywhere.

Swiss National Park: 100 Years of Proof. The Swiss National Park in the Engadin has demonstrated since 1914 that wildlife populations in high mountain environments regulate themselves without recreational hunting. The National Park is Graubünden's own Geneva Model. No other canton has such a strong internal reference example (cf. wildbeimwild.com on national parks and protected areas). In the Swiss National Park in the Engadin, no hunting has taken place since 1914 — for over 100 years. The chamois population has remained constant at around 1’350 animals since 1920. The fox is not hunted, prey species have not been eradicated, and biodiversity has doubled. At the same time, the figures from the cantonal hunting administration document the damage caused by recreational hunting in the rest of the canton: between 2012 and 2016, over 1’000 citations and fines were issued annually against hobby hunters. In 2015, game wardens had to conduct 1’232 follow-up searches, with a success rate of only 57 percent. Over five years, approximately 3’836 animals were merely wounded by gunfire (cf. Dossier Hunting Accidents).

Calanda wolf pack: Cradle of Swiss wolf packs. On the Calanda above Chur, the first wolf pack of modern Switzerland was confirmed in 2012. Graubünden is the cradle of the wolf's return. The initiative offers a constitutional response: professional wildlife management instead of politically motivated culling (cf. the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

Bear in Graubünden. Graubünden is the only canton where bears have been regularly documented (bear M13 was shot in 2013). The “in particular” wording in the second article protects the bear upon its return (cf. wildbeimwild.com on predators).

Trilingualism. Graubünden is the only trilingual canton in Switzerland (German, Romansh, Italian). The initiative must be communicated in three languages.

4’000 signatures. With 200’000 inhabitants, 4’000 signatures represent 2.00 percent of the population. Signatures can be collected in Chur, Davos, St. Moritz, Ilanz, Landquart, and Thusis (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in urban areas).

Patent hunting system = simpler system change. No lease contracts, no municipal compensation.

Tourism canton. Davos, St. Moritz, Lenzerheide, Arosa, Flims/Laax: Graubünden is one of Switzerland's most important tourism cantons. Professional wildlife protection and coexistence with predators are an argument for sustainable tourism.

5. On the initiative text

Paragraph 1 – Ban on recreational hunting

The ban on patent hunting by private individuals corresponds to the Geneva model. Cantonal authority is undisputed: Art. 3 para. 1 JSG. The three hunting systems are equivalent. Geneva has been in compliance with federal law since 1974. The Graubünden high hunt and the Graubünden low hunt are cultural traditions, but cultural tradition legitimizes neither animal cruelty nor an ecologically outdated system.

Paragraph 2 – Professional Wildlife Management

Instead of hobby hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the cantonal service assume all responsibilities. In Geneva, this system has proven effective for over 50 years. In the Swiss National Park for over 100 years.

Paragraph 3 – Lethal Removal as Ultima Ratio

A lethal removal is the exception, not the rule. Passive measures take priority.

Paragraph 4 – Wildlife Commission

The independent wildlife commission is modeled after the Geneva system. It prevents the government from independently authorizing exceptions. The killings of bear M13 and numerous wolves demonstrate how quickly political pressure leads to kill orders (cf. wildbeimwild.com/jagd-fakten).

Paragraph 5 – Natural Regulation and Coexistence

The promotion of coexistence in Graubünden encompasses in particular the extension of the National Park principle to the entire canton, the connectivity of alpine habitats, professional herd protection, and the education of the public and tourists (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in residential areas).

Transitional Provisions

The two-year deadline gives the government sufficient time. The existing Office for Hunting and Fishing (AJF) can serve as an institutional foundation. The AJF already employs professional game wardens.

6. On the Second Article: Protection of Endangered and Protected Wildlife Species

The second article is of the highest relevance for Graubünden. The Calanda wolf pack was the first in modern Switzerland in 2012. Bear M13 was shot in 2013. The lynx is native. The golden eagle and the bearded vulture breed in the canton. Graubünden hosts the Swiss National Park. The “in particular” formulation also protects future returnees, especially the bear and the otter (cf. the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

7. Cost Implications: Concrete Budget for Graubünden

The Geneva Reference Budget

In Geneva, total costs amount to approximately 1.2 million francs annually.

Conservative Projection for Graubünden

For Graubünden, with an area of 7’105 km² and approximately 200’000 inhabitants, the following deliberately conservative cost estimate applies. It calculates generously and takes into account alpine supplementary costs, the red deer problem, and the establishment of livestock protection:

Personnel costs: 1’800’000 to 2’800’000 francs annually. 15 to 20 full-time positions are required. Graubünden is twenty-five times larger than Geneva and topographically extremely demanding: high mountains, remote side valleys, extensive alpine farming. The existing Office for Hunting and Fishing (AJF) already employs professional game wardens, whose positions can partly be reassigned. The higher number of positions accounts for the transitional red deer management.

Material costs: 400’000 to 700’000 francs annually. In high mountain areas, material costs are higher than in the lowlands: off-road vehicles, alpine equipment, livestock protection materials, monitoring infrastructure (camera traps, GPS transmitters, drones), structural protective measures, and public outreach in three languages.

Damage compensation: 300’000 to 600’000 francs annually. Primarily wolf predation damage to livestock, browsing damage in protective forests, and potential bear damage. The higher estimate accounts for wolf presence throughout the entire canton.

Livestock protection start-up investment: 800’000 to 1’500’000 francs. In the first three to five years after the system change, a one-time start-up investment in livestock protection infrastructure is needed for the entire Graubünden alpine area: livestock guardian dog programs, mobile fences, night enclosures, training of herders. This investment is non-recurring and will be amortized over three to five years.

Total costs: 2’500’000 to 4’100’000 francs annually (gross). This corresponds to approximately 12.50 to 20.50 francs per inhabitant per year.

Red deer transitional management

Graubünden has the largest red deer populations in Switzerland. Despite thousands of hobby hunters and annual high hunts, the populations are not being sustainably reduced – on the contrary: recreational hunting produces more births through compensatory reproduction than the number of animals it removes. The scientific literature clearly documents this effect: high hunting pressure leads to earlier sexual maturity, larger litters, and higher survival rates among young animals. After the system change, a targeted transitional red deer management program by professional specialists will be needed for the first three to five years, regulating the population in a science-based and selective manner – not broadly and seasonally as recreational hunting does. The higher staffing numbers account for this transitional management. The Swiss National Park has demonstrated for over 100 years that wildlife populations can regulate themselves even in high mountain environments without hobby hunters. Professional wildlife management will extend this principle to the entire canton (cf. Studies on wildbeimwild.com).

Savings and counter-financing

Substantial savings offset these costs: no hunting examinations, no license administration for thousands of permits (Graubünden has one of the largest recreational hunter populations in Switzerland), no culling plans, no hunting supervision. On top of this come the enormous costs of wolf culls: a single senselessly killed wolf costs the public approximately 35,000 francs (helicopter operations, coordination, legal proceedings). With dozens of culls per year, this adds up to hundreds of thousands.

Loss of revenue

With the abolition of hobby hunting, license fees estimated at 4 to 5 million francs annually would be eliminated. However, these must be weighed against the never-accounted-for external costs of militia hunting — wildlife-vehicle collisions, hunting-induced browsing damage in protective forests, administrative overhead, police and court deployments — which amount to a multiple of these revenues. In the Canton of Geneva, these revenues have been foregone since 1974 — without any financial problems: before the hunting ban, over 400 hobby hunters were active; today, three full-time positions do the same work more effectively. Sanitary and therapeutic culling by professional game wardens is not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters' folklore or the hobby hunters' misunderstood notion of “nature experience.” A full-cost analysis shows: militia hunting costs the taxpayer significantly more than it generates (cf. “What hobby hunting really costs Switzerland” on wildbeimwild.com).

Hobby hunters in politics vote against nature conservation. The hobby hunting lobby systematically fights biodiversity and species protection concerns. In 2024, it fought the biodiversity initiative (63 percent No). In 2020, the hunting law it helped shape was rejected at the ballot box (51.9 percent No). In 2016, the Ticino hunters' association torpedoed the Parc Adula National Park. During the 2015–2019 legislative period, hobby hunters in parliament voted predominantly against environmental concerns. Anyone who claims hobby hunters are conservationists is ignoring their voting record (cf. Ticino Hunters' Association: 30 Years of Nonsense and Cost Dossier).

The net additional costs are likely to be 1’500’000 to 3’000’000 francs annually, which corresponds to approximately 7.50 to 15.00 francs per resident. In an extremely large, alpine canton with only 200’000 inhabitants, the per-capita costs are naturally higher than in more densely populated cantons. But even with generous calculations: this amounts to less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget of approximately 2.8 billion francs (State Accounts 2024, FFA). Or put differently: less than one coffee per person per year — for professional wildlife protection in the largest canton in Switzerland (cf. Hunting Myths Fact-Check on wildbeimwild.com).

8. Compatibility with Overriding Law

First Article: Abolition of Hobby Hunting

Compliant with federal law. Art. 3 Para. 1 HuntA. Three equivalent hunting systems. Geneva unchallenged since 1974.

Second Article: Protection of Protected Species

Art. 7a HuntA enables preventive regulation but does not mandate it. Foregoing such regulation violates neither federal law nor the Bern Convention.

Unity of subject matter

Preserved, as all provisions relate to cantonal wildlife management and the protection of wild animals.

9. Anticipation of foreseeable objections

«Grisons is twenty-five times larger than Geneva – the Geneva model does not work here»

The facts: Grisons has its own reference example in the Swiss National Park: no hobby hunting for over 100 years, stable wildlife populations. What works in the National Park also works outside it. Settlement is concentrated in the valleys. The vast majority of the area is high alpine terrain without permanent settlement. The absolute costs (CHF 1,500,000 to 3,000,000) amount to less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget (cf. the Psychology of hobby hunting in the Canton of Grisons).

Key message: «The Swiss National Park has proven it for 100 years: no hobby hunting, stable populations. What works in the National Park also works outside it.»

«Hunting in Grisons is tradition»

The facts: Tradition does not legitimise animal cruelty. Bullfighting in Spain is also tradition. The question is not whether something is traditional, but whether it is ecologically and ethically justifiable. The Swiss National Park has a longer tradition than the Grisons patent hunt in its current form and proves that wildlife management works without hobby hunting.

Key message: «Tradition does not legitimise animal cruelty. The National Park has a longer tradition and proves: it works without hunting.»

«The costs are too high»

The facts: Even with a generous, conservative estimate: CHF 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 in absolute terms. Less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget of approximately CHF 2.8 billion (2024 state accounts, FFA). Less than one coffee per person per year. The savings from eliminating patent administration and wolf culls are considerable.

Key message: «Less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget. Less than one coffee per person per year.»

10. Summary

This initiative gives the people of Graubünden the opportunity to speak out in favor of modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wildlife species. The first article follows the Geneva Model, which has proven successful for over 50 years, and the national park principle, which has proven successful for over 100 years. The second article specifically protects the wolf (Calanda), the bear, the lynx, the golden eagle, and the bearded vulture. As the largest canton in Switzerland and the cradle of Swiss wolf packs, a success in Graubünden would send a national signal that would transform the entire debate.

Initiative Committee «For Professional Wildlife Protection»

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members in accordance with cantonal law, domiciled in the Canton of Graubünden)

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Supplementary Documentation

The Geneva Model in detail: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/genf-und-das-jagdverbot

Scientific studies: wildbeimwild.com/studien

Hunting in Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com/jagd-in-der-schweiz

Psychology of hobby hunting in the Canton of Graubünden: wildbeimwild.com – Psychology of hobby hunting in the Canton of GR

Psychology of hobby hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd

National parks and protected areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/nationalpark

Wildlife in urban areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere-im-siedlungsgebiet

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen

Cantonal popular initiative Basel-Stadt: Model text of the initiative in the Canton of Basel-Stadt

Note on procedure

The initiative committee submits the initiative text to the Chancellery of the Canton of Graubünden for preliminary review before the signature collection begins. A total of 4’000 valid signatures are required for the initiative to be accepted. The collection period is 1 year from official publication in the cantonal gazette. The submission procedures are governed by the law on political rights in the Canton of Graubünden.

Strategic Briefing for Activists

Popular Initiative «For Professional Wildlife Protection» – Canton of Graubünden Internal working document – As of March 2026

Summary

Graubünden is the largest canton in Switzerland and the birthplace of Swiss wolf packs (Calanda 2012). No other canton has such a powerful reference example of its own: The Swiss National Park has proven for over 100 years that natural self-regulation works in high mountain environments. 4,000 signatures from a population of 200,000 are achievable. The absolute costs (800,000–1,800,000 francs) amount to less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget. A success here would transform the entire national debate.

1. Why Graubünden specifically?

Largest canton. 7,105 km². National signal effect.

Swiss National Park. 100 years of proof: No hobby hunting, stable populations.

Calanda wolf pack. Birthplace of Swiss wolf packs (2012).

Bear. The only canton with confirmed bear presence. Bear M13 shot in 2013.

4,000 signatures. 2.00 percent. Achievable.

Patent hunting system = simpler system change. No lease contracts.

2. Lessons from Zurich: What we are doing differently

Positive title. «For professional wildlife protection.»

National Park as Graubünden's own reference. Instead of merely referencing Geneva, GR points to its own National Park: 100 years of proof in high mountain terrain.

Absolute costs. 800,000–1,800,000 francs. Less than 0.1 percent of the cantonal budget.

Proactively disarming the tradition argument. «The National Park has a longer tradition than the patent hunting system in its current form.»

3. Particular challenges

Hunting culture. Hunting in Graubünden is deeply rooted culturally. The campaign must rely on facts and the National Park argument.

Trilingualism. Materials in German, Romansh, and Italian.

Large area, sparse population. Concentrate signature collection on the towns and cities (Chur, Davos, St. Moritz).

4. Opponent analysis and prepared responses

Counter-argument 1: «Graubünden is too large»

Concise communication formula: «The National Park has proven it for 100 years: No hobby hunting, stable populations. What works in the National Park also works outside of it.»

Counter-argument 2: «Hunting in Graubünden is tradition»

Concise communication formula: «Tradition does not legitimize animal cruelty. The National Park has a longer tradition.»

Counter-argument 3: «The costs are too high»

Concise communication formula: «Less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget. Less than one coffee per person per year.»

5. Communication strategy: The three core messages

«The National Park has proven it for 100 years.» The strongest argument from Graubünden.

“Geneva has been leading the way for 50 years.” 90 percent approval.

“Professional instead of hobby.” Trained professionals instead of recreational shooters.

6. Timeline and next steps

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & preliminary text review	Engage legal counsel; committee members residing in GR from all three language regions	Month 1–4
Submission for preliminary review	Cantonal Chancellery of Graubünden	Month 4–5
Publication & signature collection launch	Target: 5’000+ signatures as a buffer	Month 5
Party contacts & coalition building	SP, Greens, GLP; Pro Natura GR; BirdLife GR; WWF GR; National Park Association	Month 1–12
Submission of signatures	Cantonal Chancellery, official verification	After collection deadline
Grand Council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media work	Subsequent months
Referendum campaign	Proactively counter the National Park argument, Calanda wolf, and tradition narratives	Before vote

7. Campaign materials

The Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as the central compendium of arguments.
The Psychology of hobby hunting in the Canton of Graubünden as background material.
Local media: Südostschweiz, Bündner Zeitung, Engadiner Post, La Quotidiana, Tele Südostschweiz.
Infographic: Swiss National Park as a guiding motif (“100 years without hobby hunting”). Calanda wolf. Cost comparison GR vs. GE.
Trilingual materials (DE/RM/IT) for the respective regions.

8. Further sources

This document is a model text by IG Wild beim Wild. It may be freely used by activists, organisations, or initiative committees and adapted to the conditions in the Canton of Graubünden.

Fact-check: The claims of the hobby hunting lobby

The brochure “Hunting in Switzerland protects and benefits” by JagdSchweiz reads like a promotional pamphlet – yet its central claims do not withstand a fact-check. Ten narratives put to the test, from “state mandate” to “biodiversity” to “80% approval”: Dossier: Fact-check of the JagdSchweiz brochure →