Cantonal Popular Initiative – Canton Schaffhausen

«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of an elaborated draft

Based on Art. 27 of the Constitution of Canton Schaffhausen of June 17, 2002 and on the Law on Political Rights

Submitted by the initiative committee [Date of submission]

Initiative text

The undersigned persons entitled to vote in Canton Schaffhausen submit the following constitutional initiative:

The Constitution of Canton Schaffhausen of June 17, 2002 shall be supplemented by the following articles:

Art. [new] Professional wildlife protection

1 The practice of hunting by private persons (district hunting, recreational hunting) is prohibited throughout the territory of Canton Schaffhausen. Existing hunting lease contracts between municipalities and hunting societies will not be renewed.

2 The protection, care and, where necessary, regulation of wild animals shall be the exclusive responsibility of professionally trained wildlife managers in the service of the canton.

3 The culling of wild animals is only permitted as a last resort when all other suitable measures for damage prevention or danger prevention have been exhausted or are 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 protection organizations, science and the relevant authorities. The commission supervises wildlife management and decides on regulatory measures.

5 The canton promotes the natural regulation of wildlife populations, the networking of habitats and the coexistence of humans and wildlife.

6 The canton compensates the municipalities for the loss of hunting lease revenues within the framework of implementing legislation.

7 Details are regulated by law.

Art. [new] Protection of endangered and protected wildlife species

1 The canton refrains from applications for preventive population regulation of protected wildlife species under the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds, particularly of wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden jackal, golden eagle, goosander and other species protected under federal law.

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

3 Measures against individual wild animals that pose an immediate and significant threat to humans remain reserved. They must be limited to the minimum and carried out by the competent specialist office of the canton.

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 Confederation.

Transitional provision

1 The Government Council shall issue the necessary implementing provisions within two years of the adoption of this constitutional amendment.

2 Existing hunting lease contracts shall expire with the next regular contract renewal, but at the latest within five years of the implementing legislation coming into force.

3 The Government Council ensures the continuity of wildlife management during the transitional phase and regulates compensation to municipalities for lost hunting lease revenues.

Explanations

1. Initial situation

The Canton of Schaffhausen comprises 298 km² and around 85,000 inhabitants. As the northernmost canton of Switzerland, it lies almost entirely on the right side of the High Rhine, surrounded on three sides by German territory. Around 43 percent of the cantonal area consists of forest and around 40 percent of agricultural land. The Randen, an extension of the Jura, forms the largest contiguous forest area of the canton.

Recreational hunting in Schaffhausen is organized as territorial hunting. Hunting rights belong to the political municipalities, which lease them to hunting associations through lease contracts. The Schaffhausen hunting associations are, as in all territorial hunting cantons, closed circles that lease the right to kill wild animals and whose composition and activities are largely hidden from the public (cf. the Psychology of recreational hunting in Canton Schaffhausen as well as the critical analysis of hunting education on wildbeimwild.com).

The claim that ecological balance would collapse without recreational hunting has been empirically refuted by the Geneva model for over 50 years (cf. the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban on wildbeimwild.com). A particularly striking comparison: Wildlife damage in the Canton of Geneva is comparable to that in the Canton of Schaffhausen, even though recreational hunting is permitted in Schaffhausen. At the same time, Schaffhausen registers almost 2,000 shots of ungulates alone as well as hundreds of killed predators per year, while Geneva manages with approximately 327 wild boar, 36 roe deer and 19 red deer annually. Foxes, badgers, hares? Zero.

Parallel to this, more and more protected wildlife species are coming under pressure at the federal level. With the revision of the Hunting Act in December 2022, preventive regulation of wolves was introduced. In the two regulation periods 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 so far, FOEN has approved the shooting of a total of around 225 wolves; 147 animals were actually killed. Political pressure on other species such as lynx, beaver, otter and goosander is steadily increasing (cf. the Analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com).

2. The Model: Canton of Geneva

On May 19, 1974, around two-thirds of voters in the Canton of Geneva voted to abolish militia recreational hunting. The experiences since the recreational hunting ban are unambiguous:

– Biodiversity has markedly increased. The number of overwintering waterfowl has multiplied from a few hundred to around 30,000. Geneva today hosts the largest hare population and one of the last partridge populations in Switzerland.

– The roe deer population has stabilized at a healthy level, with an annual specialized cull by professional game wardens of only 20 to 36 animals. Professional game management intervenes precisely and minimally, instead of striving for the highest possible kill numbers as in recreational hunting.

– In 2005, 90 percent of Geneva's electorate voted to maintain the recreational hunting ban. In 2009, a motion for reintroduction was rejected in the cantonal parliament by 70 to 7 votes.

– The total costs of professional wildlife management amount to around 1.2 million francs annually, or about 2.40 francs per inhabitant. The efficiency of the Geneva model is evident in direct comparison: A professional game warden in Geneva requires an average of 8 hours and a maximum of 2 cartridges for a sanitary cull of a wild boar. A hobby hunter in Canton Zurich requires 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 cartridges for the same task. The hare density in Geneva is 17.7 animals per 100 hectares (highest in Switzerland), in Canton Zurich only 1.0 per 100 hectares (cf. Fact check Zurich Government Council).

A detailed presentation can be found in the Dossier 'Geneva and the hunting ban' on wildbeimwild.com.

3. The Concept: Professional Game Management Instead of Recreational Hunting

The initiative replaces recreational hunting with professional wildlife management based on the game warden model:

Professional expertise instead of recreational pleasure. Professional wildlife managers act on scientific foundations, within the framework of a cantonal service mandate. Their goal is the preservation of healthy wildlife populations, not the maximization of kill numbers (cf. the critical analysis of hunting education on wildbeimwild.com).

Last resort principle. Culling is only permissible when all non-lethal measures have been exhausted: electric fences, deterrence, habitat modification, structural protective measures. In Geneva, the canton provides farmers with electric fences and protects fruit trees with nets. Coexistence is a question of will, not technical possibility.

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

Natural self-regulation as guiding principle. Experience from Geneva, from national parks and from numerous scientific studies proves: Wildlife populations regulate themselves in most cases. Recreational hunting disrupts this process by destroying social structures and artificially increasing reproduction rates.

4. Why Schaffhausen?

Schaffhausen is particularly suitable for the introduction of professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

Lowest signature threshold in German-speaking Switzerland. A cantonal popular initiative in Schaffhausen requires only 1,000 valid signatures. This is the lowest threshold of all German-speaking Swiss cantons with regular initiative rights. The 1,000 signatures are achievable even for a small committee.

Almost identical area to Geneva. Schaffhausen has 298 km², Geneva 282 km². This size comparison is the strongest argument of the entire initiative: If professional wildlife protection has worked on 282 km² for over 50 years, it will also work on 298 km². The objection that Geneva is 'not comparable' is refuted by the raw area figures. Both cantons have similar forest and agricultural proportions, and Geneva even has a larger population (500,000 vs. 85,000), which tends to make wildlife management there more complex.

Mandatory voting as strategic advantage. Schaffhausen is the only canton in Switzerland with mandatory voting. This means that in referendums, an above-average turnout can be expected. The non-hunting-affiliated population majority – which might stay home with voluntary participation – will vote in a referendum. An initiative that is broadly communicated and convincingly presents the Geneva model benefits from mandatory voting.

Border location as ecological opportunity. Schaffhausen borders Germany on three sides. The cross-border networking of wildlife corridors is a task that professional specialists manage better than hobby hunters with their territory-based interests. The Randen as a contiguous forest area offers ideal conditions for integrated wildlife management. Germany already has professional structures with Schwarzwald National Park and the Swabian Alb Biosphere Reserve, which Schaffhausen could connect with (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in residential areas).

Manageable recreational hunting lobby. In a canton with 85,000 inhabitants, the number of active recreational hunters is small. Political feasibility is higher than in large cantons with thousands of permit holders.

No statutory collection period. The canton of Schaffhausen has no statutory collection period for popular initiatives. Signature collection can therefore be organized without time pressure. With only 1,000 required signatures, this is easily achievable. On a single Saturday at Fronwagplatz in Schaffhausen, over 100 signatures can be collected with good organization.

5. On the first paragraph: Professional wildlife protection

Section 1 – Ban on recreational hunting and end of hunting lease contracts

The ban on recreational hunting by private individuals is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model (Art. 162 of the Geneva cantonal constitution). Cantonal competence for this is undisputed: the federal hunting law (JSG) expressly leaves the organization of hunting operations to the cantons (Art. 3 para. 1 JSG). The three hunting systems of Switzerland – patent hunting, territory hunting and state or management hunting – are equivalent. The canton of Geneva has practiced management hunting since 1974 in compliance with federal law.

Schaffhausen territory hunting functions like in the other territory hunting cantons: municipalities lease hunting rights to hunting associations. The initiative ends this system by constitutionally anchoring the non-renewal of lease contracts and providing for cantonal compensation for the municipalities.

Section 2 – Professional wildlife management

Professionally trained wildlife managers in cantonal service take over all tasks of wildlife care and, where necessary, population regulation. In Geneva, this system has proven itself for over 50 years on a practically identical area.

Section 3 – Culling as ultima ratio

A culling is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures take priority. In Geneva, wildlife wardens annually cull an average of around 250 wild boar, with lead animals explicitly spared for ethical reasons and to maintain the social stability of sounders. The culling numbers are thus considerably lower than in Schaffhausen, where culls serve not only damage prevention but primarily recreational hunting.

Paragraph 4 – Wildlife Commission

The independent wildlife commission is modeled on the Geneva approach. It ensures that animal and nature protection organizations have a say in regulation decisions and that decisions are made based on evidence, not on the hunting-ideological myths with which the recreational hunting lobby legitimizes its practices.

Paragraph 5 – Natural Regulation and Coexistence

In Schaffhausen, the networking of habitats across national borders is particularly important. Wildlife corridors between the Randen and adjacent German forest areas are indispensable for genetic diversity and the natural spread of species. The current system of hunting concessions fragments these corridors because each hunting association manages its territory independently, without cross-border coordination.

Paragraph 6 – Compensation for Municipalities

As in Basel-Landschaft, the initiative provides for cantonal compensation for the loss of hunting lease revenues. The lease revenues are fiscally marginal for most Schaffhausen municipalities.

Transitional Provisions

The two-year deadline for implementing legislation and the five-year phase-out clause for existing hunting lease contracts correspond to the Basel model. In Schaffhausen, the professional wildlife managers can be integrated into the existing cantonal administration.

6. On the second paragraph: Protection of endangered and protected wildlife species

For Schaffhausen, the second paragraph is particularly relevant due to its border location: Wildlife knows no cantonal or national borders. The beaver is documented on the High Rhine and its tributaries in Schaffhausen territory. The return of the lynx to the Randen is ecologically possible and desirable. The wolf regularly crosses border-adjacent areas on its migrations. A constitutional abandonment of protection against preventive regulation would be a signal beyond the canton (cf. the analysis of wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The revised federal Hunting Act (Art. 7a JSG) empowers cantons for preventive regulation but does not oblige them to do so. With this paragraph, the canton merely exercises its authority to refrain from using a federal legal authorization. The reservation for measures in cases of immediate danger ensures that the canton can fulfill its duty of hazard prevention.

7. Cost implications: Concrete budget for Schaffhausen

Projection

For Schaffhausen with 298 km² area and around 85,000 inhabitants, the following cost estimate results:

Personnel costs: 240,000 to 280,000 francs annually. Required are 2 full-time positions for professional wildlife managers. Schaffhausen is comparable in area to Geneva (282 km²) but has significantly fewer inhabitants. A full-time position in cantonal service costs around 120,000 to 140,000 francs annually including additional costs.

Material costs: 50,000 to 80,000 francs annually. Equipment, vehicles, deterrent devices, monitoring infrastructure, electric fences, public relations work.

Damage compensation: 30,000 to 60,000 francs annually. Mainly wild boar damage to agricultural crops and browsing damage in forests. For comparison: Wildlife damage in the canton of Geneva, which is almost the same size, amounts to around 350,000 francs – with a significant portion attributed to pigeon damage, which is less relevant in Schaffhausen.

Municipal compensation: 50,000 to 100,000 francs annually. For the loss of hunting lease revenues.

Lost revenues

With the abolition of recreational hunting, lease revenues from territorial hunting of an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 francs annually would be lost. However, these must be weighed against the never-accounted external costs of militia hunting – wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in protection forests, administrative overhead, police and court interventions – which amount to many times these revenues. In the canton of Geneva, these revenues have been foregone since 1974 – without financial problems: Before the hunting ban, over 400 hobby hunters were active; today three full-time positions do the same work better. Sanitary and therapeutic culling by professional game wardens is not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters' folklore or misunderstood 'nature experience' of hobby hunters. A full cost accounting shows: Militia hunting costs taxpayers significantly more than it brings in (cf. 'What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland' on wildbeimwild.com).

Hobby hunters in politics vote against nature conservation. The recreational hunting lobby systematically opposes biodiversity and species protection concerns. In 2024, it opposed the biodiversity initiative (63 percent No). In 2020, the hunting law it helped shape failed at the ballot box (51.9 percent No). In 2016, the Ticino hunters' association torpedoed the Parc Adula National Park. In the legislative period 2015 to 2019, hobby hunters in parliament voted predominantly against environmental concerns. Anyone claiming hobby hunters are conservationists ignores their voting behavior (cf. Ticino Hunters' Association: 30 Years of Nonsense and Cost Dossier).

Total costs: 370,000 to 520,000 francs annually (gross). This corresponds to approximately 4.35 to 6.10 francs per inhabitant per year.

Savings and net additional costs

These are offset by savings: The canton would no longer need to operate hunting lease administration, conduct hunting examinations, or organize hunting supervision. Adjusted for these savings, the net additional costs should be 200,000 to 350,000 francs annually corresponding to approximately 2.35 to 4.10 francs per inhabitant. The higher per capita costs compared to Geneva (2.40 francs) are explained by the smaller population with comparable area. In absolute terms, the costs are of a magnitude that is easily manageable for the cantonal budget.

8. Compatibility with superior law

The initiative is compliant with federal law. The federal Hunting Act (JSG) expressly leaves the regulation of hunting rights, hunting systems, hunting areas, and hunting supervision to the cantons (Art. 3 Para. 1 JSG). The three hunting systems – patent hunting, territorial hunting, and state hunting – are equivalent. The canton of Geneva has practiced state hunting since 1974 and has never experienced federal legal objection in over 50 years.

The termination of hunting lease contracts through non-renewal does not affect property guarantees, as hunting lease contracts are limited-term public law contracts with no legal claim to renewal. Art. 7a JSG enables cantons to undertake preventive regulation but does not obligate them to do so. The initiative preserves the unity of the matter.

9. Anticipating foreseeable objections

'Schaffhausen has forests and agriculture – this is not Geneva'

The facts: Geneva also has significant forest and agricultural areas and a comparable cantonal area (282 km² vs. 298 km²). Professional wildlife management has been functioning there for over 50 years. Wildlife damage in Geneva is comparable to that in Schaffhausen – even though recreational hunting is permitted in Schaffhausen. This objection is refuted by direct size comparison.

Concise communicative formula: «Schaffhausen has 298 km². Geneva has 282 km². Geneva has been demonstrating it for 50 years – with comparable wildlife damage.»

«1,000 signatures are too few for genuine legitimacy»

The facts: 1,000 signatures correspond to the legal threshold that Canton Schaffhausen requires for popular initiatives. Since there is no collection deadline, the collection can be organized carefully and with broad support. On a single Saturday at Fronwagplatz in Schaffhausen, over 100 signatures can be collected with good organization.

Concise communicative formula: «1,000 signatures. No deadline. Professional wildlife protection for all.»

«Lease revenues will be lost»

The facts: Lease revenues are fiscally marginal for Schaffhausen municipalities. The initiative provides for cantonal compensation. And wildlife will no longer be killed for recreational pleasure.

Concise communicative formula: «Lease revenues are pocket change in municipal budgets. The initiative compensates – and the animals live.»

«Per capita costs are higher than in Geneva»

The facts: Per capita costs are higher because Schaffhausen has fewer inhabitants than Geneva despite comparable area. In absolute terms, professional wildlife management in Schaffhausen costs only about one-third of Geneva's budget. And even the higher per capita costs range from 2.35 to 4.10 francs per person per year – less than a coffee (see Hunting myths fact-check on wildbeimwild.com).

Concise communicative formula: «About 2.35 to 4.10 francs per person per year. Less than a coffee. For professional wildlife protection instead of hobby hunting.»

10. Summary

This initiative gives the Schaffhausen population the opportunity to vote for modern, evidence-based wildlife management. With only 1,000 signatures and a cantonal area almost identical to that of Geneva, Schaffhausen offers ideal conditions for introducing the proven Geneva model. The costs are manageable, the legal foundation is secure, and mandatory voting ensures that the entire population is heard in a referendum.

Initiative Committee «For Professional Wildlife Protection»

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members according to cantonal law, with residence in the canton)

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Further documentation

Geneva Model in detail: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/genf-und-das-jagdverbot – Comprehensive presentation of Geneva wildlife management since 1974 with costs, population numbers and biodiversity development.

Scientific studies: wildbeimwild.com/studien-ueber-die-auswirkung-der-jagd-auf-wildtiere-und-jaeger – Collection of scientific studies on self-regulation of wildlife populations.

Hunting in Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com/warum-die-hobby-jagd-in-der-schweiz-kein-naturschutz-ist – Continuously updated overview of Swiss hunting policy.

Psychology of recreational hunting in Canton Schaffhausen: wildbeimwild.com – Psychologie der Hobby-Jagd im Kanton SH – Motives, justifications and social dynamics of recreational hunting in Schaffhausen.

Psychology of recreational hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd – Analyses of motives, justifications and social dynamics of recreational hunting.

Wolf dossier: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/wolf-in-der-schweiz-fakten-politik-und-die-grenzen-der-jagd – Current developments in wolf policy in Switzerland.

Wildlife and predators: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere – Information on wildlife, predators and the coexistence of humans and wildlife.

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen – Fact-check of the most common claims from the recreational hunting lobby.

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 State Chancellery of the Canton of Schaffhausen for preliminary review before beginning signature collection. 1,000 valid signatures are required for the initiative to proceed. There is no statutory collection deadline. The submission procedures follow cantonal law on political rights.

Strategic briefing for activists

Popular initiative «For professional wildlife protection» – Canton Schaffhausen Internal working document – Status March 2026

Summary

Schaffhausen offers excellent conditions for an initiative «For professional wildlife protection» with only 1,000 required signatures and an area almost identical to Geneva. Compulsory voting is a strategic advantage: The non-hunting majority will not stay home during a vote. The biggest challenge is that Schaffhausen is not a traditional animal protection canton.

1. Why Schaffhausen?

The killer argument: 298 vs. 282 km². Schaffhausen has 298 km², Geneva 282 km². This comparison is so simple and compelling that it refutes any counter-argument. Every infographic, every flyer, every social media post should include this comparison. Both cantons have comparable forest and agricultural shares. Geneva even has a population six times larger, making wildlife management there more complex.

Exploit compulsory voting. In no other canton will voter turnout be so high. The majority of the population, who are not hobby hunters, will vote. Communication must reach this majority.

1,000 signatures. The lowest hurdle in German-speaking Switzerland. No collection deadline. Easily achievable even with a small committee.

Border location as opportunity. Wildlife corridors across national borders require professional coordination, not recreational hunting. Germany already has professional structures with the Black Forest National Park that Schaffhausen can connect to.

2. Lessons from Zurich

Zurich's mistake 1: Confrontational title. «Gamekeepers instead of hunters» defined itself through the opponent. Our title «For professional wildlife protection» is positive.

Zurich's mistake 2: The cost argument remained unanswered. Our initiative contains detailed budget calculations with verifiable figures.

Zurich's mistake 3: No party support. In Schaffhausen, contacts with SP, Greens and GLP must be established early.

Zurich's mistake 4: The Geneva model was underutilized. In Schaffhausen, the area comparison (298 vs. 282 km²) is so convincing that it alone could carry half the campaign. The dossier «Geneva and the hunting ban» must become the central campaign document.

3. The second paragraph as coalition broadening

The species protection paragraph mobilizes beyond the traditional animal protection scene. Particularly relevant for Schaffhausen:

Beaver on the High Rhine. The beaver is documented along the Rhine and its tributaries on Schaffhausen territory. Since February 2025, it may be shot nationwide upon cantonal request. The initiative protects the beaver in the canton.

Lynx in the Randen. The return of the lynx to the Randen is ecologically possible and would be a gain for biodiversity.

Cross-border networking. Constitutional species protection would enhance Schaffhausen as a partner for cross-border nature conservation projects.

4. Opposition analysis

The hunting associations are locally rooted and will lead the campaign against the initiative. In a small canton, personal relationships are stronger than in Zurich or Basel. The campaign must be conducted factually and not personally.

The municipalities will lament the loss of lease revenue. The answer: The amounts are marginal, and the initiative provides for cantonal compensation.

The cost argument is more vulnerable with higher per capita costs than in Geneva or Basel. The answer: In absolute figures, the system costs around 370,000 to 520,000 francs. This is a fraction of the cantonal budget. And the area comparison with Geneva shows that the model has been functioning on exactly this area size for 50 years (cf. Psychology of Hobby Hunting in Canton Schaffhausen).

5. Communication Strategy: The Three Core Messages

«Schaffhausen is as large as Geneva. What has worked there for 50 years will also work here.» The most compelling argument of the entire series: 298 vs. 282 km². This number must appear in every communication.

«Professional instead of hobby.» The question is not whether wildlife is managed, but by whom: by specialists in the public interest or by private individuals as a recreational activity.

«1,000 signatures, no deadline. That's all it takes.» The lowest hurdle in German-speaking Switzerland. A signal to all of Switzerland.

6. Timeline

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee Formation & Text Pre-Review	Engage lawyer; recruit committee members with SH residence	Month 1–3
Submission for Pre-Review	State Chancellery Schaffhausen	Month 3–4
Publication & Collection Start	No collection deadline; Goal: 1,500+ signatures as buffer.	Month 4
Party Contacts & Coalition Building	Early talks SP, Greens, GLP; integrate nature conservation associations	Month 1–8
Submission of Signatures	State Chancellery, official verification	Month 10–12
Cantonal Council Debate	Parliamentary anchoring; intensify media work	Month 13–20
Voting Campaign	Final mobilization, infographics, compulsory voting strategy	Month 20–26

7. Campaign Materials

The Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as central argumentation.
The Psychology of Hobby Hunting in Canton Schaffhausen as background material for media contacts.
Infographic: Area comparison SH/GE (298 vs. 282 km²) as central visual element.
Local media: Schaffhauser Nachrichten, Schaffhauser AZ, Radio Munot, TeleTop.
Compulsory voting strategy: Broad education campaign, because everyone must vote in the referendum.

8. Further Sources

This document is a template text by IG Wild beim Wild. It can be freely used by activists, organizations or initiative committees and adapted to conditions in Canton Schaffhausen.

Fact Check: The Claims of the Hobby Hunting Lobby

The brochure «Hunting in Switzerland Protects and Benefits» by JagdSchweiz reads like an advertising prospectus – but the central claims do not withstand fact-checking. Ten narratives under scrutiny, from «state responsibility» via «biodiversity» to «80% approval»: Dossier: Fact Check JagdSchweiz Brochure →