Cantonal Popular Initiative: Canton of Solothurn

«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of a drafted proposal

Based on Art. 29 et seq. of the Constitution of the Canton of Solothurn of 8 June 1986 and on the Act on Political Rights

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Text of the initiative

The undersigned persons entitled to vote in the Canton of Solothurn hereby submit the following constitutional initiative:

The Constitution of the Canton of Solothurn of 8 June 1986 is supplemented by the following paragraphs:

§ [new] Professional wildlife protection

1 The exercise of hunting by private individuals (territorial hunting, recreational hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Canton of Solothurn. Existing hunting lease agreements between the canton and the hunting associations 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 employed by the canton.

3 The killing of wild animals is only permitted as a last resort, when all other suitable measures for preventing damage or averting danger have been exhausted or are insufficient. It requires prior approval by the Wildlife Commission.

4 The canton shall establish an independent Wildlife Commission, composed of representatives of animal welfare and nature conservation organisations, the scientific community and the authorities concerned. 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 wild animals.

6 The canton shall ensure the financing of wildlife management independently of hunting lease revenues.

7 Further details shall be regulated by law.

§ [new] Protection of endangered and protected wild animal species

1 The canton refrains from regulating populations of protected wild animal species pursuant to Art. 7a of the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds and does not grant kill permits for individual animals of protected species pursuant to Art. 12 para. 2 of this Act, in particular not for wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden jackal, golden eagle, goosander and other species protected under federal law. Paragraph 3 remains reserved.

2 It relies on fostering coexistence between humans and wild animals, passive damage prevention, the ecological enhancement of habitats and the scientific monitoring of wild animal presence.

3 Measures against individual wild animals that pose an immediate and significant danger to humans remain reserved. They are to be limited to the minimum necessary and carried out by the canton's competent specialist authority.

4 The canton actively advocates for the protection and preservation of endangered wild animal species within the framework of inter-cantonal cooperation and towards the Confederation.

Transitional provision

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

2 Existing hunting lease agreements shall expire at the respective next ordinary contract renewal date, but no later than within five years of the implementing legislation entering into force.

3 The Cantonal Council shall ensure the continuity of wildlife management during the transitional phase and shall regulate the financing following the discontinuation of hunting lease revenues.

Explanatory notes

1. Starting position

The Canton of Solothurn covers 791 km² and has around 290,000 inhabitants. It stretches along the southern foot of the Jura and the Aare, from Olten via Solothurn to Grenchen. The cantonal territory consists of a mixture of Jura mountain landscape (Weissenstein, Balmberg), agriculturally used lowlands, and the urban areas along the Aare. The canton is geographically elongated and touches several landscape regions, which is particularly relevant for wildlife connectivity.

Recreational hunting in Solothurn is organised as territorial hunting. The right to hunt (Jagdregal) belongs to the canton. The Department of Economic Affairs leases the hunting grounds to hunting associations for eight-year periods (§ 5 JaG); the current lease period runs from 2021 to 2028. As in all territorial-hunting cantons, Solothurn's hunting associations are closed circles that lease the right to kill wild animals, and whose composition and activities are largely hidden from public view (see the Psychology of Hunting in the Canton of Solothurn as well as the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com).

The claim that the ecological balance would collapse without recreational hunting has been empirically refuted by the Geneva model for over 50 years. Although Solothurn, at 791 km², has a larger area than Geneva (282 km²), the basic principle of professional wildlife management scales proportionally: more area requires more specialists, but does not change the system.

At the same time, more and more protected wild animal species are coming under pressure at the federal level. Political pressure on species such as the lynx, beaver, otter and goosander is steadily increasing (see the analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com).

2. The role model: canton of Geneva

On 19 May 1974, a good 70 percent of those voting in the canton of Geneva voted in favour of abolishing militia-based recreational hunting. The experience since the ban on recreational hunting has been unequivocal:

Biodiversity has increased markedly. The number of overwintering waterfowl has multiplied from a few hundred to around 30,000. Geneva is now home to the largest brown hare population and one of the last grey partridge populations in Switzerland.
The roe deer population has settled at a healthy level, with an annual special cull by professional game wardens of just 20 to 36 animals.
The ban has been in force continuously for over 50 years. Geneva has never lifted it. The total costs amount to around 1.2 million Swiss francs annually, or around 2.40 francs per inhabitant. The efficiency of the Geneva model is evident in a direct comparison: a professional game warden in Geneva needs, on average, 8 hours and a maximum of 2 cartridges for a sanitary kill of a wild boar. A recreational hunter in the canton of Zurich needs 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 cartridges for the same task. The density of brown hares in Geneva is 17.7 animals per 100 hectares (the highest in Switzerland), whereas in the canton of Zurich it is only 1.0 per 100 hectares (cf. fact check by the Zurich Cantonal Council).

A detailed account can be found in the dossier «Geneva and the hunting ban» on wildbeimwild.com.

3. The concept: professional wildlife wardens instead of recreational hunting

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

Professional expertise instead of leisure pursuit. Professional wildlife managers act on a scientific basis, within the framework of a cantonal performance mandate.

Last-resort principle. A kill is only permissible once 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. Experience from Geneva, from national parks and from numerous scientific Studies confirms that, in most cases, wildlife populations regulate themselves.

4. Why Solothurn?

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

The southern foot of the Jura as a key ecological region. Solothurn lies at the southern foot of the Jura, one of Switzerland's most important wildlife regions. The lynx is native to the Solothurn Jura, the wolf passes through the area, and the beaver is present along the Aare and its tributaries. The fragmented landscape between the Jura and the Central Plateau requires professional, cross-border coordination that the territorial hunting system cannot provide.

3,000 signatures in 18 months. The signature threshold is achievable. In a canton with around 290,000 inhabitants and urban centres such as Solothurn, Olten and Grenchen, collecting signatures can be well organised.

Territorial hunting as a conceptual weakness. The territorial hunting system in Solothurn operates in the same way as in all territorial hunting cantons: hunting grounds are allocated to closed hunting associations. The public has no say in who kills which wild animals in their municipality. The initiative gives the public this control back.

A mixed canton of town and countryside. Solothurn has both urban centres (the Olten-Solothurn agglomeration) and rural areas (Thal, Gäu, Bucheggberg). This mix makes the canton, similar to Basel-Landschaft, a compelling test case: if professional wildlife protection works here, it will work in any Central Plateau canton.

Proximity to Basel. Should Basel-Landschaft adopt the parallel initiative , a contiguous area from the Rhine to the Aare would emerge together with Solothurn, in which professional wildlife protection is practised. This prospect is significant both for wildlife connectivity and for its political signalling effect (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wild animals in settlement areas).

5. On the text of the initiative

The text of the initiative corresponds to the territorial hunting variant (as in BL and SH). Cantonal competence is undisputed: Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG, the three equivalent hunting systems, and more than 50 years of uncontested practice in Geneva. Existing hunting lease agreements will expire upon their next ordinary renewal, at the latest within five years. Because lease payments in Solothurn flow to the canton, paragraph 6 obliges the canton to finance wildlife management independently of these revenues.

The second paragraph on the protection of protected species is particularly relevant for Solothurn: the lynx has been resident in the Solothurn Jura (Weissenstein, Balmberg) for years. The beaver inhabits the Aare and its tributaries. Individual wolves pass through the area. A constitutional waiver of preventive regulation would send a signal beyond the canton itself (cf. the analysis of wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

6. Cost implications: a concrete budget for Solothurn

For Solothurn, with an area of 791 km² and around 290,000 inhabitants, the following cost estimate applies:

Personnel costs: CHF 360,000 to 560,000 annually.3 to 4 full-time positions are required. At 791 km², Solothurn is almost three times the size of Geneva (282 km²). A full-time position, including incidental costs, costs around 120,000 to 140,000 francs annually.

Material costs: 80’000 to 120’000 francs annually. Equipment, vehicles, deterrent devices, monitoring infrastructure, electric fences, public relations work.

Damage compensation: 50’000 to 100’000 francs annually. Mainly wild boar damage to agriculture and browsing damage in the forest.

Compensation for lost lease income: 100,000 to 200,000 francs annually.Lease payments currently flow to the canton. Part of this shortfall is included here.

Total costs: 590,000 to 980,000 francs annually (gross).This corresponds to around 2.05 to 3.40 francs per inhabitant per year.

These are offset by savings: no hunting lease administration, no hunting examinations, no hunting supervision. The net additional costs are likely to amount to 300,000 to 600,000 francs annually, which corresponds to around1.05 to 2.05 francs per inhabitant corresponds to (cf. Hunting myths fact check on wildbeimwild.com).

Lost revenue

Abolishing recreational hunting would eliminate lease revenues from territorial hunting, estimated at 300,000 to 500,000 francs annually. However, this is offset by the never-balanced external costs of militia hunting (wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in protective forests, administrative expenses, police and court interventions), which are likely to significantly exceed these revenues. In the canton of Geneva, these revenues have been absent since 1974, without any financial problems: before the hunting ban, over 400 recreational hunters were active; today, three full-time positions do the same work better. Sanitary and therapeutic kills by professional game wardens are not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters' lore or a misunderstood "experience of nature" among recreational hunters. A full-cost analysis shows that militia hunting costs taxpayers considerably more than it brings in (cf. «What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland» on wildbeimwild.com).

Recreational hunters in politics vote against nature conservation. The recreational hunting lobby systematically opposes biodiversity and species protection concerns. In 2024, it fought against the Biodiversity Initiative (63 per cent No). In 2020, the hunting act it had helped shape failed at the ballot box (51.9 per cent No). In 2016, the Ticino hunting association torpedoed the Parc Adula national park. During the 2015–2019 legislative period, recreational hunters in parliament voted predominantly against environmental concerns. Anyone who claims that recreational hunters are nature conservationists is ignoring their voting behaviour (cf. Ticino Hunting Association: 30 Years of Nonsense and Cost dossier).

7. Compatibility with superordinate law

The initiative complies with federal law. Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 of the Hunting Act, the three equivalent hunting systems, over 50 years of unchallenged practice in Geneva. Ending hunting lease agreements through non-renewal does not affect the property guarantee, since these are time-limited public-law contracts to which there is no legal entitlement of renewal. Art. 7a of the Hunting Act enables preventive regulation but does not require it. The same applies to kill permits for individual animals under Art. 12 para. 2 of the Hunting Act. The initiative upholds the unity of subject matter.

8. Anticipating foreseeable objections

«Solothurn is almost three times as large as Geneva»

The facts: The larger area requires more specialist staff (3 to 4 instead of around 3 full-time positions), but this does not change the basic principle. Costs scale proportionally, and the per-capita cost remains at 1.05 to 2.05 francs per resident, because Solothurn, with around 290,000 residents, has a sufficiently large population base.

Short communicative formula: «A larger area requires more specialist staff. But with around 290,000 residents, they cost around 1 to 2 francs per person per year.»

«The lease income is lost»

The facts: In Solothurn, lease revenues flow to the canton and are marginal within the cantonal budget. The initiative secures the financing of wildlife management independently of this. And wild animals are no longer killed for recreational pleasure.

Short communicative formula: «The lease revenues are small change in the cantonal budget. Wildlife wardens are secured, and the animals live.»

«The hunting associations do valuable work»

The facts:Hunting associations fulfil a contractual obligation in return for the right to kill wild animals. In a professional system, these tasks are in better hands: with better training and without the inherent conflict of interest built into recreational hunting (see the Psychology of Hunting in the Canton of Solothurn).

Short communicative formula:«Hunting associations are not performing forced labour. They are fulfilling a contractual obligation for the right to kill. Professionals can do this better.»

9. Summary

This initiative gives the population of Solothurn the opportunity to speak out in favour of modern, evidence-based wildlife management. The situation at the southern foot of the Jura, with lynx, beaver and wolf, makes professional wildlife protection a concrete necessity. At between 1.05 and 2.05 francs per inhabitant, the costs are manageable, the legal basis is secure, and with 3,000 signatures required within 18 months, the hurdle is achievable.

Initiative committee “For professional wildlife protection”

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members in accordance with cantonal law, resident in the canton of Solothurn)

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Further documentation

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

Scientific studies: wildbeimwild.com/studien-ueber-die-auswirkung-der-jagd-auf-wildtiere-und-jaeger

Hunting in Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com/warum-die-hobby-jagd-in-der-schweiz-kein-naturschutz-ist

Psychology of hunting in the canton of Solothurn: wildbeimwild.com: Psychology of hunting in SO

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

Wolf dossier: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/wolf-in-der-schweiz-fakten-politik-und-die-grenzen-der-jagd

Wild animals and predators: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere. Information on wild animals, predators and the coexistence of humans and wild animals.

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen. Fact check on the most common claims made by the recreational hunting lobby.

Cantonal popular initiative Basel-Stadt: Template text of the initiative in the canton of Basel-Stadt

Note on the procedure

The initiative committee submits the text of the initiative to the State Chancellery of the canton of Solothurn for preliminary review before signature collection begins. 3,000 valid signatures are required for the initiative to come about. The collection period is 18 months from publication in the official gazette. The submission procedures are governed by the cantonal law on political rights.

Strategic briefing for activists

Popular initiative «For professional wildlife protection», canton of Solothurn Internal working document, as of March 2026

Summary

Solothurn is the third territorial-hunting canton in the series (after BL and SH) and is strategically important as a bridge between Basel and the Mittelland. The location at the southern foot of the Jura makes the species protection clause particularly relevant (lynx, beaver, wolf). The 3,000 signatures within 18 months are achievable, and the per capita costs of 1.05 to 2.05 francs are affordable.

1. Why Solothurn?

The southern foot of the Jura as a key region. The lynx lives in the Solothurn Jura, the beaver on the Aare, the wolf passes through the region. Professional wildlife management is no abstraction here.

Proximity to Basel. A success in Solothurn together with Basel-Landschaft would create a contiguous area from the Rhine to the Aare.

Mixed canton. Urban (Olten, Solothurn, Grenchen) and rural (Thal, Gäu). An ideal test case for the Swiss Plateau.

3,000 signatures in 18 months. Feasible with support from associations.

2. Lessons from Zurich

Zurich's mistake 1: Confrontational title. Our title «For professional wildlife protection» is positive.

Zurich's mistake 2: the cost argument left unanswered. Our initiative includes a detailed budget calculation: 1.05 to 2.05 francs per resident.

Zurich's mistake 3: No party support. Contacts with the SP, the Greens and the GLP need to be established early on.

3. Communication strategy: the three core messages

«Geneva has been doing it for 50 years. What works there also works here.»

«Professional instead of recreational. Specialists instead of weekend shooters.»

«Around 1 to 2 francs per person per year. That's half a cup of coffee.»

4. Opponent analysis

The hunting associations are locally rooted and will fight the loss of their leased hunting grounds. The campaign must remain factual and emphasise the secured financing.

The canton will cite the loss of lease revenue. The answer: marginal, and the savings in hunting administration offset part of it.

The cost argument can be readily countered at 1.05 to 2.05 francs per resident. That is less than in Geneva (2.40 francs).

5. Timeline

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & preliminary text review	Engage a lawyer; recruit committee members with residence in the canton of Solothurn in accordance with cantonal law	Month 1–3
Submission for preliminary review	Solothurn State Chancellery	Month 3–4
Publication & start of signature collection	18-month deadline; target: 3'500+ signatures as a buffer	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	Involve the SP, the Greens, the GLP; engage nature conservation associations	Month 1–12
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official verification	Month 20–22
Cantonal parliament debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media work	Month 23–30
Voting campaign	Final mobilisation, infographics, media presence	Month 30–36

6. Campaign material

Geneva dossier as the central set of arguments.
The Psychology of Hunting in the Canton of Solothurn as background material.
Local media: Solothurner Zeitung, Oltner Tagblatt, Grenchner Tagblatt, Tele M1.
Infographic: cost comparison SO/GE, lynx in the Solothurn Jura as a visual element.

7. Further sources

This document is a template text from IG Wild beim Wild. It may be freely used by activists, organisations or initiative committees and adapted to the circumstances in the canton of Solothurn.

Fact check: The claims of the recreational hunting lobby

The brochure «Die Jagd in der Schweiz schützt und nützt» by JagdSchweiz reads like a promotional flyer, yet its central claims do not hold up to a fact check. Ten narratives put to the test, from «state task» and «species diversity» to «80 % approval»: Dossier: Fact check on the JagdSchweiz brochure →