«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of an elaborated draft

Based on Art. 28 of the Constitution of the Canton of Uri of 28 October 1984 and on the Law on Political Rights in the Canton of Uri

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Initiative text

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

The Constitution of the Canton of Uri of 28 October 1984 is supplemented by the following articles:

Art. [new] Professional Wildlife Protection

1 The practice of hunting by private individuals (licensed hunting, hobby hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Canton of Uri.

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

3 The culling of wild animals is only permissible as a last resort, when all other appropriate measures for the prevention of damage or the averting of danger have been exhausted or are insufficient. It requires the prior approval of the Wildlife Commission.

4 The canton shall establish an independent Wildlife Commission composed of representatives of animal and nature conservation associations, 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 governed by law.

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

1 The canton shall refrain from submitting applications 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 wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden jackal, golden eagle, goosander, and further 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. They shall be limited to the minimum necessary and carried out by the competent specialist authority of the canton.

4 The canton shall actively advocate, within the framework of intercantonal cooperation and vis-à-vis the federal government, for the protection and conservation of threatened wildlife species.

Transitional provision

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

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

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

Explanatory notes

1. Background

In the canton of Uri, an Alpine canton in central Switzerland with approximately 37’000 residents spread across 1’077 km², today's hobby hunting is a system that serves neither species protection nor contemporary wildlife management. It is the pursuit of a bloody leisure activity at the expense of sentient beings, legitimised 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 Uri is organized as a licence-based system. Private individuals purchase a cantonal licence and hunt without fixed territorial responsibility. Contrary to the widely held assertion, licence holders bear no ecological responsibility; rather, they act within the framework of cantonal culling plans that are primarily aligned with the interests of forestry and agriculture (cf. the psychology of hobby hunting in the canton of Uri and the critical analysis of hunting education at wildbeimwild.com).

In parallel, an increasing number of protected wildlife species are coming under pressure at the federal level. With the revision of the Hunting Act in December 2022, the preventive regulation of the wolf was introduced. Since February 2025, beavers may be shot upon cantonal request. The wolf is present in Uri. The lynx is native to the Uri Pre-Alps. The golden eagle breeds in the Uri Alps. The ibex inhabits the rocky slopes of the Uri Reuss valley. Uri is one of the wildlife-richest cantons in Switzerland and at the same time one of the most sparsely populated (cf. the analysis of hunting policy at wildbeimwild.com and the wolf policy at wildbeimwild.com).

The canton of Uri has the opportunity to set a clear example 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.

2. The Role Model: Canton of Geneva

On 19 May 1974, around two thirds of voters in the canton of Geneva voted in favor of abolishing recreational hobby hunting. Before the ban, large game in the canton had been virtually wiped out: deer and wild boar had disappeared for decades, and only a few dozen roe deer remained. Around 300 hobby hunters released large numbers of pheasants, partridges and hares for recreational hunting.

The experiences since the hobby hunting ban are unambiguous:

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

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

– In 2005, a renewed public referendum saw 90 percent of Geneva's voters support the retention of the hobby hunting ban. In 2009, a motion to reintroduce hunting was rejected in the cantonal parliament by 70 votes to 7.

– The total costs of professional wildlife management in Geneva amount to around 1.2 million francs per year, divided into approximately 600’000 francs for personnel (approx. three full-time positions, distributed among around a dozen environmental officers), 250’000 francs for prevention and 350’000 francs for damage compensation. This corresponds to around 2.40 francs per resident per year.

Geneva's fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker, responsible for wildlife management since 2001, describes the hobby hunting ban as the most cost-effective alternative for the canton. 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 direct comparison: a professional game warden in Geneva requires an average of8 hours and a maximum of 2 rounds of ammunitionfor a sanitary cull of a wild boar. A hobby hunter in the canton of Zurich requires60 to 80 hours and up to 15 rounds of ammunition. The hare population 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 Cantonal Council Zurich).

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 wildlife warden model. This model is founded on the following principles:

Professional expertise instead of recreational pastime. Professional wildlife managers act on a scientific basis, with biological training and within the framework of a cantonal mandate (cf. the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com).

The principle of last resort. A culling is only permissible once all non-lethal measures have been exhausted. These include electric fences, deterrence, habitat management, relocation, taste repellents and structural protective measures.

Democratic oversight through a wildlife commission. The independent commission prevents political pressure from watering down wildlife management. The initiative enshrines the requirement for approval in the constitution.

Natural self-regulation as a guiding principle. Experience from Geneva, from national parks and from numerous scientific studies demonstrates: wildlife populations self-regulate in most cases. Hobby hunting disrupts this natural process.

4. Why Uri?

The canton of Uri is suited to the introduction of professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

One of the wildlife-richest cantons in Switzerland. Uri is home to wolves, lynx, golden eagles, ibex, red deer, chamois and numerous other species in a unique alpine landscape. The Urner Reuss Valley, the Maderaner Valley and the Meien Valley are habitats of supra-regional ecological significance. Professional wildlife management would protect this wealth more consistently than hobby hunting (cf. wildbeimwild.com on national parks and protected areas).

Protective forest at the Gotthard. Uri has the highest proportion of protective forests in Switzerland. Browsing pressure from roe deer and red deer is one of the central challenges. Recreational hunters have failed over decades to sustainably reduce browsing pressure. Professional wildlife management that utilizes the wolf as a natural regulator and reduces browsing pressure through targeted, science-based measures is the better solution. The wolf regulates the roe deer population and reduces browsing pressure in protective forests – this is ecologically and economically significant in a canton where protective forests determine the safety of settlements and transport routes.

Wolf policy. The wolf is present in Uri. The initiative offers a constitutional response to the wolf debate: professional wildlife management instead of politically motivated culls (cf. the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

600 signatures. Uri has the lowest signature threshold in the series with 600 signatures. With 37’000 inhabitants, that is 1.6 percent of the population. Signatures can be collected in Altdorf, Erstfeld, Flüelen and Schattdorf (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in residential areas).

Patent hunting = simple change of system. No lease agreements, no municipal compensation. Existing patents expire and already paid fees are refunded on a pro-rata basis.

Lowest population density = fewest conflicts. With around 34 inhabitants per km², Uri has one of the lowest population densities in Switzerland. This means fewer conflict zones between humans and wildlife than in any other canton. Professional wildlife management has the best conditions here.

5. On the initiative text

Paragraph 1 – Ban on recreational hunting

The prohibition of patent hunting by private individuals is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model. The cantonal authority to do so is undisputed: the federal hunting act (JSG) expressly leaves the organization of hunting operations to the cantons (Art. 3 Para. 1 JSG). The three hunting systems in Switzerland – patent hunting, district hunting, and state or government-managed hunting – are of equal standing. The canton of Geneva has practiced government-managed hunting since 1974 in compliance with federal law.

Paragraph 2 – Professional wildlife management

Instead of hobby hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers in cantonal service take on all responsibilities. In Geneva, this system has proven itself for over 50 years.

Paragraph 3 – Culling as a last resort

A cull is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures take precedence.

Paragraph 4 – Wildlife Commission

The independent wildlife commission is modeled on the Geneva model. It ensures that animal and nature conservation organisations have a say and prevents the cantonal government from independently approving exceptions (cf. wildbeimwild.com/jagd-fakten).

Paragraph 5 – Natural Regulation and Coexistence

The promotion of coexistence in Uri encompasses in particular the protection and interconnection of alpine habitats, the safeguarding of protective forests through natural regulation, and public education on behavior towards wildlife (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in residential areas).

Transitional Provisions

The two-year deadline gives the cantonal government sufficient time to develop the implementing legislation. The existing Office of Forestry and Hunting can serve as the institutional basis.

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

The second article is particularly relevant for Uri. The wolf is present in the canton. The lynx is native to the pre-Alpine region. The golden eagle breeds in the Uri Alps. The beaver has been documented along the Reuss. The “in particular” formulation is designed as a dynamic reference to federal law and also protects future returnees, especially the bear, whose return to central Switzerland is anticipated (cf. the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

7. Financial Implications: Concrete Budget for Uri

The Geneva Reference Budget

In Geneva, which at 282 km² is approximately four times smaller than Uri and has around 500’000 inhabitants, total costs amount to approximately 1.2 million francs annually.

Conservative Projection for Uri

For Uri, with an area of 1’077 km² and approximately 37’000 inhabitants, the following deliberately conservative cost estimate applies. This estimate is calculated generously and takes into account the alpine topography and the high proportion of protective forest:

Personnel costs: 360’000 to 700’000 francs annually.Between 3 and 5 full-time positions are required. Uri is four times larger than Geneva and topographically extremely demanding: high alpine terrain, protective forest at the Gotthard, remote side valleys. The alpine topography requires specialists with terrain knowledge and alpine experience. The higher number of positions accounts for the red deer transitional management in the protective forest.

Material costs: 80’000 to 150’000 francs annually. Alpine equipment, off-road vehicles, monitoring infrastructure, livestock protection materials and public relations.

Damage compensation: 40’000 to 100’000 francs annually.

Livestock protection start-up investment: 300’000 to 500’000 francs. One-time investment in livestock protection infrastructure for the Uri Alps and the Reuss Valley over three to five years: livestock guardian dog programmes, mobile fences, night enclosures, training of shepherds.

Total costs: 480’000 to 950’000 francs annually (gross).

Red Deer and Protective Forest

Red deer are present in Uri and browsing pressure in the protective forest is one of the central challenges. Recreational hunters have failed over decades to sustainably reduce browsing pressure — also due to compensatory reproduction, which generates more births as a result of hunting pressure. Professional wildlife management that utilises the wolf as a natural regulator and intervenes in a targeted manner where browsing pressure is highest is the better solution (cf. studies on wildbeimwild.com).

Savings and Counter-Financing

These costs are offset by savings: no hunting examinations, no licence administration, no culling plans, no hunting supervision. A single senselessly killed wolf costs the public approximately 35’000 francs.

Loss of Revenue

The abolition of recreational hunting would eliminate licence fees estimated at 200’000 to 350’000 francs annually. However, these are offset by the never-accounted external costs of militia hunting — wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in protective forests, administrative expenditure, police and court deployments — which amount to a multiple of these revenues. In the canton of Geneva, these revenues have been absent since 1974 — without any financial difficulties: 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 wildlife wardens is not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters’ lore or the misguided “nature experience” of recreational hunters. A full-cost accounting shows: militia hunting costs the taxpayer significantly more than it generates (cf. «What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland» on wildbeimwild.com).

Hobby hunters in politics vote against nature conservation. The hobby hunting lobby systematically opposes biodiversity and species protection concerns. In 2024, it campaigned against 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. During the parliamentary term from 2015 to 2019, hobby hunters in parliament voted predominantly against environmental concerns. Anyone who claims that 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 amount to between CHF 250’000 and 600’000 annually, which corresponds to approximately CHF 6.75 to 16.20 per resident. In a very small, alpine canton, the per capita costs are naturally the highest in the series, as only 37’000 residents bear the costs. But even calculated generously: the absolute costs amount to CHF 250’000 to 600’000 – that is less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget of approximately CHF 501 million (2024 state accounts, FFA). By comparison: the canton of Uri spends many times this amount on road maintenance (cf. Hunting Myths Fact-Check on wildbeimwild.com).

8. Compatibility with Higher-Level Law

First Article: Abolition of Hobby Hunting

Compliant with federal law. Art. 3 para. 1 JSG. Three equivalent hunting systems. Geneva since 1974 without objection.

Second Article: Protection of Protected Species

Art. 7a JSG enables preventive regulation but does not mandate it. Refraining from 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. Anticipating Foreseeable Objections

«Uri is an alpine canton – the Geneva model fits here least of all»

The facts: Uri is sparsely populated. This means: fewer conflict zones, not more. The primary task of professional wildlife management in an alpine canton is the protection of forests. Hobby hunting has failed over decades to sustainably reduce browsing pressure in protective forests. Professional wildlife management that utilises the wolf as a natural regulator is the better solution. And: the absolute costs of CHF 250’000 to 600’000 annually are modest (cf. the Psychology of Hobby Hunting in the Canton of Uri).

Communicative Key Message: «Sparse settlement means fewer conflicts, not more. And the wolf protects the protective forest better than hobby hunting.»

«The protective forest needs hobby hunting»

The facts: Hobby hunting has not sustainably reduced browsing pressure in the protective forest over decades. The wolf regulates the roe deer population naturally and more effectively than seasonal licensed hunting. Professional wildlife management can intervene in a targeted manner where browsing pressure is highest, while hobby hunting operates broadly and seasonally.

Concise communication formula: «Hobby hunting has failed to solve the browsing pressure problem in the protective forest for decades. The wolf can. Professional wildlife wardens can — in a targeted way.»

«The per capita costs are too high»

The facts: Per capita costs are naturally higher in a canton with 37’000 inhabitants than in Zurich with 1.5 million. But: the absolute costs amount to, even by generous estimates: 250’000 to 600’000 francs annually. That is less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget. The canton of Uri spends many times that on road maintenance.

Concise communication formula: «250’000 to 600’000 francs. 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the cantonal budget. Modest.»

10. Summary

This initiative gives the population of Uri the opportunity to express their support for modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wildlife species. The first article follows the Geneva model, which has proven itself for over 50 years. The second article protects in particular the wolf, the lynx, the golden eagle and the beaver. The lowest signature threshold in the series (600), the sparse settlement with few conflict zones, and the protective forest issue — which the wolf resolves more effectively than hobby hunting — make Uri a unique canton in the series.

Initiative committee «For professional wildlife protection»

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members in accordance with cantonal law, with residence in the canton of Uri)

Contact address: [Address of the committee]

Appendix: Further documentation

The following dossiers and sources support the arguments of this initiative:

The Geneva model in detail: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/genf-und-das-jagdverbot – Comprehensive presentation of Geneva’s wildlife management since 1974.

Scientific studies: wildbeimwild.com/studien – Collection of scientific studies on the self-regulation of wildlife populations.

Hunting in Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com/jagd-in-der-schweiz – Continuously updated overview of Swiss hunting policy.

Psychology of Hobby Hunting in the Canton of Uri: wildbeimwild.com – Psychology of Hobby Hunting in the Canton of UR – Canton-specific analysis.

Psychology of Hobby Hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd – Cross-cutting articles.

National Parks and Protected Areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/nationalpark – Natural self-regulation in protected areas.

Wildlife in Residential Areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere-im-siedlungsgebiet – Coexistence of humans and wildlife.

Hunting Myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen – Fact check.

Cantonal Popular Initiative Basel-Stadt: Model text of the initiative in the Canton of Basel-Stadt – The template for the entire initiative series.

Note on Procedure

The initiative committee submits the initiative text to the state chancellery of the Canton of Uri for preliminary review before the signature collection begins. For the initiative to come into effect, 600 valid signatures are required. The submission modalities are governed by the law on political rights in the Canton of Uri.

Strategic Briefing for Activists

Popular Initiative «For Professional Wildlife Protection» – Canton of Uri Internal Working Document – Status March 2026

Summary

Uri is the protective forest canton of the series. The highest proportion of protective forest in Switzerland, the lowest population density, and the lowest signature threshold (600) make Uri unique. The core message: the wolf protects the protective forest better than hobby hunters, because it naturally regulates the roe deer population and reduces browsing pressure. The absolute costs are modest, at 250’000 to 600’000 francs. Wolf, lynx, golden eagle, and ibex are present in the canton.

1. Why Uri in particular?

Protective forest canton. Highest proportion of protective forest in Switzerland. The wolf protects it better than hobby hunters.

600 signatures. Lowest threshold in the series. 1.6 percent of the population.

Lowest population density. Few conflict zones. Best conditions for professional wildlife management.

Wildlife abundance. Wolf, lynx, golden eagle, ibex, red deer, chamois.

Patent hunting = straightforward system change. No lease agreements, no municipal compensation.

Absolute costs modest. 250’000 to 600’000 francs. 0.05 to 0.1 percent of the cantonal budget.

2. Lessons from Zurich: What we will do differently

Positive title. «For Professional Wildlife Protection» instead of «Wildlife Wardens Instead of Hunters».

Protective forest argument. In Uri, the strongest argument: The wolf protects the protective forest better than hobby hunting.

Absolute costs instead of per capita. In a small canton, per capita figures are misleading. The absolute figure (150’000–350’000 francs) is more convincing.

3. Analysis of opposing arguments and prepared responses

Counter-argument 1: “Uri is alpine – the Geneva model does not apply”

The facts: Sparse population means fewer conflicts. And the wolf protects the protective forest better than hobby hunting.

Key communication message: “Fewer people means fewer conflicts. And the wolf protects the protective forest.”

Counter-argument 2: “The protective forest needs hobby hunting”

The facts: Hobby hunting has not resolved browsing pressure for decades. The wolf can. Professional wildlife management can do so in a targeted manner.

Key communication message: “Hobby hunting has not resolved browsing pressure for decades. The wolf can.”

Counter-argument 3: “The costs are too high”

The facts: 250’000 to 600’000 francs in absolute terms. 0.05 to 0.1 percent of the cantonal budget.

Key communication message: “250’000 to 600’000 francs. A fraction of the cantonal budget.”

4. Communication strategy: The three core messages

“The wolf protects the protective forest better than hobby hunting.” The strongest argument for Uri. Ecologically and in terms of economic benefit.

“Geneva has been showing the way for 50 years.” 90 percent approval, stable populations, minimal costs.

“Professional instead of hobby.” Specialists instead of recreational hunters.

5. Timeline and next steps

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & preliminary text review	Engage a legal expert; recruit committee members with residence in UR	Month 1–3
Submission for preliminary review	State Chancellery of Uri	Month 3–4
Publication & start of signature collection	Target: 750+ signatures as a buffer; 600 is the lowest threshold in the series	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	SP, Greens; Pro Natura Uri; protective forest as an argument for a broader coalition	Month 1–10
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official verification	After the collection period
Cantonal parliament debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media work	Subsequent months
Voting campaign	Protective forest argument, wolf as natural regulator, absolute costs	Before the vote

6. Campaign materials

• The Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as the central body of arguments.
• The Psychology of hobby hunting in the canton of Uri as background material.
• Local media: Urner Zeitung, Urner Wochenblatt, Tele 1.
• Infographic: protective forest and wolf as guiding themes. Browsing pressure with and without wolf. Absolute costs (150’000–350’000 francs).

7. Further Sources

• Geneva hunting ban in detail
• Scientific studies
• Hunting in Switzerland
• Psychology of hobby hunting in the canton of Uri
• Hunting myths fact-check
• National parks and protected areas
• Federal hunting statistics (FOEN)
• Cantonal popular initiative Basel-Stadt

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

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 hold up to scrutiny. Ten narratives put to the test, from “state duty” to “biodiversity” to “80% approval”: Dossier: Fact-check JagdSchweiz brochure →