Cantonal Popular Initiative: Canton of Uri

«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of a drafted proposal

Pursuant to Art. 28 of the Constitution of the Canton of Uri of 28 October 1984 and to the Act on Political Rights in the Canton of Uri

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Text of the initiative

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 shall be supplemented with the following article:

Art. [new] Professional wildlife protection

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

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 Further details shall be regulated by law.

Art. [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 licences expire upon the entry into force of the implementing provisions. Patent fees already paid for the current hunting season will be reimbursed on a pro-rata basis.

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

Explanatory notes

1. Starting position

In the Canton of Uri, an alpine canton of Central Switzerland with around 37,000 inhabitants across 1,077 km², today's recreational hunting is a system that serves neither species conservation nor modern wildlife management. It is the practice of a bloody leisure pursuit at the expense of sentient beings, legitimised by outdated narratives that do not withstand scientific scrutiny. The claim that without recreational hunting the ecological balance would collapse has been empirically disproved by the Geneva model for over 50 years (see the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban on wildbeimwild.com).

Recreational hunting in Uri is organised as licence hunting. Private individuals obtain a cantonal licence and hunt without fixed responsibility for a hunting ground. Contrary to the widespread claim, licence holders do not assume any ecological responsibility, but act within the framework of cantonal kill quotas, which are primarily geared towards the interests of forestry and agriculture (see the The Psychology of Recreational Hunting in the Canton of Uri as well as the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com).

At the same time, more and more protected wild animal species are coming under pressure at the federal level. With the revision of the Hunting Act in December 2022, preventive regulation of the wolf was introduced. Since February 2025, cantons have been able to authorise the killing of individual beavers that cause significant damage (Art. 9d JSV). 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 lives on the rocky slopes of the Uri Reuss valley. Uri is one of the cantons richest in wildlife in Switzerland and, at the same time, one of the most sparsely populated (see the analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com and the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The canton of Uri has the opportunity to set a clear example here: not only for professional wildlife protection instead of recreational hunting, but also for the consistent protection of endangered wild animal species at cantonal level.

2. The role model: canton of Geneva

On 19 May 1974, a good 70 percent of voters in the canton of Geneva voted to abolish militia-style recreational hunting. Before the ban, big game in the canton had been practically wiped out: red deer and wild boars had been absent for decades, and only a few dozen roe deer remained. Over 400 recreational hunters released large numbers of pheasants, grey partridges and hares for recreational hunting.

The experience since the recreational hunting ban 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 repealed it.
The total cost of professional wildlife management in Geneva amounts to around 1.2 million francs annually, split into approximately 600,000 francs for personnel (around three full-time positions, shared among roughly 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.

The long-serving Geneva fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker (2001 to 2025) described the recreational hunting ban as the most financially favourable 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 becomes clear 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).

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

The initiative does not replace recreational 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 leisure pursuit. Professional wildlife managers act on a scientific basis, with biological training and within the framework of a cantonal performance mandate (see the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com).

Last-resort principle. A kill 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 diluting wildlife management. The initiative enshrines the approval requirement at the constitutional level.

Natural self-regulation as a guiding principle. Experience from Geneva, from national parks and from numerous scientific Studies proves it: in most cases, wildlife populations regulate themselves. Recreational hunting disrupts this natural process.

4. Why Uri?

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

One of the wildlife-richest cantons in Switzerland. Uri is home to wolf, lynx, golden eagle, ibex, red deer, chamois and numerous other species in a unique alpine landscape. The Urner Reusstal, the Maderanertal and the Meiental are habitats of supra-regional ecological importance. Professional wildlife management would protect this wealth more consistently than recreational hunting (cf. wildbeimwild.com on national parks and protected areas).

Protective forest at the Gotthard. Uri has the highest proportion of protective forest in Switzerland. Browsing pressure from roe deer and red deer is one of the central challenges. Over decades, recreational hunting has failed to sustainably reduce browsing pressure. Professional wildlife management, which uses 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 the protective forest. This is ecologically and economically significant in a canton where protective forest determines the safety of settlements and transport routes.

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

600 signatures. With 600 signatures, Uri has one of the lowest signature thresholds in the series. With 37,000 inhabitants, that is 1.6 percent of the population. Signatures can be collected in Altdorf, Erstfeld, Flüelen and Schattdorf.

Licence hunting = a simple change of system. No lease agreements, no compensation for municipalities. Existing licences lapse, and fees already paid are reimbursed on a pro-rata basis.

Sparse settlement = fewer 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 wild animals than in densely populated cantons. Professional wildlife management has the best conditions here.

5. On the text of the initiative

Paragraph 1: Ban on recreational hunting

The ban on licence hunting by private individuals is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model. The cantonal competence for this is undisputed: the federal hunting act (JSG) explicitly leaves the organisation of hunting operations to the cantons (Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG). The three hunting systems in Switzerland (licence hunting, territorial hunting and state or regie hunting) are of equal standing. The canton of Geneva has been practising regie hunting in compliance with federal law since 1974.

Paragraph 2: Professional wildlife management

Instead of recreational hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers in cantonal service take on all tasks. In Geneva, this system has proven its worth for over 50 years.

Paragraph 3: Kill as a last resort

A kill is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures take priority.

Paragraph 4: Wildlife commission

The independent wildlife commission is modelled on the Geneva model. It ensures that animal welfare and nature conservation associations have a say and prevents the cantonal government from independently approving exceptions (cf. Hunting myths fact-checked).

Paragraph 5: Natural regulation and coexistence

Promoting coexistence in Uri specifically includes the protection and connectivity of alpine habitats, safeguarding protective forest through natural regulation, and educating the public on how to behave towards wild animals.

Transitional provisions

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

6. On the second article: protection of endangered and protected wild animal species

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

7. Cost implications: Concrete budget for Uri

The Geneva reference budget

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

Conservative projection for Uri

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

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

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

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

Herd protection start-up investment: 300’000 to 500’000 francs. One-off investment in herd protection infrastructure for the Uri Alps and the Reuss Valley over three to five years: livestock guardian dog programmes, mobile fences, night-time enclosures, and 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 hunting has failed for decades to sustainably reduce browsing pressure, partly because of compensatory reproduction, whereby hunting pressure leads to more births. Professional wildlife management that uses the wolf as a natural regulator and intervenes specifically where browsing pressure is highest is the better solution (cf. studies on wildbeimwild.com).

Savings and counter-financing

Against this stand savings: no hunting examinations, no licence administration, no kill quota planning, no hunting oversight. A single senselessly killed wolf costs the public around 35,000 francs.

Lost revenue

Abolishing recreational hunting would eliminate licence fees of an estimated 200,000 to 350,000 francs annually. However, this is offset by the never-calculated external costs of militia hunting (wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in the protective forest, administrative expenses, police and court interventions), which amount to a multiple of these revenues. In the canton of Geneva, these revenues have been forgone since 1974 without any financial problems: before the hunting ban, more than 400 recreational hunters were active; today, three full-time positions do the same work better. Sanitary and therapeutic kills carried out by professional game wardens are not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters' lore or a misunderstood "experience of nature" on the part of recreational hunters. A full cost accounting shows that militia hunting costs taxpayers significantly 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).

The Net additional costs are likely to be between 250,000 and 600,000 francs annually, which corresponds to around6.75 to 16.20 francs per resident. In a very small, alpine canton, the per capita costs are naturally the highest in the series, because only 37,000 residents bear the costs. But even calculated generously: the absolute costs amount to 250,000 to 600,000 francs. That is less than 0.15 percent of the canton's budget of around 501 million francs (State Accounts 2024, FFA). For comparison: the canton of Uri spends a multiple of this sum on road maintenance (cf. Hunting myths fact check on wildbeimwild.com).

8. Compatibility with superior law

First article: Abolition of recreational hunting

Compliant with federal law. Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG. Three equivalent hunting systems. Unchallenged in Geneva since 1974.

Second article: Protection of protected species

Art. 7a JSG permits preventive regulation but does not require it. The same applies to kill authorisations for individual animals under Art. 12 para. 2 JSG. Refraining from this violates neither federal law nor the Bern Convention.

Unity of subject matter

Ensured, 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 least well here"

The facts: Uri is sparsely populated. That means: fewer conflict zones, nothing more. The main task of professional wildlife management in an alpine canton is protective forest. Recreational hunting has not managed, over decades, to sustainably reduce browsing pressure in the protective forest. Professional wildlife management that uses the wolf as a natural regulator is the better solution. And: the absolute costs, at 250,000 to 600,000 francs annually, are modest (cf. the The Psychology of Recreational Hunting in the Canton of Uri).

Short communicative formula: «Sparse settlement means fewer conflicts, not more. And the wolf protects the protective forest better than recreational hunting.»

«The protective forest needs recreational hunting»

The facts: Recreational 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 licence hunting. Professional wildlife management can intervene precisely where browsing pressure is highest, while recreational hunting operates across the board and seasonally.

Short communicative formula: «Recreational hunting has not solved 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: The per capita costs are naturally higher in a canton with 37,000 inhabitants than in Zurich with 1.5 million. But: even generously calculated, the absolute costs amount to 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.

Short communicative formula: «250,000 to 600,000 francs. 0.05 to 0.12 percent of the cantonal budget. Modest.»

10. Summary

This initiative gives the population of Uri the opportunity to advocate for modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wild animal species. The first article follows the Geneva model, which has proven successful for over 50 years. The second article specifically protects the wolf, the lynx, the golden eagle and the beaver. One of the lowest signature thresholds in the series (600), the sparse settlement with few conflict zones, and the protective forest issue — which the wolf solves better than recreational hunting — make Uri a unique canton in the series.

Initiative committee “For professional wildlife protection”

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members according to cantonal law, resident in the canton of Uri)

Contact address: [Committee address]

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 overview 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 recreational hunting in the canton of Uri: wildbeimwild.com: Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of UR. Canton-specific analysis.

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

National parks and protected areas: wildbeimwild.com/tag/schweizerischer-nationalpark. Natural self-regulation in protected areas.

Wild animals in settlement areas: wildbeimwild.com/tag/stadtwildtiere. Coexistence of humans and wild animals.

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen. Fact check.

Cantonal popular initiative Basel-Stadt: Template text of the initiative in the canton of Basel-Stadt. The template for the entire initiative series.

Note on the procedure

The initiative committee submits the initiative text to the Chancellery of the Canton of Uri for preliminary review before the signature collection begins. 600 valid signatures are required for the initiative to come about. They must be certified and submitted within the two months prior to submission (Art. 66 para. 2 lit. a WAVG). The submission procedures are governed by the Act on Political Rights in the Canton of Uri.

Strategic briefing for activists

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

Summary

Uri is the protective-forest canton of the series. The highest share of protective forest in Switzerland, one of the sparsest populations, and one of the lowest signature thresholds (600) make Uri unique. The core message: the wolf protects the protective forest better than recreational hunting does, 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 all present in the canton.

1. Why Uri, of all places?

Protective-forest canton. The highest share of protective forest in Switzerland. The wolf protects it better than recreational hunting does.

600 signatures. One of the lowest thresholds in the series. 1.6 per cent of the population.

Sparse population. Few conflict zones. The best conditions for professional wildlife management.

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

Licence hunting = a simple change of system. No lease agreements, no compensation for municipalities.

Modest absolute costs. 250,000 to 600,000 francs. 0.05 to 0.12 per cent of the cantonal budget.

2. Lessons from Zurich: What we are doing differently

Positive title. «For professional wildlife protection» instead of «Game wardens instead of hunters».

The protective-forest argument. In Uri, this is the strongest argument: the wolf protects the protective forest better than recreational hunting does.

Absolute costs instead of per capita. In a small canton, per capita figures are misleading. The absolute figure (250,000 to 600,000 francs) is more convincing.

3. Opponent analysis and prepared responses

Counter-argument 1: «Uri is alpine, the Geneva model doesn't fit»

The facts: A sparse population means fewer conflicts. And the wolf protects the protective forest better than recreational hunting does.

Short communicative formula: «Fewer people means fewer conflicts. And the wolf protects the protective forest.»

Counter-argument 2: «The protective forest needs recreational hunting»

The facts: Recreational hunting has not solved the browsing pressure problem for decades. The wolf can. Professional wildlife wardens can, in a targeted way.

Short communicative formula: «Recreational hunting has not solved the browsing pressure problem for decades. The wolf can.»

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

The facts:250,000 to 600,000 francs absolute. 0.05 to 0.12 percent of the cantonal budget.

Short communicative formula:«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 recreational hunting.»The strongest argument for Uri. Ecologically and economically.

«Geneva has been demonstrating it for 50 years.» Never repealed since 1974, stable populations, minimal costs.

«Professional instead of hobby.» Qualified professionals instead of recreational shooters.

5. Timetable and next steps

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & preliminary text review	Consult a lawyer; recruit committee members resident in Uri	Month 1–3
Submission for preliminary review	Uri Cantonal Chancellery	Month 3–4
Publication & start of signature collection	Target: 750+ signatures as a buffer; 600 is one of the lowest hurdles 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	Cantonal Chancellery, official verification	After the collection period
Cantonal council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media work	Following months
Voting campaign	Protective forest argument, wolf as natural regulator, absolute costs	Before the vote

6. Campaign material

Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as the central set of arguments.
The The Psychology of Recreational Hunting in the Canton of Uri as background material.
Local media: Urner Zeitung, Urner Wochenblatt, Tele 1.
Infographic: protective forest and wolf as the leitmotif. Browsing pressure with and without the wolf. Absolute costs (250,000 to 600,000 francs).

7. Further sources

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

Fact check: The claims of the recreational hunting lobby

The brochure «Die Jagd in der Schweiz schützt und nützt» ("Hunting in Switzerland protects and benefits") published by JagdSchweiz reads like a promotional pamphlet, yet its central claims do not hold up to a fact check. Ten narratives put to the test, from «statutory duty» to «biodiversity» to «80% approval»: Dossier: Fact check on the JagdSchweiz brochure →