Cantonal popular initiative: Canton of Nidwalden

«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of a drafted proposal

Based on Art. 54 of the Constitution of the Canton of Nidwalden of 10 October 1965 and on the Act on Political Rights in the Canton (Electoral and Voting Act)

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Text of the initiative

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

The Constitution of the Canton of Nidwalden of 10 October 1965 is amended to include the following articles:

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 Nidwalden.

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 Nidwalden, a small central Swiss canton with around 43,000 inhabitants across 276 km² of land, today's recreational hunting is a system that serves neither species conservation nor modern wildlife management. It is the exercise of a bloody leisure pastime 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 refuted for over 50 years by the Geneva model (see the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban on wildbeimwild.com).

Recreational hunting in Nidwalden is organised as licence hunting. Private individuals obtain a cantonal licence and hunt without fixed responsibility for a hunting ground (see the Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Nidwalden 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 federal level. The revision of the hunting act in December 2022 introduced preventive regulation of the wolf. Since February 2025, cantons have been able to authorise the killing of individual beavers that cause significant damage (Art. 9d JSV). The canton of Nidwalden is affected by the return of the wolf: the wolf at Pilatus made national headlines in 2023/2024, and Pilatus lies on the border between Nidwalden, Obwalden and Lucerne. The lynx is native to the canton. The Stanserhorn and the Klewenalp are habitats of regional importance. At 276 km², Nidwalden is almost the same size as Geneva (282 km²) (see the analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com and the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The canton of Nidwalden has the opportunity to send a clear signal here: not only for professional wildlife protection instead of recreational hunting, but also for the consistent protection of threatened 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 (cf. 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.

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 Nidwalden?

The canton of Nidwalden is suitable for introducing professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

Almost the same size as Geneva. At 276 km², Nidwalden is almost exactly the same size as Geneva (282 km²). This is the strongest size-based argument in the entire series: if professional wildlife management has worked in Geneva on 282 km² for 50 years, it will also work in Nidwalden on 276 km². The topography differs (alpine versus flat), but a lower population density means fewer conflict zones.

Wolf at Pilatus. Mount Pilatus lies on the border between Nidwalden, Obwalden and Lucerne. The wolf at Pilatus made national headlines in 2023/2024. The initiative offers a constitutional answer: professional wildlife management instead of politically motivated kills (cf. the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

Stanserhorn and Klewenalp. The Stanserhorn and Klewenalp are habitats for ibex, chamois and lynx. Lake Lucerne is a waterfowl area. Professional wildlife management would protect these habitats more consistently (see wildbeimwild.com on national parks and protected areas).

500 signatures in 60 days. With 43,000 inhabitants, 500 signatures represent around 1.2 per cent of the population. Signatures can be collected in Stans, Hergiswil, Buochs, Stansstad and Ennetbürgen. Hergiswil and Stansstad belong to the Lucerne catchment area and have an urban character.

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

Urban base on Lake Lucerne. Hergiswil, Stansstad and Ennetbürgen are urban in character and belong to the Lucerne catchment area. A considerable proportion of the cantonal population lives in the agglomeration.

5. On the text of the initiative

Paragraph 1: Ban on recreational hunting

The ban on licence hunting by private individuals corresponds to the Geneva model. Cantonal competence is undisputed: Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 of the hunting act. The three hunting systems are of equal standing. Geneva has been compliant 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 the exception, not the rule. Passive measures take priority.

Paragraph 4: Wildlife commission

The independent wildlife commission is modelled on the Geneva system. It prevents the cantonal government from independently approving exceptions (see Hunting myths fact-checked).

Paragraph 5: Natural regulation and coexistence

In Nidwalden, promoting coexistence in particular encompasses protecting the habitats on the Stanserhorn and the Klewenalp, connecting the wildlife corridors, and educating the public.

Transitional provisions

The two-year deadline gives the cantonal government sufficient time. The existing Office for Forests and Energy can serve as an institutional basis.

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

The second article is particularly relevant for Nidwalden. The wolf at Pilatus has politicised the debate. The lynx is native to the canton. Lake Lucerne is a waterfowl habitat. The "in particular" wording also protects future returnees (cf. the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

7. Cost implications: Concrete budget for Nidwalden

The Geneva reference budget

In Geneva, total costs amount to around 1.2 million francs annually: around 600,000 francs for personnel, around 250,000 francs for prevention, and around 350,000 francs for damage compensation.

Conservative projection for Nidwalden

At 276 km², Nidwalden is almost exactly the same size as Geneva (282 km²): the strongest size-based argument in the entire series. Nevertheless, the alpine topography requires a slightly higher number of positions than in Geneva, since fieldwork is more demanding. For Nidwalden, with around 43,000 inhabitants, this results in the following deliberately conservative cost estimate:

Personnel costs: 240,000 to 560,000 francs annually. 2 to 4 full-time positions are required. The Stanserhorn and the Klewenalp are alpine habitats.

Material costs: 60,000 to 110,000 francs annually.

Damage compensation: 30,000 to 80,000 francs annually.

Herd protection start-up investment: 250,000 to 400,000 francs. A one-off investment in herd protection infrastructure for the Stanserhorn region and the Klewenalp over three to five years.

Total costs: 330,000 to 750,000 francs annually (gross).

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

With the abolition of recreational hunting, the licence fees of an estimated 150,000 to 250,000 francs annually will be lost. However, these are offset by the never-accounted-for external costs of militia hunting (wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in protective forests, administrative expenses, police and court interventions), which amount to a multiple of this income. In the canton of Geneva, this income has been forgone 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 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 the taxpayer significantly more than it generates in revenue (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 in the range of 200,000 to 500,000 francs annually. In absolute terms, this is modest: 200,000 to 500,000 francs for a canton with a total budget of around 450 million francs (2024 state accounts, FFA). That is less than 0.15 per cent of the cantonal budget. Nidwalden also has one of the highest tax capacities of all Swiss cantons (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

“Nidwalden is too small for its own wildlife management”

The facts: Nidwalden covers 276 km². Geneva covers 282 km² and has been running professional wildlife management for 50 years. The size objection falls away entirely. Nidwalden is even 6 km² smaller than Geneva. What works in Geneva, on an almost identical area, also works in Nidwalden (see the Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Nidwalden).

Short communicative formula: «276 km². Geneva covers 282 km². The size objection falls away.»

“The wolf at Pilatus shows that we have to shoot it”

The facts: The wolf at Pilatus needs professional management, not reflexive killings. Professional wildlife management would have monitored the wolf scientifically and protected livestock herds professionally.

Short communicative formula: «The wolf at Pilatus needs professional management, not reflexive killings.»

“The costs are too high for a small canton”

The facts: Even generously calculated: 200,000 to 500,000 francs. 0.04 to 0.11 percent of the cantonal budget. Nidwalden has one of the highest tax capacities of all Swiss cantons. Entirely affordable.

Short communicative formula: «200,000 to 500,000 francs. 0.04 to 0.11 percent of the cantonal budget. Modest for one of the most tax-rich cantons in Switzerland.»

10. Summary

This initiative gives the people of Nidwalden the opportunity to vote for modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of threatened wild animal species. The first article follows the Geneva model, which has proven successful for over 50 years. At 276 km², Nidwalden has an almost identical area to Geneva (282 km²): the strongest size-based argument in the entire series. The second article specifically protects the wolf at Pilatus and the lynx. The high tax capacity and modest absolute costs make the system change financially unproblematic.

Initiative committee “For professional wildlife protection”

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members in accordance with cantonal law, resident in the Canton of Nidwalden)

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Further documentation

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.

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

Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Nidwalden: wildbeimwild.com: Psychology of recreational hunting in Canton NW

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

National parks and protected areas: wildbeimwild.com/tag/schweizerischer-nationalpark

Wild animals in settlement areas: wildbeimwild.com/tag/stadtwildtiere

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen

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 initiative text to the State Chancellery of the Canton of Nidwalden for preliminary review before the signature-collection period begins. For the initiative to come into effect, 500 valid signatures are required (Art. 54 para. 4 no. 2 of the Cantonal Constitution of Nidwalden). The certified signatures must be submitted within 60 days of the request being lodged with the State Chancellery (Art. 13 para. 3 of the Election and Voting Act).

Strategic briefing for activists

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

Summary

Nidwalden is the “Geneva twin” of the series: 276 km² vs. 282 km². The size argument becomes entirely irrelevant. The wolf at Pilatus (on the NW/OW/LU border) is a polarising issue. With 43,000 inhabitants, 500 signatures in 60 days are achievable. The urban base around Lake Lucerne (Hergiswil, Stansstad) provides the mobilisation potential. Nidwalden has one of the highest tax capacities of all cantons. The absolute costs, at 200,000 to 500,000 francs, are modest.

1. Why Nidwalden of all places?

Almost the same size as Geneva. 276 km² vs. 282 km². The size objection is moot.

Wolf at Pilatus. Border NW/OW/LU. Politicised nationally.

500 signatures in 60 days. 1.2 per cent. Achievable.

Urban base. Hergiswil, Stansstad, Ennetbürgen are urban in character.

High tax capacity. Costs manageable.

Licence hunting = a simple change of system. No lease agreements.

2. Lessons from Zurich: What we are doing differently

Positive title. “For professional wildlife protection”.

Geneva twin. 276 vs. 282 km² is the strongest area argument in the series.

Absolute costs instead of per capita. 200,000 to 500,000 francs.

3. Opponent analysis and prepared responses

Counter-argument 1: “Nidwalden is too small”

Short communicative formula: «276 km². Geneva covers 282 km². The size objection falls away.»

Counter-argument 2: “The wolf must go”

Short communicative formula: «The wolf at Pilatus needs professional management, not reflexive killings.»

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

Short communicative formula: “200,000 to 500,000 francs. Manageable for one of the most tax-strong cantons.”

4. Communication strategy: The three core messages

«Nidwalden has 276 km². Geneva has 282 km². Same area, same system.» The strongest argument.

«Geneva has been demonstrating it for 50 years.» Never repealed since 1974.

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

5. Timetable and next steps

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & preliminary text review	Bring in a lawyer; committee members resident in NW	Month 1–3
Submission for preliminary review	Nidwalden State Chancellery	Month 3–4
Publication & start of signature collection	Note: The collection period is only 60 days from the date of lodging with the State Chancellery, requiring correspondingly tight planning. Goal: 650+ signatures as a buffer	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	SP, Greens; Pro Natura; BirdLife	Month 1–10
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official verification	After the collection period
Cantonal council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media work	Following months
Voting campaign	Geneva twin, Pilatus wolf, absolute costs	Before the vote

6. Campaign material

Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as the central set of arguments.
The Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Nidwalden as background material.
Local media: Nidwaldner Zeitung, Nidwaldner Blitz, Tele 1.
Infographic: area comparison NW (276 km²) vs. GE (282 km²) as the leitmotif. Wolf at Pilatus. Absolute costs.

7. Further sources

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

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 →