«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of a detailed draft

Based on Art. 53 of the Constitution of the Canton of Nidwalden of 10 October 1965 and on the Law on Referendums and Elections

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Initiative text

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 supplemented by the following articles:

Art. [new] Professional wildlife management

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

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 permissible only as a last resort, when all other appropriate measures for damage prevention or hazard mitigation have been exhausted or proven insufficient. It requires prior approval from the Wildlife Commission.

4 The canton shall establish an independent Wildlife Commission composed of representatives of animal and nature conservation organisations, the scientific community, and the relevant authorities. The Commission oversees wildlife management and decides on regulatory measures.

5 The canton promotes 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 endangered and protected wildlife species

1 The canton refrains 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 relies on promoting the coexistence of humans and wildlife, passive damage prevention, the ecological enhancement of habitats, and scientific monitoring of wildlife presence.

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

4 Within the framework of intercantonal cooperation and in its dealings with the federal government, the canton actively advocates for the protection and conservation of endangered wildlife species.

Transitional Provision

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

2 Existing hunting licences shall expire upon the entry into force of the implementing regulations. 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 Nidwalden, a small central Swiss canton with approximately 43’000 inhabitants covering an area of 276 km², today's hobby hunting is a system that serves neither species protection nor contemporary 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 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 Nidwalden is organised as a patent hunting system. Private individuals obtain a cantonal licence and hunt without fixed territorial responsibility (cf. the psychology of hobby hunting in the canton of Nidwalden as well as the critical analysis of hunting training at wildbeimwild.com).

At the same time, 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 culled upon cantonal request. The canton of Nidwalden is affected by the return of the wolf: the wolf at Pilatus made national headlines in 2023/2024, and the 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) (cf. the analysis of hunting policy at wildbeimwild.com and the wolf policy at wildbeimwild.com).

The canton of Nidwalden has the opportunity to send a clear signal here: not only in favor of professional wildlife management instead of hobby hunting, but also in favor of the consistent protection of endangered wildlife species at the cantonal level.

2. The Model: Canton of Geneva

On May 19, 1974, approximately 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 exterminated: deer and wild boar had disappeared for decades, and only a few dozen roe deer remained. Around 300 hobby hunters were releasing large quantities 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 today hosts the largest hare population and one of the last partridge populations in Switzerland.

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

– In 2005, a renewed popular referendum saw 90 percent of Geneva's electorate vote in favor of maintaining 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 approximately 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 approximately 2.40 francs per inhabitant 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 wildlife warden in Geneva requires an average of 8 hours and a maximum of 2 rounds of ammunition for a sanitary cull of a wild boar. A hobby hunter in the canton of Zurich requires 60 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), in the canton of Zurich 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 based on the following principles:

Expertise instead of recreational pleasure. Professional wildlife managers act on a scientific basis (cf. the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com).

Ultima Ratio Principle. A cull is only permissible when 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 demonstrates: wildlife populations regulate themselves independently in most cases.

4. Why Nidwalden?

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

Nearly the same size as Geneva. Nidwalden, at 276 km², has almost the same area as Geneva (282 km²). This is the strongest size argument in the entire series: if professional wildlife management has worked in Geneva across 282 km² for 50 years, then it will also work in Nidwalden across 276 km². The topography differs (alpine vs. flat), but lower population density means fewer conflict zones.

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

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

1’000 signatures. With 43,000 inhabitants, 1,000 signatures represent approximately 2.3 percent of the population. Signatures can be collected in Stans, Hergiswil, Buochs, Stansstad and Ennetbürgen. Hergiswil and Stansstad belong to the Lucerne catchment area and are urban in character (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in residential areas).

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

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

5. On the initiative text

Paragraph 1 – Ban on hobby hunting

The prohibition of patent hunting by private individuals corresponds to the Geneva model. Cantonal competence is uncontested: Art. 3 para. 1 JSG. The three hunting systems are of equal standing. Geneva has been in conformity with federal law since 1974.

Paragraph 2 – Professional wildlife management

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

Paragraph 3 – Culling as a last resort

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

Paragraph 4 – Wildlife commission

The independent wildlife commission is modelled on the Geneva system. It prevents the cantonal government from independently approving exceptions (cf. wildbeimwild.com/jagd-fakten).

Paragraph 5 – Natural regulation and coexistence

The promotion of coexistence in Nidwalden encompasses in particular the protection of habitats on the Stanserhorn and at Klewenalp, the connectivity of wildlife corridors and public awareness-raising (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in residential areas).

Transitional provisions

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

6. On the second article: Protection of threatened and protected wildlife species

The second article is of particular relevance for Nidwalden. The wolf on the Pilatus has politicised the debate. The lynx is native to the canton. Lake Lucerne is a waterfowl area. The “in particular” formulation also protects future returnees (cf. the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

7. Financial implications: Concrete budget for Nidwalden

The Geneva reference budget

In Geneva, total costs amount to approximately 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

Nidwalden, at 276 km², is nearly the same size as Geneva (282 km²) — the strongest size-based argument in the entire series. The alpine topography nevertheless requires a slightly higher number of positions than in Geneva, because fieldwork is more demanding. For Nidwalden with approximately 43’000 inhabitants, the following deliberately conservative cost estimate emerges:

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.

Operating 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-time 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

Offsetting these costs are savings: no hunting examinations, no licence administration, no culling planning, no hunting supervision. A single senselessly killed wolf costs the public approximately 35’000 francs.

Lost revenues

With the abolition of hobby hunting, licence fees estimated at 150’000 to 250’000 francs annually will cease. However, these are offset by the never-accounted external costs of militia hunting — wildlife accidents, browsing damage in protective forests caused by hunting activity, administrative burden, police and court interventions — which amount to a multiple of these revenues. In the canton of Geneva, these revenues have been absent since 1974 — without any financial problems: before the hunting ban, more than 400 hobby hunters were active; today, three full-time positions do the same work more effectively. Sanitary and therapeutic culls carried out by professional game wardens are not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters’ lore or the misguided “nature experience” of hobby hunters. A full-cost accounting shows: militia hunting costs the taxpayer significantly more than it generates (cf. «What hobby hunting really costs Switzerland» on wildbeimwild.com).

Hobby hunters in politics vote against nature conservation. The recreational hunting lobby systematically opposes biodiversity and species protection concerns. In 2024, it fought 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 2015 to 2019 legislative period, hobby hunters in parliament voted predominantly against environmental concerns. Anyone who claims 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 be between 200’000 and 500’000 francs per year . 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 percent 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 Higher-Level Law

First Article: Abolition of Hobby Hunting

Compliant with federal law. Art. 3 para. 1 HLA. Three equivalent hunting systems. Geneva has operated unbcontested since 1974.

Second Article: Protection of Protected Species

Art. 7a HLA enables preventive regulation but does not require 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. Pre-empting Foreseeable Objections

«Nidwalden is too small for its own wildlife management»

The facts: Nidwalden covers 276 km². Geneva covers 282 km² and has operated professional wildlife management for 50 years. The size objection is entirely moot. Nidwalden is even 6 km² smaller than Geneva. What works in Geneva will also work in Nidwalden on an almost identical area (cf. the Psychology of Hobby Hunting in the Canton of Nidwalden).

Concise communicative formula: «276 km². Geneva has 282 km². The size objection is moot.»

«The wolf on the Pilatus shows that we need to shoot»

The facts: The wolf on the Pilatus requires professional management, not reflexive shooting. Professional wildlife management would have monitored the wolf scientifically and provided professional protection for livestock herds.

Concise communicative formula: «The wolf on the Pilatus requires professional management, not reflexive shooting.»

«The costs are too high for a small canton»

The facts: Even by generous estimates: 200’000 to 500’000 francs. 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the cantonal budget. Nidwalden has one of the highest tax bases of all Swiss cantons. Entirely manageable.

Concise communications formula: «200’000 to 500’000 francs. 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the cantonal budget. A modest sum for one of the most financially powerful cantons in Switzerland.»

10. Summary

This initiative gives the population of Nidwalden the opportunity to express support for modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wildlife species. The first article follows the Geneva model, which has proven its worth for over 50 years. With 276 km², Nidwalden has almost the identical area as Geneva (282 km²) — the strongest size argument in the entire series. The second article protects in particular the wolf on the Pilatus and the lynx. The high tax base and the modest absolute costs make the transition to a new system 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: [Address of the committee]

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 hobby hunting in the canton of Nidwalden: wildbeimwild.com – Psychologie der Hobby-Jagd im Kanton NW

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

National parks and protected areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/nationalpark

Wildlife in residential areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere-im-siedlungsgebiet

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen

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

Note on procedure

The initiative committee submits the initiative text to the State Chancellery of the canton of Nidwalden for preliminary review before the signature collection begins. For the initiative to be valid, 1’000 valid signatures are required. The collection period is 60 days (Elections and Referendums Act NW). The submission modalities are governed by the Law on Referendums and Elections.

Strategic Briefing for Activists

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

Nidwalden is the «Geneva twin» of the series: 276 km² vs. 282 km². The size argument is entirely negated. The wolf at Pilatus (border NW/OW/LU) is polarising. 1’000 signatures from 43’000 residents is achievable. The urban base on Lake Lucerne (Hergiswil, Stansstad) provides the mobilisation potential. Nidwalden has one of the highest tax revenues of all cantons. The absolute costs are modest at 200’000 to 500’000 francs.

1. Why Nidwalden in particular?

Almost the same size as Geneva.

276 km² vs. 282 km². Size objection negated.Wolf at Pilatus.

Border NW/OW/LU. Politically charged at national level.1’000 signatures from 43’000 residents.

2.3 percent. Achievable.Urban base.

Hergiswil, Stansstad, Ennetbürgen are urban in character.Highest tax revenue.

Costs manageable.Patent hunting = simpler change of system.

No lease agreements.2. Lessons from Zurich: What we will do differently

Positive title.

«For Professional Wildlife Protection».Geneva twin.

276 vs. 282 km² is the strongest area argument in the series.Absolute costs rather than per capita.

150’000–350’000 francs.3. Analysis of opponents and prepared responses

Counter-argument 1: «Nidwalden is too small»

Communication short formula:

«276 km². Geneva has 282 km². The size objection is negated.»Counter-argument 2: «The wolf must go»

Communication short formula:

«The wolf at Pilatus requires professional management, not reflexive culling.»Counter-argument 3: «The costs are too high»

Communication short formula:

«200’000 to 500’000 francs. Manageable for one of the most financially powerful cantons.»4. Communication strategy: The three core messages

«276 km². Geneva has 282 km². Same area, same system.»

The strongest argument.«Geneva has been leading the way for 50 years.»

90 percent approval.«Professional rather than hobby.»

Specialists rather than recreational hunters.5. Timeline and next steps

Phase

Content	Timeframe	Committee formation & preliminary text review
Engage a lawyer; committee members resident in NW	Month 1–3	Submission for preliminary review
State Chancellery of Nidwalden	Month 3–4	Publication & start of signature collection
Caution: The collection period is only 60 days — correspondingly tight planning required. Target: 1’250+ signatures as a buffer	Month 4	Monat 4
Party contacts & coalition building	SP, Greens; Pro Natura; BirdLife	Month 1–10
Submission of signatures	State chancellery, official verification	After collection period
Cantonal council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media work	Following months
Voting campaign	Geneva twin, Pilatus wolf, 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 Nidwalden as background material.
• Local media: Nidwaldner Zeitung, Nidwaldner Blitz, Tele 1.
• Infographic: Area comparison NW (276 km²) vs. GE (282 km²) as a guiding motif. Wolf at Pilatus. Absolute costs.

7. Further sources

• The Geneva hunting ban in detail
• Scientific studies
• Hunting in Switzerland
• Psychology of hobby hunting in the canton of Nidwalden
• 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 Nidwalden 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 an advertising pamphlet – yet its central claims do not withstand a fact-check. Ten narratives put to the test, from “state duty” to “biodiversity” to “80% approval”: Dossier: Fact-check JagdSchweiz brochure →