Federal Popular Initiative «For Professional Wildlife Protection»

Federal popular initiative in the form of a fully drafted proposal

Pursuant to Art. 139 of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of April 18, 1999
Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

The undersigned eligible voters make the following demand:
The Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of April 18, 1999 is amended as follows:

Art. 79a (new) Professional Wildlife Protection

1 The practice of hunting by private individuals (hobby hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Swiss Confederation.

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

3 The culling of wild animals is permitted only as a last resort (ultima ratio principle). It requires the prior approval of an independent wildlife commission.

4 The cantons shall establish independent wildlife commissions composed of representatives of animal and nature conservation organizations, the scientific community, and the competent authorities.

5 The Confederation and the cantons shall promote the natural regulation of wildlife populations, the interconnection of habitats, and the coexistence of humans and wildlife.

6 The details shall be governed by law.

Art. 79b (new) Protection of Threatened and Protected Wildlife Species

1 Preventive population regulation of protected wildlife species is prohibited. This includes in particular wolves, lynx, bears, beavers, otters, golden eagles, and other species protected under federal law.

2 The Confederation and the cantons shall rely on promoting the coexistence of humans and wildlife, passive damage prevention, and scientific monitoring of wildlife presence.

3 Measures against individual wild animals in cases of immediate threat to humans remain reserved. They shall be limited to the minimum necessary and carried out exclusively by the competent cantonal authority.

4 The Confederation shall advocate internationally for the protection of threatened wildlife species.

Transitional Provisions for Articles 79a and 79b (new)

1 The Federal Council shall issue the necessary implementing provisions within three years of the adoption of this constitutional amendment.

2 The cantons shall ensure continuity of wildlife management during the transitional period.

3 Existing hunting licenses and hunting lease agreements shall expire upon the entry into force of the implementing provisions. Hunting license fees and lease payments already paid for the current hunting season shall be refunded on a pro rata basis.

Explanatory Notes

1. Background

Switzerland currently has three hunting systems: license hunting, territory hunting, and state-managed hunting (Canton of Geneva). Around 30,000 hobby hunters purchase licenses or lease territories each year. According to JagdSchweiz, license and lease fees amount to approximately 26 million Swiss francs annually.

The external costs of hobby hunting are not captured in any official accounting: 20,000 wildlife accidents per year generate around 76 million francs in insurance costs. Approximately 300 hunting accidents per year, a significant proportion involving serious injuries, generate an estimated 3.6 million francs in SUVA costs; since 2000, more than 75 people have died in hunting accidents.

The 585,000 hectares of protective forest require annual investments of around 150 million francs from the federal government, cantons, and beneficiaries; approximately 30 percent of the protective forest area shows insufficient regeneration because hunting pressure drives wildlife into the forest (displacement effect). Hobby hunting produces more animals through compensatory reproduction than it removes: high hunting pressure leads to earlier sexual maturity and larger litters. The system that is supposed to protect the protective forest worsens the very problem it claims to solve (see the comprehensive hunting myths dossier at wildbeimwild.com).

Political developments in recent years have further aggravated the situation: the revision of the federal hunting act in December 2022 introduced the preventive regulation of wolves. Since February 2025, beavers may be culled upon cantonal request. Political pressure on the lynx, the Eurasian otter, and other protected species is steadily increasing. The weakening of species protection at the legislative level makes it imperative to anchor it in the Federal Constitution (see the analysis of hunting policy at wildbeimwild.com and the wolf policy at wildbeimwild.com).

The hobby hunting lobby fights conservation concerns not only at the legislative level, but also at the ballot box. On September 27, 2020, voters rejected the revision of the hunting act with 51.9 percent (SRF). On September 22, 2024, the biodiversity initiative failed with 63 percent voting no, actively opposed by the hobby hunting lobby, the farmers' union, and the FDP (SRF). In 2016, the Ticino Hunters' Association FCTI torpedoed the second Swiss national park, Parc Adula, with fear-mongering propaganda (SRF). Hobby hunters in parliament voted during the 2015 to 2019 legislative term predominantly against environmental concerns. This systematic blockade is a central reason why wildlife protection must be enshrined at the constitutional level, resistant to the political pressure of the hobby hunting lobby.

2. The Model: Canton of Geneva

On May 19, 1974, around two-thirds of voters in the Canton of Geneva voted in favor of abolishing hobby hunting. Before the ban, large wildlife in the canton had been virtually wiped out: deer and wild boar had been absent for decades, and only a few dozen roe deer remained. More than 400 hobby hunters were releasing large numbers of pheasants, partridges, and hares for hunting.

The results after more than 50 years are 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 hare population in Switzerland and one of the last partridge populations: 17.7 hares per 100 hectares, compared to 1.0 in the Canton of Zurich.
The efficiency of professional wildlife management is well documented: a wildlife warden requires 8 hours and 2 rounds of ammunition for a targeted cull. A hobby hunter requires 60 to 80 hours and 15 rounds for the same result.
In 2005, a fresh public referendum saw 90 percent of Geneva’s voters support retaining the ban on hobby hunting. In 2009, a motion to reintroduce hobby hunting was rejected in the cantonal parliament by 70 votes to 7.
The total cost of professional wildlife management in Geneva amounts to around 1.2 million francs per year, covering personnel (approximately three full-time positions, distributed among roughly a dozen environmental officers), prevention, and damage compensation. That works out to around 2.40 francs per resident per year.
In the Engadin National Park, the same pattern emerges on a larger scale: free from hunting for over 100 years, chamois populations have stabilized at around 1,350 animals, and species diversity has doubled.

A detailed account can be found in the dossier «Geneva and the Hunting Ban» at wildbeimwild.com.

3. Why a Federal Initiative?

25 cantonal initiatives mean 25 parallel campaigns, 25 signature-gathering drives, and 25 votes — in cantons with very different political starting conditions, from Basel-City to Grisons, from Geneva to Appenzell Innerrhoden. A federal initiative decides everything at once and establishes a uniform wildlife protection law for all of Switzerland.

Legal necessity. Art. 3 para. 1 of the Federal Hunting Act (JSG) expressly delegates the organization of hunting to the cantons. The three equivalent hunting systems — license hunting, district hunting, and state-managed hunting — are currently regulated at the cantonal level. Only an amendment to the Federal Constitution can establish a nationwide ban on hobby hunting. Art. 79a of the Federal Constitution makes state-managed hunting based on the Geneva model the federal standard (cf. wildbeimwild.com on hunting in Switzerland).

Signature threshold. A federal popular initiative requires 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months. With 25 parallel cantonal campaigns and a well-organized national collection effort, this threshold is realistic. For comparison: in Geneva, the hunting ban was enacted in 1974 through a simple popular initiative that mobilized fewer than one third of the eligible voters.

Double majority. A federal popular initiative requires both a popular majority and a majority of the cantons. This is demanding, but achievable: Geneva has successfully operated the system for 50 years. The financial argument can be deployed at the national level. Wolf policy mobilizes people across Switzerland. The animal welfare movement is established throughout the country.

Geneva as a reference. If the model has worked in a Swiss canton for over 50 years, it can work everywhere — that is the initiative's strongest argument, and it can be deployed nationwide (cf. Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

4. Cost implications

The Geneva reference budget
Geneva, with an area of 282 km² and approximately 500,000 inhabitants, spends around 1.2 million francs annually on professional wildlife management — 2.40 francs per inhabitant per year. Three full-time positions handle the work previously done by over 400 hobby hunters, more efficiently and at lower cost.

Conservative projection for Switzerland
For Switzerland as a whole, with an area of 41,285 km² and approximately 9 million inhabitants, the following deliberately conservative cost estimate — taking into account alpine topography, the build-up of livestock protection measures, and transitional management — can be derived:

Personnel costs: 18 to 35 million francs annually. Approximately 150 to 250 full-time positions are required (specialists with training in wildlife biology or wildlife ecology). Concentrating resources on conflict regions — the Alpine zone with predators, the Mittelland with wild boar and beavers, and lakeshore areas — allows for an efficient distribution of positions.
Operating costs: 5 to 10 million francs annually. Equipment, vehicles, monitoring infrastructure, livestock protection materials, IT, public relations, and coordination between cantons.
Damage compensation: 3 to 8 million francs annually. Wildlife damage in agriculture and forestry, browsing damage, beaver damage to waterways, wolf depredation losses.
Livestock protection startup investment: 5 to 10 million francs as a one-time expense. In the first five years after the system change, a one-time investment in livestock protection infrastructure for the Alpine cantons will be needed: livestock guardian dog programs, mobile fencing, night enclosures, and shepherd training. This investment is non-recurring.

Gross total costs: 26 to 53 million francs annually. After deducting the administrative costs that will no longer apply — such as hunting license exams, permit administration, kill planning, and hunting supervision — as well as current costs for wolf culls (approximately 35,000 francs per kill), the net additional expenditure amounts to approximately 15 to 40 million francs annually.

Per capita: 1.70 to 4.50 francs per resident per year. That is less than a cup of coffee. Set against this are the never-accounted external costs of hobby hunting: 76 million francs in wildlife accident insurance costs, 3.6 million francs in SUVA hunting accident costs, and a substantial portion of the 150 million francs in protective forest maintenance costs attributable to the displacement effect caused by hunting.

In relation to the total budget. The federal government and cantons together have a combined budget of approximately 100 billion francs. The net additional costs represent less than 0.05 percent of that budget.

5. On the Initiative Text

Art. 79a FC – Professional Wildlife Protection

Art. 79a Para. 1 FC – Ban on Hobby Hunting
The ban on hobby hunting by private individuals at the federal level is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model, which has been practiced in conformity with federal law since 1974. Art. 79a FC replaces Art. 3 Para. 1 JSG in effect as a delegation norm and creates a clear federal legal basis for the nationwide ban. Unlike a legislative revision, the constitutional amendment cannot be altered by parliament and permanently protects the ban against political pressure from the hobby hunting lobby.

Art. 79a Para. 2 FC – Professional Wildlife Management
Instead of hobby hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers employed by cantonal services take over all tasks related to wildlife care and, where necessary, population regulation. These specialists hold a degree in biology or wildlife ecology and act on a scientific basis and in the public interest.

Art. 79a Para. 3 FC – Culling as a Last Resort
The central innovation compared to today’s system: culling is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures – electric fences, deterrence, relocation, habitat management – take priority. The approval requirement of the independent wildlife commission under Art. 79a Para. 3 FC prevents political pressure from individual interest groups from diluting wildlife management.

Art. 79a Para. 4 FC – Wildlife Commissions
The independent wildlife commissions are modeled on the Geneva model of the constitutionally established fauna commission. Their composition – drawing from animal and nature conservation organizations, scientific institutions, and public authorities – ensures that decisions are evidence-based and not driven by the hunting-ideological myths that the hobby hunting lobby has used to legitimize its practices for decades.

Art. 79b FC – Protection of Threatened and Protected Wildlife Species

Art. 79b FC is particularly effective at the federal level: it prevents Parliament – as happened with the 2022 JSG revision – from gradually hollowing out species protection. The prohibition on preventive population regulation for wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, and golden eagle is designed as a dynamic reference and also protects future returning species. The “minimum clause” for immediate threats to human life ensures that the initiative does not create protection scenarios that would be unmanageable in practice (cf. wildbeimwild.com on predators and wolf policy).

Transitional Provisions on Art. 79a and 79b FC

The three-year timeframe (compared to two years in the cantonal initiatives) reflects the greater complexity of a nationwide system change: the Federal Council must develop implementing legislation, the 26 cantons must establish wildlife commissions and hire professional wildlife managers. The existing staff of the cantonal hunting inspectorates can serve as an institutional foundation. The proportional reimbursement of license fees and lease payments prevents unjustified enrichment of public authorities at the expense of private individuals who entered into contracts in good faith.

6. Compatibility with Higher-Level Law

Conformity with the Federal Constitution
A federal popular initiative in the form of a fully drafted text that directly amends the Federal Constitution is by definition in conformity with federal law: the new provisions of Art. 79a FC (professional wildlife protection) and Art. 79b FC (protection of threatened and protected wild animal species) rank above the Hunting Act and establish the new constitutional foundation for the nationwide ban on hobby hunting and the protection of protected species. They supersede Art. 3 para. 1 of the Hunting Act as a delegation norm to the extent that it assigns the cantons responsibility for organizing hobby hunting, and they authorize the Federal Council to enact implementing legislation within the framework of Art. 79a and 79b FC.

Bern Convention and International Law
Switzerland has entered reservations to the Bern Convention on the Conservation of Wild Fauna and Flora that permit hunting of certain species. The ban on hobby hunting and the preventive population regulation of protected species enshrined in Art. 79a and 79b FC moves toward higher standards of protection and does not contradict the spirit of the Bern Convention; on the contrary, it strengthens the conservation of threatened species as required under international law. The EU Habitats Directive does not apply, as Switzerland is not an EU member state.

Guarantee of Property Rights
Under Swiss law, the right to hunt wildlife — the hunting regale — belongs to the state, not to private individuals. Hobby hunters derive their hunting authorization from the state (through a license or lease agreement). There is no private property right to a hunting license that would be violated by Art. 79a or 79b of the Federal Constitution. The proportional reimbursement of fees and lease payments in the transitional provision to Art. 79a and 79b of the Federal Constitution ensures that no unjustified interference with property rights occurs.

Unity of Subject Matter
The initiative preserves unity of subject matter: Art. 79a of the Federal Constitution, Art. 79b of the Federal Constitution, the transitional provision, and the explanatory notes relate exclusively to the protection and management of wild animals on Swiss territory and are closely connected in terms of subject matter.

Voting Behavior: Hobby Hunters vs. Nature Conservation

The claim that hobby hunters are the “greatest conservationists” is refuted by their voting behavior:

Hunting Act 2020: 51.9 percent No. The relaxation of wolf protection, substantially shaped by the hobby hunting lobby, was rejected by voters (SRF).
Biodiversity Initiative 2024: 63 percent No. Actively opposed by the hobby hunting lobby, the Farmers’ Union, and the FDP (SRF).
Parc Adula 2016: The second Swiss national park, torpedoed by the hobby hunting lobby using fear-based propaganda. The FCTI (Ticino Hunters’ Association) openly opposed the park (wildbeimwild.com).
Ptarmigan Protection Ticino 2021: The FCTI opposed the protection of the endangered ptarmigan, unsuccessfully.
Lead-Free Ammunition 2023: Motion by Martina Munz rejected 99 to 94 votes, in the face of active resistance from hobby hunters in parliament.
Legislative Period 2015 to 2019: Hobby hunters in the Swiss parliament voted predominantly against environmental concerns.

Key message in brief: “Hobby hunters in politics vote against national parks, against biodiversity, against species protection. The facts are clear.”

7. Anticipating Foreseeable Objections

“Too Expensive”
The facts: 1.70 to 4.50 Swiss francs per person per year. Less than a cup of coffee. Less than 0.05 percent of the total federal and cantonal budget. Set against this are 76 million francs in wildlife accident insurance costs, 3.6 million francs in SUVA hunting accident costs, and a substantial share of the 150 million francs in protective forest maintenance costs that are passed on to the general public.
Communicative short formula: «Less than one coffee per person per year. Less than 0.05 percent of the budget.»

«Wildlife populations are exploding»
The facts: 50 years of Geneva and 100 years of the Engadin National Park prove the opposite. In Geneva, populations have settled at a healthy, forest-compatible level. In the Engadin National Park, chamois populations have been stable for decades at 1,350 animals. Wildlife populations regulate themselves independently through food competition, territorial defense, disease, and natural predator-prey cycles. Hobby hunting disrupts this natural regulation through compensatory reproduction (cf. studies at wildbeimwild.com).

Communicative short formula: «50 years of Geneva. 100 years of National Park. Populations are stable. The facts debunk the myth.»

«Tradition and culture»
The facts: Tradition does not legitimize animal cruelty. The Engadin National Park has a longer hunting-free tradition than militia-based hobby hunting in its current form. Swiss animal protection legislation has gradually expanded the protection of sentient beings over the past 50 years. The initiative is the logical next step.

Communicative short formula: «The National Park has a longer tradition. And nature is richer there.»

«The cantonal majority is impossible»
The facts: In 2005, 90 percent of Geneva's voters supported the retention of the hunting ban. The initiative breaks a taboo, but the financial argument («less than one coffee»), the Geneva proof-of-concept model, and wolf policy are mobilizing voters in cantons beyond the urban centers. The cantonal majority is challenging, but not impossible: the cantons of Geneva, Basel-City, Neuchâtel, Jura, and Ticino are realistic supporters. A broad coalition of animal welfare, nature conservation, and agricultural associations (the livestock protection argument) is crucial.

Communicative short formula: «Geneva had 90% approval. The facts are convincing. Switzerland will be surprised.»

«Protective forests need hobby hunting»
The facts: Hobby hunting pushes wildlife into the forest (displacement effect) instead of reducing browsing pressure. Despite intensive hobby hunting, the proportion of protective forest area with tolerable wildlife impact has dropped from over two thirds (2015) to below half (WSL/FOEN Forest Report 2025). In Alpine regions, one third to over 40 percent of protective forest area shows silviculturally problematic browsing pressure. The wolf demonstrably reduces browsing pressure through the "Landscape of Fear" principle, without any need for hobby hunters (cf. the protective forest myth dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

Key communication message: “Hobby hunting worsens the browsing problem it claims to solve. The numbers prove it.”

8. Summary

This initiative gives the Swiss electorate the opportunity to endorse modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wildlife species. Art. 79a FC follows the Geneva model, proven over more than 50 years, and replaces hobby hunting with professional wildlife protection. Art. 79b FC protects wolves, lynx, bears, beavers, otters, and golden eagles from preventive culling at the federal level and makes protection standards resistant to political pressure.

A federal initiative is more efficient than 25 cantonal campaigns: one signature drive, one vote, one systemic change. 100,000 signatures in 18 months is realistic for a well-organized national campaign. The double majority is demanding but achievable. The result would be a Switzerland in which wildlife is neither a target for hobby hunters nor a victim of politically motivated culling policies, but is professionally protected as part of a living natural world — for the benefit of the animals and the population as a whole.

Initiative Committee “For Professional Wildlife Protection”

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members residing in Switzerland and eligible to vote at the federal level)

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Further Documentation

The following dossiers and sources support the arguments of this initiative and are available as attachments:

The Geneva Model in detail: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/genf-und-das-jagdverbot – A comprehensive overview of Geneva’s wildlife management since 1974, including costs, population figures, and biodiversity trends.

What hobby hunting really costs Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com – The bill nobody presents – Full-cost accounting of hobby hunting, including external costs, wildlife accidents, and damage to protective forests.

Hunting Myths Fact-Check: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen – Scientifically grounded refutation of the most common claims made by the hobby hunting lobby.

Scientific Studies: wildbeimwild.com/studien – A collection of scientific studies on the self-regulation of wildlife populations and the ecological impacts of hobby hunting.

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

Psychology of Hobby Hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd – Wide-ranging articles on the psychology of hobby hunting.

Engadin National Park: wildbeimwild.com/category/nationalpark – 100 years of a hunting-free protected area as a scientific reference model.

Wildlife in Residential Areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere-im-siedlungsgebiet – Background on the coexistence of humans and wildlife in urban and suburban spaces.

Hunting Accidents: wildbeimwild.com/jagdunfaelle – Documentation of hunting accidents in Switzerland, SUVA statistics, and fatalities since 2000.

Hunting Education: wildbeimwild.com/die-jagdausbildung – Critical analysis of hunting education compared to professional wildlife management training.

Cantonal Popular Initiative Basel-City (Draft): wildbeimwild.com – Popular Initiative Canton of Basel-City – The template for the entire cantonal initiative series from which the federal initiative emerged.

Federal Hunting Statistics: jagdstatistik.ch (BAFU) – Official kill and license statistics from the Federal Office for the Environment.

Strategic Briefing for Activists

Federal Popular Initiative “For Professional Wildlife Protection” Internal Working Document – Status March 2026

Summary

The federal initiative is the most consistent and efficient strategy for a nationwide shift in wildlife management. Instead of 25 parallel cantonal campaigns — many of which would be dead on arrival in cantons deeply shaped by hunting culture — a single national campaign enables the decision to be made at the federal level. 100,000 signatures in 18 months, the double majority requirement, and the political resistance of the hobby hunting lobby are real hurdles. But the Geneva model after more than 50 years, the true cost of wildlife management, and wolf policy as a mobilizing issue provide a starting point that makes a federal initiative genuinely viable.

1. Why a Federal Initiative?

Efficiency. One federal campaign instead of 25 cantonal campaigns. One signature drive, one vote, one system change.

Legal necessity. Art. 3 Para. 1 of the Federal Hunting Act delegates hunting to the cantons. Only an amendment to the Federal Constitution can establish a nationwide ban. The initiative makes state-managed wildlife control the federal standard.

Overcoming the weakness of the cantonal strategy. In many cantons — Graubünden, Valais, Uri, Schwyz, Appenzell — hobby hunting is so deeply embedded in local culture that cantonal initiatives have no realistic chance in the foreseeable future. A national vote allows the urban population majority to serve as a counterweight.

Wolf policy as a national mobilizing issue. The 2022 revision of the Federal Hunting Act elevated the wolf debate to the national level. The initiative's species protection clause builds on this momentum and mobilizes support across Switzerland.

Geneva as a national reference model. The strongest argument can be deployed nationally: if it has worked in Geneva for 50 years, it can work anywhere — in Zurich, in Bern, in Valais, in Graubünden.

2. Lessons from the Cantonal Campaigns

A positive title. “For Professional Wildlife Protection” instead of “Wildlife Officers Instead of Hunters” or “Ban on Hunting.” A positive title describes what the initiative stands for, not what it opposes.

Concrete budget figures. 1.70 to 4.50 francs per person per year. Less than a cup of coffee. Less than 0.05 percent of the budget. The Zurich experience shows that imprecise or inflated cost estimates from the opposing side can be fatal. The initiative's own figures must be airtight.

A broad coalition from the outset. SP, Greens, GLP, EVP at the national level. Pro Natura Switzerland, WWF Switzerland, BirdLife Switzerland. Animal welfare organizations. Academic support. Wolf policy makes conservation organizations natural allies.

Species protection as coalition broadening. The second article mobilizes conservation organizations that have so far been on the defensive in the wolf debate. This makes the initiative broader than a purely “hunting ban concern.”

Securing early party support. In the National Council and Council of States, a left-green-liberal parliamentary majority exists in urban cantons. Early engagement prevents the Zurich disaster (0:165 in the cantonal council).

3. Special Challenges

100,000 signatures in 18 months. That corresponds to roughly 185 signatures per day. With a professional collection organization employing paid collectors in the major cities (Zurich, Bern, Basel, Geneva, Lausanne), this is realistic. A national campaign with coordinated online and offline collection is crucial.

Double majority. The cantonal majority requires a majority in 12 of the 23 cantonal votes (20 cantons + 6 half-cantons at 0.5 each). Small rural cantons with a strong hunting culture are difficult. The strategy must win the urban cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel-City and Basel-Country, Geneva, Vaud, Neuchâtel, Jura, Ticino) with a clear majority while at the same time not being written off in cantons shaped by hunting culture.

Resistance from the organized hobby hunting lobby. JagdSchweiz, the cantonal hunting associations, and the forestry and agricultural interests tied to hobby hunting will run a well-funded counter-campaign. The cost argument and the claim of a “wildlife population explosion” are the central counter-arguments. Both can be refuted with the Geneva model and the national park.

Media framing. Hobby hunting is often portrayed uncritically in rural media. The national campaign must actively engage with quality journalism, social media, and direct outreach to the urban population.

Campaign budget. Cost transparency applies to the initiators as well: A federal popular initiative against hobby hunting cannot be won with flyers and volunteer work alone. To stand up against the well-funded counter-campaign from the Swiss Farmers' Union, JagdSchweiz, and their allies, a national campaign budget of at least 2 to 3 million francs is needed — with a target of 4 to 5 million francs for a campaign on equal footing. That amounts to roughly 0.25 to 0.55 francs per capita for 9 million residents, and is well below the annual follow-up costs of hobby hunting that are currently borne by the general public.

Organization and Financing. The federal initiative needs a professional foundation: a national sponsoring committee with clear financial transparency and a broad alliance of animal welfare, nature conservation, environmental, and herd protection organizations. Donations and membership fees will not go toward ongoing lobbying, but toward a one-time systemic correction: away from subsidized hobby hunting for 0.3 percent of the population, toward professional wildlife protection in the interest of everyone.

4. Analysis of Opposition and Prepared Responses

Counterargument 1: “Too expensive — the state cannot finance this”

The facts: 1.70 to 4.50 francs per person per year. Less than 0.05 percent of the total federal and cantonal budget. Set against this are 76 million francs in wildlife accident insurance costs currently borne by the general public. Hobby hunting costs Switzerland more than it brings in.

Key communication message: “Less than a coffee per person per year. Hobby hunting costs us significantly more today.”

Counterargument 2: “Wildlife populations will explode without hobby hunting”

The facts: 50 years of Geneva, 100 years of the Engadin National Park. Stable populations, greater biodiversity, lower browsing pressure. Compensatory reproduction shows: hobby hunting produces more animals than it removes.

Key communication message: “50 years of Geneva. 100 years of National Park. The facts debunk the myth.”

Counterargument 3: “The cantonal majority is impossible to achieve”

The facts: 90 percent yes votes in Geneva in 2005. The cost argument is compelling in small cantons with few hobby hunters spread across large areas: the population bears the costs but has no interest in hobby hunting. Wolf policy also mobilizes support in cantons with mountain farming, in favor of herd protection.

Concise communication formula: «90% in Geneva. The facts are convincing. Switzerland will be surprised.»

Counterargument 4: «Hobby hunting is part of Swiss culture»

The facts: Approximately 30,000 hobby hunters out of 9 million inhabitants represent 0.3 percent of the population. Tradition does not legitimize animal cruelty. The National Park has a longer hunting-free tradition than the militia-based hobby hunting in its current form. In Geneva, 90 percent of the population confirmed the hunting ban, even though it changed their “culture.”

Concise communication formula: «0.3 percent of the population. The National Park has a longer tradition. 90% in Geneva.»

Counterargument 5: «The protective forest needs hobby hunting»

The facts: Browsing pressure in protective forests has increased despite intensive hobby hunting. Hobby hunting drives animals into the forest (displacement effect). The wolf demonstrably reduces browsing pressure through the “Landscape of Fear” principle. Protective forest maintenance costs the general public 150 million francs per year — and this despite hobby hunting taking place.

Concise communication formula: «150 million francs in protective forest maintenance — despite hobby hunting. The displacement effect is documented.»

5. Communication strategy: The three core messages

«Geneva has been leading the way for 50 years. What works there works everywhere in Switzerland.» The strongest argument is empirical and local: a Swiss canton has proven it. Not a Scandinavian country, not an American national park — Geneva, Switzerland.

«Less than the cost of a coffee per person per year. Hobby hunting costs us significantly more today.» The cost argument must be made offensively. The full-cost accounting shows: hobby hunting is a subsidy project for 0.3 percent of the population at everyone else’s expense.

«Professional wildlife protection instead of hobby hunting. For the animals, for the forest, for all of us.» The positive framing carries the message: the initiative is not against hunters, but for modern, evidence-based wildlife management in the public interest.

6. Timeline and next steps

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation and preliminary text review	Engage a lawyer at the federal level; committee members must be residents of Switzerland with federal voting rights; preliminary review by the Federal Chancellery	Months 1–4
Submission for preliminary review	Federal Chancellery (Art. 68 BPR); official publication in the Federal Gazette	Month 4–5
Start of Signature Collection	18-month deadline; goal: 120,000+ signatures as a buffer; professional collection organization in all major cities from day one	Month 5
Coalition Building	SP, Greens, GLP, EVP at the national level; Pro Natura, WWF, BirdLife, animal welfare organizations; academic support; wolf policy as a coalition issue	Month 1–15
Submission of Signatures	Federal Chancellery, official verification	Month 18–20
Parliamentary Deliberation	National Council and Council of States; Federal Council message; intensify media work	Month 20–36
Vote Campaign	Final mobilization; Geneva argument; true cost transparency; wolf policy; mobilizing the urban majority	Month 36–42

7. Campaign Materials

The Geneva Dossier on wildbeimwild.com as the central body of arguments and proof of what is achievable.
The Full cost accounting of hobby hunting on wildbeimwild.com as a counterargument to the “too expensive” accusation.
The Hunting myths fact-check on wildbeimwild.com as response material for counterarguments.
National media: SRF, NZZ, Tages-Anzeiger, Le Temps, La Liberté, Corriere del Ticino, 20 Minuten, Watson.
Infographic: cost comparison Switzerland vs. Geneva; wildlife accidents vs. management costs; biodiversity Geneva vs. hunting cantons; 50 years of National Park.
Trilingual campaign materials (German, French, Italian) from the outset.
Collection tables in Zurich, Bern, Basel, Geneva, Lausanne, Lugano, Winterthur, St. Gallen as main locations.

8. Further Resources

This document is a model text by the IG Wild beim Wild. It may be freely used and adapted to federal-level political conditions by activists, organizations, 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 fact-checking. Ten narratives put to the test, from “government responsibility” to “biodiversity” to “80% approval”: Dossier: Fact-Check JagdSchweiz Brochure →