Federal Popular Initiative «For professional wildlife protection»

Federal Popular Initiative in the form of a drafted proposal

Based on 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 (recreational hunting) is prohibited throughout the territory of the Swiss Confederation.

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

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

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

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

6 Details shall be regulated by law.

Art. 79b (new) Protection of endangered and protected wildlife species

1 Preventive population control of protected wildlife species is prohibited. This includes in particular wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden eagle and other species protected under federal law.

2 The federal government and cantons focus on promoting coexistence between humans and wildlife, passive damage prevention and scientific monitoring of wildlife presence.

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

4 The federal government advocates internationally for the protection of endangered wildlife species.

Transitional provision to articles 79a and 79b (new)

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

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

3 Existing hunting licenses and hunting lease contracts expire upon entry into force of the implementing provisions. License fees and lease payments already paid for the current hunting season will be refunded proportionally.

Explanations

1. Initial situation

Switzerland currently has three hunting systems: license hunting, district hunting and state hunting (Canton Geneva). Around 30,000 hobby hunters obtain annual licenses or lease districts. According to JagdSchweiz, hunting license and lease fees amount to around 26 million francs annually.

The external costs of recreational hunting are not captured in any official accounting: 20,000 wildlife accidents per year cause around 76 million francs in insurance costs. Around 300 hunting accidents per year, a significant portion involving serious injuries, cause an estimated 3.6 million francs in SUVA costs; since 2000, over 75 people have died in hunting accidents.

The 585,000 hectares of protective forest require annual investments of around 150 million francs by the federal government, cantons and beneficiaries; around 30 percent of protective forest areas show insufficient regeneration because hunting pressure drives wildlife into the forest (displacement effect). Recreational 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 problem it claims to solve (see the comprehensive hunting myths dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

Political developments in recent years have further exacerbated the situation: With the revision of the federal hunting law in December 2022, preventive regulation of the wolf was introduced. The beaver may be shot upon cantonal request since February 2025. Political pressure on lynx, otter and other protected species is steadily increasing. The weakening of species protection at the legislative level makes anchoring in the federal constitution imperative (see the analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com and wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The recreational hunting lobby fights nature 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 law with 51.9 percent (SRF). On September 22, 2024, the biodiversity initiative failed with 63 percent no votes, actively opposed by the recreational hunting lobby, the farmers' association and the FDP (SRF). In 2016, the Ticino hunters' association FCTI torpedoed the second Swiss national park Parc Adula with fear propaganda (SRF). Hobby hunters in parliament voted predominantly against environmental concerns in the legislative period 2015 to 2019. This systematic blockade is a central reason why wildlife protection must be anchored at the constitutional level, resistant to political pressure from the recreational hunting lobby.

2. The model: Canton Geneva

On May 19, 1974, around two-thirds of voters in the Canton of Geneva voted for the abolition of recreational hunting. Before the ban, large game in the canton was practically extinct: deer and wild boar had been absent for decades, and only a few dozen roe deer remained. Over 400 hobby hunters extensively released pheasants, partridges, and hares for hunting.

The assessment after more than 50 years is clear:
Biodiversity has increased markedly. The number of overwintering waterfowl has multiplied from several hundred to around 30,000. Geneva now hosts Switzerland's largest brown hare population and one of the last partridge populations: 17.7 brown hares per 100 hectares, compared to 1.0 in the Canton of Zurich.
The efficiency of professional wildlife management is proven: A game warden requires 8 hours and 2 cartridges for a targeted culling. A hobby hunter requires 60 to 80 hours and 15 cartridges for the same result.
In 2005, in a renewed referendum, 90 percent of Geneva voters favored maintaining the recreational hunting ban. In 2009, a motion to reintroduce hunting was rejected in the cantonal parliament by 70 to 7 votes.
The total costs of professional wildlife management in Geneva amount to around 1.2 million francs annually, distributed across personnel (around three full-time positions, divided among about a dozen environmental officers), prevention, and damage compensation. This corresponds to around 2.40 francs per resident per year.
The Engadin National Park shows the same pattern on a large scale: hunting-free for over 100 years, the chamois populations have stabilized at 1,350 animals, while species diversity has doubled.

A detailed presentation can be found in the dossier 'Geneva and the Hunting Ban' on wildbeimwild.com.

3. Why a federal initiative?

25 cantonal initiatives means 25 parallel campaigns, 25 signature collections, and 25 votes – in cantons with very different political starting conditions, from Basel-Stadt to Graubünden, from Geneva to Appenzell Innerrhoden. A federal initiative decides everything at once and creates uniform wildlife protection law for all of Switzerland.

Legal necessity. Art. 3 para. 1 of the federal Hunting Act (JSG) explicitly delegates the organization of hunting to the cantons. The three equivalent hunting systems – patent hunting, territory hunting, and state hunting – are currently regulated at the cantonal level. Only an amendment to the Federal Constitution creates a nationwide ban on recreational hunting. Art. 79a FC makes state hunting following the Geneva model the federal standard (see wildbeimwild.com on hunting in Switzerland).

Signature hurdle. A federal popular initiative requires 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months. With 25 parallel cantonal campaigns and a well-organized national collection, this hurdle is realistic. For comparison: In Geneva, the hunting ban was achieved in 1974 with a simple popular initiative that mobilized less than one-third of the electorate.

Double majority. A federal popular initiative requires both a popular and cantonal majority. This is demanding but achievable: Geneva has successfully operated the system for 50 years. The financial argument can be deployed nationally. Wolf politics mobilizes throughout Switzerland. The animal protection movement is anchored throughout Switzerland.

Geneva as reference. If the model has worked in one Swiss canton for over 50 years, it works everywhere – this is the initiative's strongest argument and it can be deployed nationwide (see Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

4. Cost implications

The Geneva reference budget
Geneva with 282 km² area and around 500,000 inhabitants spends approximately 1.2 million francs annually on professional wildlife management – 2.40 francs per inhabitant per year. Three full-time positions accomplish the work of over 400 former hobby hunters, more efficiently and cost-effectively.

Conservative projection for Switzerland
For all of Switzerland with 41,285 km² area and around 9 million inhabitants, the following deliberately conservative cost estimate emerges, taking into account alpine topography, livestock protection development, and transition management:

Personnel costs: 18 to 35 million francs annually. Required are around 150 to 250 full-time positions (specialists with wildlife biology or wildlife ecology training). Concentration on conflict regions – Alpine areas with predators, Mittelland with wild boar and beavers, lakeside areas – allows for efficient position distribution.
Material 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 predation damage.
Livestock protection initial investment: 5 to 10 million francs one-time. In the first five years after the system change, a one-time investment in livestock protection infrastructure for the Alpine cantons is needed: livestock guardian dog programs, mobile fencing, night enclosures, herder training. This investment is non-recurring.

Gross total costs: 26 to 53 million francs annually. Minus eliminated administrative costs for hunting examinations, permit administration, quota planning and hunting supervision, as well as current costs for wolf culls (around 35,000 francs per cull), results in a net additional expenditure of around 15 to 40 million francs annually.

Per capita: 1.70 to 4.50 francs per inhabitant per year. That is less than a cup of coffee. Against this stand the never-calculated 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 hunting-induced displacement effects.

In relation to the total budget. Federal and cantonal governments together have a total budget of around 100 billion francs. The net additional costs correspond to less than 0.05 percent of this budget.

5. On the initiative text

Art. 79a Federal Constitution – Professional wildlife protection

Art. 79a Para. 1 Federal Constitution – 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 compliance with federal law since 1974. Art. 79a Federal Constitution replaces Art. 3 Para. 1 HLA in effect as a delegation provision and creates a clear federal legal basis for the nationwide ban. Unlike a law 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 Federal Constitution – Professional wildlife management
Instead of hobby hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers in cantonal service take over all tasks of wildlife care and, where necessary, population regulation. These specialists have biological or wildlife ecology training and act on a scientific basis and in the public interest.

Art. 79a Para. 3 Federal Constitution – Culling as ultima ratio
The central innovation compared to the current system: Culling is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures – electric fences, deterrence, relocation, habitat management – take priority. The authorization requirement of the independent wildlife commission according to Art. 79a Para. 3 FC prevents political pressure from individual interest groups from undermining wildlife management.

Art. 79a Para. 4 FC – Wildlife Commissions
The independent wildlife commissions are modeled after the Geneva model of the constitutional fauna commission. The composition of animal and nature conservation organizations, science and authorities ensures that decisions are made based on evidence and not on the hunting ideological myths with which the hobby hunting lobby has legitimized its practice for decades.

Art. 79b FC – Protection of endangered and protected wildlife species

Art. 79b FC is particularly effective at the federal level: It prevents Parliament – as happened with the JSG revision in 2022 – from gradually undermining species protection. The prohibition of preventive population regulation for wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter and golden eagle is designed as a dynamic reference and also protects future returnees. The 'minimum clause' for immediate human endangerment ensures that the initiative does not create protection situations that would be unmanageable in reality (see wildbeimwild.com on predators and wolf policy).

Transitional provisions to Art. 79a and 79b FC

The deadline of three years (compared to two years in the cantonal initiatives) takes into account the greater complexity of a Switzerland-wide system change: The Federal Council must develop implementing legislation, the 26 cantons must constitute wildlife commissions and hire professional wildlife managers. The existing personnel of the cantonal hunting inspectorates can serve as an institutional basis. The proportional reimbursement of license fees and lease payments prevents unjustified enrichment of public authorities at the expense of private individuals who concluded contracts in good faith.

6. Compatibility with higher-ranking law

Federal constitutional conformity
A federal popular initiative in the form of an elaborated draft that directly amends the Federal Constitution is by definition conformant with federal law: The new provisions of Art. 79a FC (professional wildlife protection) and Art. 79b FC (protection of endangered and protected wildlife species) rank above the Hunting Act and create the new constitutional basis for the Switzerland-wide ban on recreational hunting and the protection of protected species. They supersede Art. 3 Para. 1 JSG as a delegation norm, insofar as this transfers the organization of recreational hunting to the cantons, and authorize the Federal Council to enact implementing legislation within the framework of Art. 79a and 79b FC.

Bern Convention and international law
Switzerland has made reservations to the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats that enable hunting of certain species. The ban on recreational hunting and preventive population regulation of protected species enshrined in Art. 79a and 79b FC moves toward higher protection standards and does not contradict the spirit of the Bern Convention; rather, it strengthens the internationally required protection of endangered species. The EU Habitats Directive is not applicable since Switzerland is not an EU member.

Property guarantee
The hunting regale – the right to hunt wild animals – lies under Swiss law with the state, not with private persons. Hobby hunters derive their hunting authorization from the state (through license or lease agreement). There is no private ownership right to hunting authorization 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 takes place.

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 explanations relate exclusively to the protection and management of wild animals on Swiss territory and are closely related in subject matter.

Voting behavior: Hobby hunters against nature conservation

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

Hunting Act 2020: 51.9 percent No. The relaxation of wolf protection significantly co-designed by the hobby hunting lobby was rejected by the electorate (SRF).
Biodiversity Initiative 2024: 63 percent No. Actively opposed by hobby hunting lobby, farmers' association and FDP (SRF).
Parc Adula 2016: The second Swiss national park, torpedoed by the hobby hunting lobby with fear propaganda. The FCTI (Ticino hunters' association) openly opposed the park (wildbeimwild.com).
Ptarmigan protection Ticino 2021: The FCTI opposed protection of the endangered ptarmigan, unsuccessfully.
Lead-free ammunition 2023: Motion Martina Munz rejected with 99 to 94 votes, under active resistance from hobby hunters in parliament.
Legislative period 2015 to 2019: Hobby hunters in the Swiss Parliament predominantly voted against environmental concerns.

Communicative formula: '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 francs per person per year. Less than a cup of coffee. Less than 0.05 percent of the total budget of the federal government and cantons. This is offset by 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 that are imposed on the general public.
Communicative formula: 'Less than a coffee per person per year. Less than 0.05 percent of the budget.'

'Wildlife populations explode'
The facts: 50 years of Geneva and 100 years of Engadin National Park prove the contrary. In Geneva, populations have stabilized at a healthy, forest-compatible level. In Engadin National Park, chamois populations have been stable at 1,350 animals for decades. Wildlife populations regulate themselves through food competition, territory defense, diseases and natural predator-prey cycles. Hobby hunting disrupts this natural regulation through compensatory reproduction (cf. studies on wildbeimwild.com).

Communicative formula: '50 years Geneva. 100 years National Park. Populations are stable. Facts refute the myth.'

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

Communicative 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 electorate voted to maintain the hunting ban. The initiative breaks a taboo, but the financial argument ('less than a coffee'), the Geneva proof-of-concept model, and wolf policy mobilize support in cantons beyond 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 (herd protection argument) is crucial.

Communicative shorthand: 'Geneva achieved 90% approval. The facts are convincing. Switzerland will surprise.'

'The protection forest needs hobby hunting'
The facts: Hobby hunting drives wildlife into forests (displacement effect) instead of reducing browsing pressure. Despite intensive hobby hunting, the share of protection forest area with tolerable wildlife impact has declined from over two-thirds (2015) to under half (WSL/FOEN Forest Report 2025). In Alpine regions, one-third to over 40 percent of protection forest areas show silviculturally problematic browsing pressure. Wolves demonstrably reduce browsing pressure through the 'Landscape of Fear' principle, without requiring hobby hunters (see the protection forest myth dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

Communicative shorthand: 'Hobby hunting worsens the browsing problem it claims to solve. The numbers prove it.'

8. Summary

This initiative enables the Swiss electorate to support modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wildlife species. Art. 79a of the Federal Constitution follows the Geneva model proven for over 50 years and replaces hobby hunting with professional wildlife protection. Art. 79b 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 collection, one vote, one system change. 100,000 signatures in 18 months is realistic with a well-organized national campaign. The double majority is challenging but achievable. The result would be a Switzerland where wildlife are neither targets for hobby hunters nor victims of politically motivated culling policies, but professionally protected as part of living nature – for the welfare of animals and the entire population.

Initiative Committee 'For Professional Wildlife Protection'

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members with residence in Switzerland and federal voting rights)

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Further Documentation

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

Geneva Model in Detail: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/genf-und-das-jagdverbot – Comprehensive presentation of Geneva wildlife management since 1974 with costs, population numbers, and biodiversity development.

What Hobby Hunting Really Costs Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com – The bill nobody presents – Full cost accounting of hobby hunting including external costs, wildlife accidents, and protection forest damage.

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

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

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

Wolf Dossier: wildbeimwild.com/category/wolf – Current developments in wolf policy in Switzerland, pack documentation, JSG revision 2022.

Predators: wildbeimwild.com/category/raubtiere – Information on wolves, lynx, bears and other predators in Switzerland.

Psychology of recreational hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd – Comprehensive articles on the psychology of recreational hunting.

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

Wildlife in urban areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere-im-siedlungsgebiet – Background on coexistence between humans and wildlife in urban and suburban spaces.

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

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

Canton Basel-Stadt People's Initiative (Template): wildbeimwild.com – People's Initiative Canton Basel-Stadt – The template for the entire cantonal initiative series, from which the federal initiative emerged.

Federal hunting statistics: jagdstatistik.ch (FOEN) – Official shooting and license statistics from the Federal Office for the Environment.

Strategic briefing for activists

Federal People's 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 system change in wildlife management. Instead of 25 parallel cantonal campaigns, many of which would be hopeless from the start in cantons strongly shaped by hunting culture, a single national campaign enables decision-making at federal level. 100,000 signatures in 18 months, the double majority and political resistance from the recreational hunting lobby are real hurdles. But the Geneva model after over 50 years, cost transparency and wolf policy as a mobilization issue provide a starting position that truly makes a federal initiative possible.

1. Why a federal initiative?

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

Legal necessity. Art. 3 Para. 1 HuntA delegates hunting to the cantons. Only a constitutional amendment creates a nationwide ban. The initiative makes state-controlled hunting the federal standard.

Overcoming the weakness of cantonal strategy. In many cantons – Graubünden, Valais, Uri, Schwyz, Appenzell – recreational hunting is so culturally entrenched that cantonal initiatives are hopeless for the foreseeable future. A national vote enables the urban population majority as counterweight.

Wolf policy as national mobilization issue. The 2022 HuntA revision elevated the wolf debate to national level. The species protection paragraph of the initiative builds on this and mobilizes nationwide.

Geneva as national reference model. The strongest argument can be used nationally: If it works in Geneva for 50 years, it works everywhere – in Zurich, in Bern, in Valais, in Graubünden.

2. Lessons from cantonal campaigns

Positive title. «For professional wildlife protection» instead of «Gamekeepers instead of hunters» or «Hunting ban». The positive title describes what the initiative stands for, not what it opposes.

Concrete budget calculation. 1.70 to 4.50 francs per capita per year. Less than a coffee. Less than 0.05 percent of the budget. The Zurich experience shows: Imprecise or inflated cost estimates from opponents can be fatal. Our own calculation must be watertight.

Broad coalition from the beginning. SP, Greens, GLP, EVP at national level. Pro Natura Switzerland, WWF Switzerland, BirdLife Switzerland. Animal protection organizations. Academic support. Wolf policy makes nature conservation associations natural allies.

Species protection as coalition broadening. The second article mobilizes nature conservation organizations that have been defensive in the wolf debate thus far. This makes the initiative broader than a mere 'hunting ban concern'.

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

3. Special Challenges

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

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 strong hunting culture are difficult. The strategy must win the urban cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel-Stadt and -Land, Geneva, Vaud, Neuchâtel, Jura, Ticino) with a clear majority while simultaneously not being written off in hunting-culturally influenced cantons.

Resistance from the organized recreational hunting lobby. JagdSchweiz, the cantonal hunting associations and the forestry and agricultural interests connected with recreational hunting will conduct a well-financed counter-campaign. The cost argument and the claim of 'wildlife population explosion' are the central counter-arguments. Both can be refuted with the Geneva model and the National Park.

Media framing. Recreational hunting is often portrayed uncritically in rural media. The national campaign must actively work with quality journalism, social media and direct exchange with the urban population.

Campaign budget. Cost transparency also applies to the initiators: A federal popular initiative against recreational hunting cannot be won with leaflets and volunteer work alone. To stand up against the well-financed counter-campaign by the Farmers' Association, JagdSchweiz and allies, a national campaign budget of at least 2 to 3 million francs is needed – the goal is 4 to 5 million francs for a campaign on equal footing. With 9 million inhabitants, this corresponds to roughly 0.25 to 0.55 francs per capita and lies significantly below the annual recreational hunting consequential costs that are currently borne by the general public.

Organization and financing. The federal initiative needs a professional foundation: a national support committee with clear financial transparency and a broad alliance of animal welfare, nature conservation, environmental and livestock protection organizations. Donations and membership fees do not flow into permanent lobbying, but into a one-time system correction: away from subsidized recreational hunting for 0.3 percent of the population, toward professional wildlife protection in the interest of all.

4. Opponent Analysis and Prepared Responses

Counter-argument 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 budget of the federal government and cantons. This is offset by 76 million francs in wildlife accident insurance costs that are currently borne by the general public. Recreational hunting costs Switzerland more than it brings in.

Communicative short formula: 'Less than one coffee per person per year. Recreational hunting costs us significantly more today.'

Counter-argument 2: 'Wildlife populations explode without recreational hunting'

The facts: 50 years of Geneva, 100 years of Engadin National Park. Stable populations, higher species diversity, lower browsing pressure. Compensatory reproduction shows: recreational hunting produces more animals than it removes.

Communicative short formula: '50 years of Geneva. 100 years of National Park. The facts refute the myth.'

Counter-argument 3: 'The cantonal majority is impossible'

The facts: 90 percent yes votes in Geneva 2005. The cost argument is strong in small cantons with few hobby hunters over large areas: The population bears the costs but has no interest in recreational hunting. Wolf policy also mobilizes in cantons with mountain agriculture in terms of livestock protection.

Communicative short formula: «90% in Geneva. The facts convince. Switzerland will surprise.»

Counter-argument 4: «Recreational hunting belongs to Swiss culture»

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

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

Counter-argument 5: «The protection forest needs recreational hunting»

The facts: Browsing pressure in protection forests has increased despite intensive recreational hunting. Recreational hunting pushes animals into the forest (displacement effect). The wolf demonstrably reduces browsing pressure through the «landscape of fear» principle. Protection forest maintenance costs the general public 150 million francs per year – and that despite recreational hunting taking place.

Communicative short formula: «150 million francs for protection forest care – despite recreational hunting. The displacement effect is documented.»

5. Communication strategy: The three core messages

«Geneva has been demonstrating it 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 a coffee per person per year. Recreational hunting costs us significantly more today.» The cost argument must be pursued offensively. The full cost calculation shows: Recreational hunting is a subsidy project for 0.3 percent of the population at everyone's expense.

«Professional wildlife protection instead of recreational hunting. For the animals, for the forest, for all of us.» The positive title 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 text pre-review	Involve lawyer at federal level; committee members with residence in Switzerland and federal voting rights; pre-review by Federal Chancellery	Month 1–4
Submission for pre-review	Federal Chancellery (Art. 68 BPR); official publication in Federal Gazette	Month 4–5
Collection start	18-month deadline; goal: 120,000+ signatures as buffer; professional collection organization in all major cities from day one	Month 5
Coalition building	SP, Greens, GLP, EVP national; Pro Natura, WWF, BirdLife, animal protection organizations; academic support; wolf policy as coalition theme	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
Voting campaign	Final mobilization; Geneva argument; cost truth; wolf policy; mobilize urban majority	Month 36–42

7. Campaign material

The Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as central argumentation and proof of feasibility.
The full cost calculation of recreational hunting on wildbeimwild.com as counter-argument to the «too expensive» accusation.
The hunting myths fact-check on wildbeimwild.com as response material to counter-arguments.
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 National Park.
Trilingual campaign materials (German, French, Italian) from the beginning.
Collection tables in Zurich, Bern, Basel, Geneva, Lausanne, Lugano, Winterthur, St. Gallen as main locations.

8. Further Sources

This document is a sample text from IG Wild beim Wild. It may be freely used by activists, organizations or initiative committees and adapted to the political circumstances at the federal level.

Fact Check: The Claims of the Recreational Hunting Lobby

The brochure «Hunting in Switzerland Protects and Benefits» by JagdSchweiz reads like an advertising prospectus – but the central claims do not withstand fact-checking. Ten narratives under scrutiny, from «state duty» via «biodiversity» to «80% approval»:Dossier: Fact Check JagdSchweiz Brochure →