Federal popular initiative «For professional wildlife protection»

Federal popular initiative in the form of a drafted bill

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

The undersigned eligible voters submit the following request:
The Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999 is amended as follows:

Art. 79a (new) Professional wildlife protection

1 The exercise 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 employed by the cantons.

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

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

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

6 Further details shall be regulated by law.

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

1 The preventive population regulation of protected wild animal species is prohibited. This includes, in particular, wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden eagle, and other species protected under federal law.

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

3 Measures against individual wild animals in the event of an immediate threat to humans remain reserved. They must be limited to the minimum necessary and carried out exclusively by the competent cantonal specialist agency.

4 The Confederation shall advocate internationally for the protection of endangered wild animal species.

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

1 The Federal Council shall enact 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 phase.

3 Existing hunting licences and hunting lease agreements shall lapse upon entry into force of the implementing provisions. Licence fees and lease payments already paid for the current hunting season shall be reimbursed on a pro rata basis.

Explanatory notes

1. Starting position

Switzerland currently has three hunting systems: licence hunting, territorial hunting and state-run hunting (Canton of Geneva). Around 30,000 recreational hunters obtain licences or lease hunting grounds each year. According to JagdSchweiz, the fees for hunting licences and leases amount to around 26 million francs annually.

The external costs of recreational hunting are not recorded in any official accounting: 20,000 wildlife-related traffic accidents per year generate around 76 million francs in insurance costs. Around 300 hunting accidents per year, a significant proportion of which involve serious injuries, cause an estimated 3.6 million francs in SUVA costs; more than 75 people have died in hunting accidents since 2000.

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

Political developments in recent years have further aggravated the situation: the revision of the federal hunting act in December 2022 introduced preventive regulation of the wolf. Since February 2025, cantons have been able to authorise the killing of individual beavers that cause significant damage (Art. 9d JSV). Political pressure on the lynx, otter and other protected species is steadily increasing. The weakening of species protection at the legislative level makes enshrining it in the Federal Constitution imperative (see the analysis of hunting policy at wildbeimwild.com and the wolf policy at wildbeimwild.com).

The recreational hunting lobby fights wildlife protection concerns not only at the legislative level but also at the ballot box. On 27 September 2020, voters rejected the revision of the hunting act with 51.9 percent (SRF). On 22 September 2024, the biodiversity initiative failed with 63 percent voting no, 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-mongering propaganda (SRF). Recreational hunters in parliament voted during the 2015 to 2019 legislative period predominantly against environmental concerns. This systematic obstruction is a key reason why wildlife protection must be anchored at the constitutional level, resistant to the political pressure of the recreational hunting lobby.

2. The role model: canton of Geneva

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

The balance sheet after more than 50 years is unambiguous:
Biodiversity has increased markedly. The number of overwintering waterfowl has multiplied from a few hundred to around 30,000. Geneva is now home to the largest brown hare population in Switzerland and one of the last grey 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 well documented: a game warden needs 8 hours and 2 cartridges for a targeted kill. A recreational hunter needs 60 to 80 hours and 15 cartridges for the same result.
The ban has been in force continuously for over 50 years. Geneva has never repealed it.
The total costs of professional wildlife management in Geneva amount to around 1.2 million francs annually, spread 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 Swiss National Park in the Engadine shows the same pattern on a large scale: hunting-free for over 100 years, the chamois population has settled at a stable 1,350 animals, and species diversity has doubled.

A detailed account can be found in the dossier «Geneva and the hunting ban» on wildbeimwild.com.

3. Why a federal initiative?

25 cantonal initiatives mean 25 parallel campaigns, 25 signature drives and 25 referendums, in cantons with very different political starting conditions, from Basel-Stadt to Grisons, from Geneva to Appenzell Inner Rhodes. A federal initiative decides everything at once and creates a uniform wildlife protection law for the whole of Switzerland.

Legal necessity. Art. 3 para. 1 of the federal hunting act (JSG) explicitly delegates the organisation of hunting to the cantons. The three equivalent hunting systems (licence hunting, territorial hunting and regie hunting) are currently regulated at cantonal level. Only an amendment to the Federal Constitution can create a nationwide ban on recreational hunting. Art. 79a of the Federal Constitution would make regie hunting, following the Geneva model, the federal standard (see 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-organised national collection effort, this threshold is realistic. By comparison: in Geneva, the hunting ban was pushed through in 1974 with a simple popular initiative that mobilised less than a third of the electorate.

Double majority. A federal popular initiative requires a majority of both the people and the cantons. This is demanding but achievable: Geneva's system has been working successfully for 50 years. The financial argument can be used nationwide. Wolf policy mobilises people across the whole of Switzerland. The animal welfare movement is anchored throughout the country.

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

4. Cost implications

The Geneva reference budget
Geneva, with an area of 282 km² and around 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 do the work previously done by over 400 recreational hunters, more efficiently and at lower cost.

Conservative projection for Switzerland
For the whole of Switzerland, with an area of 41,285 km² and around 9 million inhabitants, the following deliberately conservative cost estimate results, taking into account alpine topography, the build-up of herd protection and transitional management:

Personnel costs: CHF 18 to 35 million annually. Around 150 to 250 full-time positions are required (specialists with training in wildlife biology or wildlife ecology). Concentrating resources on conflict regions (alpine areas with predators, the Central Plateau with wild boars and beavers, and lakeshore areas) allows for an efficient distribution of posts.
Material costs: CHF 5 to 10 million annually. Equipment, vehicles, monitoring infrastructure, herd protection materials, IT, public relations work and coordination between the cantons.
Damage compensation: CHF 3 to 8 million annually. Wildlife damage in agriculture and forestry, browsing damage, beaver damage to waterways, wolf predation losses.
Herd protection start-up investment: CHF 5 to 10 million as a one-off expense. In the first five years after the system change, a one-off investment in herd protection infrastructure is needed for the alpine cantons: livestock guardian dog programmes, mobile fencing, night-time enclosures, and training for herders. This investment is not recurring.

Gross total costs: CHF 26 to 53 million annually. After deducting the administrative costs that would no longer be incurred for hunting examinations, licence administration, kill quota planning and hunting supervision, as well as the current costs for wolf kills (around CHF 35,000 per kill), this results in a net additional expenditure of around CHF 15 to 40 million annually.

Per capita: CHF 1.70 to 4.50 per resident per year. That is less than the price of a cup of coffee. Against this stand the never-accounted-for external costs of recreational hunting: CHF 76 million in wildlife-collision insurance costs, CHF 3.6 million in SUVA hunting accident costs, and a substantial portion of the CHF 150 million in protective forest maintenance costs attributable to the displacement effect caused by hunting.

In relation to the overall budget. The Confederation and the cantons together have a total budget of around CHF 100 billion. The net additional costs amount to less than 0.05 per cent of this budget.

5. On the text of the initiative

Art. 79a of the Federal Constitution: Professional wildlife protection

Art. 79a Para. 1 of the Federal Constitution: Ban on recreational hunting
The ban on recreational hunting by private individuals at federal level is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model, which has been practised in conformity with federal law since 1974. Art. 79a of the Federal Constitution replaces, in effect, Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG as the delegation norm and creates a clear federal constitutional 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 recreational hunting lobby.

Art. 79a para. 2 of the Federal Constitution: Professional wildlife management
Instead of recreational hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the cantons take over all tasks of wildlife care and, where necessary, population regulation. These specialists have biological or wildlife-ecological training and act on a scientific basis and in the public interest.

Art. 79a para. 3 of the Federal Constitution: Killing as a last resort
The central innovation compared to today's system: a kill is not the rule but the exception. Passive measures (electric fences, deterrence, relocation, habitat design) take priority. The approval requirement by the independent wildlife commission under Art. 79a para. 3 of the Federal Constitution prevents political pressure from individual interest groups from diluting wildlife management.

Art. 79a para. 4 of the Federal Constitution: Wildlife commissions
The independent wildlife commissions are modelled on Geneva's Commission for the Regulation of Fauna (Commission consultative de régulation de la faune). Their composition — comprising animal welfare and nature conservation associations, scientists and authorities — ensures that decisions are evidence-based rather than grounded in the hunting-ideological myths with which the recreational hunting lobby has legitimised its practice for decades.

Art. 79b of the Federal Constitution: Protection of endangered and protected wild animal species

Art. 79b of the Federal Constitution is particularly effective at federal level: it prevents parliament from gradually eroding species protection (as happened with the 2022 JSG revision). The ban 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 danger to humans 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 for Art. 79a and 79b of the Federal Constitution

The three-year period (compared with two years in the cantonal initiatives) takes account of the greater complexity of a Switzerland-wide change of system: the Federal Council must draw up implementing legislation, and the 26 cantons must establish wildlife commissions and employ professional wildlife managers. The existing staff of the cantonal hunting inspectorates can serve as an institutional basis. The pro rata reimbursement of licence 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 superior law

Compliance with the Federal Constitution
A federal popular initiative in the form of a fully drafted bill that directly amends the Federal Constitution is, by definition, compliant with federal law: the new provisions of Art. 79a of the Federal Constitution (professional wildlife protection) and Art. 79b of the Federal Constitution (protection of endangered and protected wild animal 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 paras. 1 and 2 JSG as a delegation provision, insofar as it transfers to the cantons the organisation of recreational hunting, and empower the Federal Council to enact implementing legislation within the framework of Art. 79a and 79b of the Federal Constitution.

Bern Convention and international law
Switzerland has entered reservations to the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats that allow hunting of certain species. The ban on recreational hunting and on the preventive regulation of protected species' populations enshrined in Art. 79a and 79b of the Federal Constitution moves towards higher protection standards and does not contradict the spirit of the Bern Convention; rather, it strengthens the protection of endangered species required under international law. The EU Habitats Directive is not applicable, as Switzerland is not an EU member.

Guarantee of property
Under Swiss law, the right to hunt wild animals (the hunting regalia) lies with the state, not with private individuals. Recreational hunters derive their hunting authorisation from the state (through a licence or lease agreement). There is no private property right to hunting authorisation that could 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 the 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 substantively connected.

Voting behaviour: recreational hunters versus nature conservation

The claim that recreational hunters are the «greatest conservationists» is refuted by their voting behaviour:

Hunting Act 2020: 51.9 per cent voted No. The relaxation of wolf protection, significantly shaped by the recreational hunting lobby, was rejected by the electorate (SRF).
Biodiversity Initiative 2024: 63 per cent voted No. Actively opposed by the recreational hunting lobby, the Farmers' Union and the FDP (SRF).
Parc Adula 2016: The second Swiss national park, torpedoed by the recreational 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: The Martina Munz motion was rejected by 99 to 94 votes, amid active resistance from recreational hunters in parliament.
Legislative period 2015 to 2019: Recreational hunters in the Swiss Parliament predominantly voted against environmental concerns.

Short communicative formula: «Recreational hunters in politics vote against national parks, against biodiversity, against species protection. The facts are unambiguous.»

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 per cent of the total budget of the Confederation and cantons. 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, which are imposed on the general public.
Short communicative formula: «Less than one coffee per person per year. Less than 0.05 per cent of the budget.»

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

Short communicative formula: «50 years of Geneva. 100 years of the national park. Populations are stable. The facts refute the myth.»

«Tradition and culture»
The facts: Tradition does not legitimise animal cruelty. The Swiss National Park Engadin has a longer hunting-free tradition than militia-based recreational hunting in its current form. Over the past 50 years, Swiss animal welfare legislation has progressively extended protection to sentient beings. The initiative is the logical next step.

Short communicative formula: «The national park has a longer tradition. And there, nature is richer.»

«The cantonal majority is impossible»
The facts: Geneva adopted the ban in 1974 with a good 70 per cent and has never repealed it since. The initiative breaks a taboo, but the financial argument («less than one coffee»), the Geneva proof-of-concept model and wolf policy are mobilising support in cantons beyond the urban centres. The cantonal majority is demanding but not impossible: the cantons of Geneva, Basel-Stadt, Neuchatel, Jura and Ticino are realistic supporters. A broad coalition of animal welfare, nature conservation and agricultural associations (herd protection argument) is decisive.

Short communicative formula: «Geneva: without recreational hunting for over 50 years. The facts are convincing. Switzerland will surprise.»

«The protective forest needs recreational hunting»
The facts: Recreational hunting drives wild animals into the forest (displacement effect) instead of reducing browsing pressure. Despite intensive recreational hunting, the proportion of protective forest area with a tolerable wildlife impact has fallen from over two-thirds (2015) to under half (WSL/FOEN Forest Report 2025). In the Alpine regions, between a third and over 40 percent of protective forest area shows browsing pressure that is problematic for silviculture. The wolf demonstrably reduces browsing pressure through the «landscape of fear» principle, without any need for recreational hunters (see the protective forest myth dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

Short communicative formula: «Recreational hunting worsens the very browsing problem it claims to solve. The figures prove it.»

8. Summary

This initiative enables the Swiss electorate to vote in favour of modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection for threatened wild animal species. Art. 79a FC follows the Geneva model, which has proven itself for over 50 years, and replaces recreational hunting with professional wildlife protection. Art. 79b FC protects wolves, lynx, bears, beavers, otters and golden eagles from pre-emptive killing at federal level and makes the protection standards resistant to political pressure.

A federal initiative is more efficient than 25 cantonal campaigns: one signature collection, one vote, one systemic change. 100,000 signatures in 18 months are realistic with a well-organised national campaign. The double majority is demanding but achievable. The result would be a Switzerland in which wild animals are neither targets for recreational hunters nor victims of a politically motivated kill policy, but are professionally protected as part of a living natural environment, 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 resident in Switzerland and entitled to vote at federal level)

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Further documentation

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

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

What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com: The bill nobody presents. Full cost accounting of recreational hunting, including external costs, wildlife-vehicle collisions and protective forest damage.

Hunting myths fact check: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen. Scientifically grounded refutation of the most common claims made by the recreational hunting lobby.

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

Hunting in Switzerland, criticism, facts, news: wildbeimwild.com/jagd-in-der-schweiz. Continuously updated overview of Swiss hunting policy.

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

Swiss National Park, Engadin: wildbeimwild.com/tag/schweizerischer-nationalpark. 100 years of a hunting-free protected area as a scientific reference model.

Wild animals in settlement areas: wildbeimwild.com/tag/stadtwildtiere. Background on the coexistence of humans and wild animals 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/dossiers/der-jagdschein. Critical analysis of hunting training in comparison to professional wildlife management training.

Cantonal popular initiative Basel-Stadt (template): wildbeimwild.com: Popular initiative, canton of Basel-Stadt. The template for the entire series of cantonal initiatives, from which the federal initiative emerged.

Federal hunting statistics: jagdstatistik.ch (FOEN). Official kill and licence statistics from the Federal Office for the Environment.

Strategic briefing for activists

Federal popular initiative «For professional wildlife protection» Internal working document, as of March 2026

Summary

The federal initiative is the most consistent and efficient strategy for a Switzerland-wide system change in wildlife management. Instead of 25 parallel cantonal campaigns, many of which would have no chance from the outset in cantons with a strong hunting culture, a single national campaign allows the decision to be made at federal level. 100,000 signatures within 18 months, the double majority requirement, and political resistance from the recreational hunting lobby are real hurdles. But the Geneva model after more than 50 years, the true-cost argument and wolf policy as a mobilising issue provide a starting position that genuinely makes a federal initiative possible.

1. Why a federal initiative?

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

Legal necessity. Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG delegates hunting to the cantons. Only an amendment to the Federal Constitution can create a Switzerland-wide ban. The initiative would make state-run hunting the federal standard.

Overcoming the weakness of the cantonal strategy. In many cantons (Grisons, Valais, Uri, Schwyz, Appenzell), recreational hunting is so deeply rooted culturally that cantonal initiatives have no chance in the foreseeable future. A national vote allows the urban population majority to serve as a counterweight.

Wolf policy as a national mobilisation issue. The 2022 JSG revision raised the wolf debate to the national level. The species protection clause of the initiative builds on this and mobilises support across Switzerland.

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

2. Lessons from the cantonal campaigns

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

Concrete budget calculation. 1.70 to 4.50 francs per person per year. Less than a coffee. Less than 0.05 per cent of the budget. The Zurich experience shows: imprecise or inflated cost estimates from the opposing side can be fatal. One's own calculation must be watertight.

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

Species protection as coalition broadening. The second article mobilises nature conservation associations that have so far been defensive in the wolf debate. This makes the initiative broader than a pure «hunting ban concern».

Securing 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. Particular challenges

100’000 signatures in 18 months. This corresponds to around 185 signatures per day. With a professional collection organisation using 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 (Ständemehr) 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 a clear majority in the urban cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel-City and Basel-Country, Geneva, Vaud, Neuchatel, Jura, Ticino) while not being written off in cantons shaped by hunting culture.

Resistance from the organised recreational hunting lobby. JagdSchweiz, the cantonal hunting associations, and the forestry and agricultural interests linked to recreational hunting will run a well-funded counter-campaign. The cost argument and the claim of a «wildlife population explosion» are the main counter-arguments. Both can be refuted using the Geneva model and the National Park.

Media framing. Recreational hunting is often portrayed uncritically in rural media. The national campaign must actively engage 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 flyers and volunteer work alone. To hold its ground against the well-funded counter-campaign of the Farmers' Union, JagdSchweiz, and their allies, a national campaign budget of at least 2 to 3 million francs is needed; the aim is 4 to 5 million francs for a campaign on equal footing. With 9 million inhabitants, this amounts to around 0.25 to 0.55 francs per capita, which is significantly less than the annual follow-up costs of recreational hunting that are currently borne by the general public.

Organisation and funding. The federal initiative needs a professional foundation: a national steering committee with clear financial transparency and a broad alliance of animal welfare, nature conservation, environmental, and herd protection organisations. Donations and membership fees do not flow into permanent lobbying, but into a one-time systemic correction: away from subsidised recreational hunting for 0.3 per cent of the population, towards professional wildlife protection in the interest of all.

4. Analysis of opponents and prepared responses

Counter-argument 1: «Too expensive, the state cannot afford this»

The facts: 1.70 to 4.50 Swiss francs per person per year. Less than 0.05 per cent of the total federal and cantonal budget. Against this stands 76 million francs in wildlife-accident insurance costs, which are currently borne by the general public. Recreational hunting costs Switzerland more than it brings in.

Short communicative formula: «Less than the price of a 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 in Geneva, 100 years of the Engadine National Park. Stable populations, higher biodiversity, lower browsing pressure. Compensatory reproduction shows that recreational hunting produces more animals than it removes.

Short communicative formula: «50 years in Geneva. 100 years of the National Park. The facts refute the myth.»

Counter-argument 3: «A majority of the cantons is impossible»

The facts: A good 70 per cent voted Yes in Geneva in 1974, and it has never been overturned since. The cost argument is strong in small cantons with few recreational hunters over a large area: the population bears the costs but has no interest in recreational hunting. Wolf policy also mobilises support in cantons with mountain agriculture, in the interest of herd protection.

Short communicative formula: «Over 50 years in Geneva. The facts are convincing. Switzerland will surprise.»

Counter-argument 4: «Recreational hunting is part of Swiss culture»

The facts: Around 30,000 recreational hunters out of 9 million inhabitants make up 0.3 per cent of the population. Tradition does not legitimise animal cruelty. The National Park has a longer hunting-free tradition than militia-style recreational hunting in its current form. Geneva has never lifted its hunting ban, even though its “culture” has changed.

Short communicative formula: «0.3 per cent of the population. The National Park has a longer tradition. Over 50 years in Geneva.»

Counter-argument 5: «Protective forests need recreational hunting»

The facts: Browsing pressure in protective 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. Maintaining protective forests costs the general public 150 million francs per year, and this despite recreational hunting taking place.

Short communicative formula: «150 million francs for protective forest maintenance, despite recreational hunting. The displacement effect is proven.»

5. Communication strategy: the three core messages

«Geneva has been showing 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. Recreational hunting costs us significantly more today.» The cost argument must be made assertively. The full cost accounting shows: recreational hunting is a subsidy project for 0.3 percent of the population at the expense of everyone.

«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 recreational hunters, but in favour of modern, evidence-based wildlife management in the public interest.

6. Timetable and next steps

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation and preliminary text review	Engage a lawyer at federal level; committee members resident in Switzerland with federal voting rights; preliminary review by the Federal Chancellery	Month 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; target: 120,000+ signatures as a buffer; professional collection organisation in all major cities from day one	Month 5
Coalition building	SP, Greens, GLP, EVP at national level; Pro Natura, WWF, BirdLife, animal welfare organisations; academic support; wolf policy as a 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 dispatch; intensify media work	Month 20–36
Voting campaign	Final mobilisation; the Geneva argument; cost truth; wolf policy; mobilise the urban majority	Month 36–42

7. Campaign material

Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as the central argumentative basis and proof of feasibility.
The Full cost accounting of recreational hunting on wildbeimwild.com as a 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-vehicle collisions vs. management costs; biodiversity in Geneva vs. hunting cantons; 50 years of the national park.
Trilingual campaign materials (German, French, Italian) from the outset.
Signature-collection tables in Zurich, Bern, Basel, Geneva, Lausanne, Lugano, Winterthur, St. Gallen as the main locations.

8. Further sources

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

Fact check: The claims of the recreational hunting lobby

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