Cantonal popular initiative: Canton of Aargau

«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of a drafted proposal

Based on § 64 of the Constitution of the Canton of Aargau of 25 June 1980 and on the Act on Political Rights (GPR)

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Text of the initiative

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

The Constitution of the Canton of Aargau of 25 June 1980 is supplemented by the following paragraphs:

§ [new] Professional wildlife protection

1 The practice of hunting by private individuals (territorial hunting, recreational hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Canton of Aargau. Existing hunting lease agreements will not be renewed.

2 The protection, care and, where necessary, regulation of wild animals shall be the exclusive responsibility of professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the canton.

3 The killing of wild animals is only permitted as a last resort, when all other suitable measures for preventing damage or averting danger have been exhausted or are insufficient. It requires prior approval by the Wildlife Commission.

4 The canton shall establish an independent Wildlife Commission, composed of representatives of animal welfare and nature conservation organisations, the scientific community and the authorities concerned. The commission shall oversee wildlife management and decide on regulatory measures.

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

6 The canton shall ensure the financing of wildlife management independently of hunting lease revenues.

7 Further details shall be regulated by law.

§ [new] Protection of endangered and protected wild animal species

1 The canton refrains from regulating populations of protected wild animal species pursuant to Art. 7a of the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds and does not grant kill permits for individual animals of protected species pursuant to Art. 12 para. 2 of this Act, in particular not for wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden jackal, golden eagle, goosander and other species protected under federal law. Paragraph 3 remains reserved.

2 It relies on fostering coexistence between humans and wild animals, passive damage prevention, the ecological enhancement of habitats and the scientific monitoring of wild animal presence.

3 Measures against individual wild animals that pose an immediate and significant danger to humans remain reserved. They are to be limited to the minimum necessary and carried out by the canton's competent specialist authority.

4 The canton actively advocates for the protection and preservation of endangered wild animal species within the framework of inter-cantonal cooperation and towards the Confederation.

Transitional provision

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

2 Existing hunting lease agreements shall expire no later than five years after the implementing legislation enters into force.

3 The cantonal government shall ensure continuity of wildlife management during the transitional phase.

Explanatory notes

1. Starting position

In the Canton of Aargau, the fourth-largest canton in Switzerland by population with over 700,000 inhabitants across an area of 1,404 km², today's recreational hunting is a system lacking democratic legitimacy from the broader population. Recreational hunting serves neither species conservation nor modern wildlife management. It is the pursuit of a bloody leisure pastime at the expense of sentient beings, legitimised by outdated narratives that do not withstand scientific scrutiny. The claim that without recreational hunting the ecological balance would collapse has been empirically refuted by the Geneva model for over 50 years (see the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban on wildbeimwild.com).

Aargau is a canton with territorial hunting. The canton leases its 174 hunting grounds for eight years at a time to private hunting associations, and the affected municipalities must approve the award (§ 4 AJSG). The next lease period runs from 2027 to 2034. The lease fees flow to the canton (§ 6 AJSG). The leaseholders hunt at their own expense as a leisure activity. Contrary to the widespread claim, the leaseholders do not assume responsibility for the hunting ground in an ecological sense, but instead act within the framework of cantonal kill quotas, which are primarily geared towards the interests of forestry and agriculture. The system serves first and foremost the recreational hunters themselves (see the Psychology of hunting in the Canton of Aargau as well as the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com).

In parallel, an increasing number of protected wild animal species are coming under pressure at the federal level. With the revision of the hunting act in December 2022, preventive regulation of the wolf was introduced. Since February 2025, cantons have been able to authorise the kill of individual beavers that cause significant damage (Art. 9d JSV). Political pressure on other species such as the lynx, otter and goosander is steadily increasing. Aargau is one of Switzerland's most important beaver cantons: a significant proportion of the Swiss beaver population lives along the Aare, Reuss, Limmat and Rhine (see the analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com and the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The canton of Aargau has the opportunity to set a clear signal here: not only for professional wildlife protection instead of recreational hunting, but also for the consistent protection of threatened wild animal species at the cantonal level.

2. The role model: canton of Geneva

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

The experience since the recreational hunting ban has been unequivocal:

Biodiversity has increased markedly. The number of overwintering waterfowl has multiplied from a few hundred to around 30,000. Geneva is now home to the largest brown hare population and one of the last grey partridge populations in Switzerland.
The roe deer population has settled at a healthy level, with an annual special kill by professional game wardens of only 20 to 36 animals. The population moves within a density that is sustainable for the forest area.
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, divided into around 600,000 francs for personnel (approx. three full-time positions), 250,000 francs for prevention and 350,000 francs for damage compensation. This corresponds to around 2.40 francs per inhabitant per year.

Wild animals in the canton of Geneva show a significantly shorter flight distance from humans than in hunted areas. The long-serving Geneva fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker described the recreational hunting ban as the financially most favourable alternative for the canton. A detailed account can be found in the dossier «Geneva and the hunting ban» on wildbeimwild.com.

The efficiency of the Geneva model becomes clear in a direct comparison: a professional game warden in Geneva needs on average 8 hours and a maximum of 2 cartridges for a sanitary kill of a wild boar. A recreational hunter in the canton of Zurich needs 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 cartridges for the same task. The density of brown hares in Geneva is 17.7 animals per 100 hectares (the highest in Switzerland), whereas in the canton of Zurich it is only 1.0 per 100 hectares (cf. fact check by the Zurich Cantonal Council).

3. The concept: professional wildlife wardens instead of recreational hunting

The initiative does not replace recreational hunting with a vacuum, but with professional wildlife management based on the game warden model. This model is founded on the following principles:

Professional expertise instead of leisure pursuit. Professional wildlife managers act on a scientific basis, with biological training and within the framework of a cantonal service mandate. Their goal is to maintain healthy wildlife populations, not to maximise kill numbers. By contrast, recreational hunting, by its very nature, pursues the interest of securing its own raison d'être through high populations of huntable species (see the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com).

Last-resort principle. A kill is only permitted once all non-lethal measures have been exhausted. These include electric fences, deterrence, habitat design, relocation, taste repellents and structural protective measures. In Geneva, fruit trees are protected with netting to prevent roe deer and hares from gnawing the bark. For wild boars, the canton provides farmers with electric fences. This practice shows that coexistence is a matter of will, not technical feasibility.

Democratic oversight through a wildlife commission. The independent commission, composed of animal and nature conservation associations, scientists and authorities, prevents political pressure from individual interest groups from diluting wildlife management. The Aargau initiative anchors this protective mechanism by enshrining the wildlife commission's approval requirement in the constitution.

Natural self-regulation as a guiding principle. Experience from Geneva, from national parks and from numerous scientific Studies has proven: wildlife populations regulate themselves in most cases. Recreational hunting disrupts this natural process by destroying social structures, artificially increasing reproduction rates and altering migratory movements.

4. Why Aargau?

The canton of Aargau is particularly well suited to the introduction of professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

A populous canton with very low per capita costs. With over 700,000 inhabitants across 1,404 km², the costs in Aargau are spread across many shoulders. The net additional costs amount to less than one franc per inhabitant per year. This is less than half the Geneva level (2.40 francs) and renders the opponents' cost argument ineffective.

One of Switzerland's most important beaver cantons.A significant part of the Swiss beaver population lives along the Aare, Reuss, Limmat and Rhine. Since February 2025, cantons have been able to authorise the kill of individual beavers that cause substantial damage. The second paragraph of the initiative protects beavers in Aargau and gives the canton a clear stance in the national debate (cf. wildbeimwild.com on predators).

Central plateau topography.Aargau is predominantly flat to hilly (Central Plateau and Jura foothills). It has no high-alpine areas. The challenges are similar to those in Geneva. The argument that the Geneva model only works in an urban canton does not hold up in Aargau: Geneva, too, has agriculture, forests and vineyards.

3,000 signatures in 12 months.With a population of over 700,000, 3,000 signatures represent around 0.4 per cent of the population. Efficient collection is possible in Aarau, Baden, Brugg, Lenzburg, Wohlen, Rheinfelden and Zofingen (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wild animals in settlement areas).

Zurich agglomeration as an urban base.Eastern Aargau (Baden, Wettingen, Spreitenbach) belongs to the Zurich agglomeration and has an urban character. Together with the towns of Aarau, Brugg and Rheinfelden, a substantial share of the canton's population lives in agglomerations that are sympathetic to animal welfare.

Otter return expected.Experts expect the otter to return to north-western Switzerland. The Aare is a potential area of expansion. The species protection paragraph of the initiative is forward-looking and also protects future returnees.

Signal effect as a test case for territorial hunting.Aargau would be the first large territorial hunting canton to carry out the systemic change. Success here would send a signal to the whole of German-speaking Switzerland.

5. On the first paragraph: professional wildlife protection

Paragraph 1: Ban on recreational hunting and expiry of lease agreements

The ban on territorial hunting by private individuals is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model. Cantonal competence in this matter is undisputed: the federal Hunting Act (JSG) expressly leaves the organisation of hunting operations to the cantons (Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG). The three hunting systems of Switzerland (licence hunting, territorial hunting and state or administrative hunting) are of equal standing. The canton of Geneva has practised administrative hunting since 1974 in compliance with federal law. The addition «Existing hunting lease agreements will not be renewed» is specific to territorial-hunting cantons: it ensures that the transition to the new system proceeds in an orderly manner and that existing contractual obligations are respected.

Paragraph 2: Professional wildlife management

Instead of recreational hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the canton take over all tasks of wildlife care and, where necessary, population regulation. These specialists have a more comprehensive biological or wildlife-ecological education and act on a scientific basis and in the public interest. In Geneva, this system has proven itself for over 50 years.

Paragraph 3: Kill as a last resort

The central innovation compared to the current system: a kill is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures take priority. In Geneva, an average of around 250 wild boars are killed annually by game wardens (according to FOEN hunting statistics), mainly young animals, with lead animals explicitly spared for ethical reasons and to preserve the social stability of the sounders.

Paragraph 4: Wildlife commission

The independent wildlife commission is modelled on Geneva's commission for the regulation of fauna (Commission consultative de régulation de la faune). It ensures that animal welfare and nature conservation organisations have a say in regulation decisions and prevents the government from approving exceptions on its own and under pressure from interest groups. The involvement of science ensures that decisions are evidence-based and do not rest on the hunting-ideological myths with which the recreational hunting lobby has legitimised its practice for decades.

Paragraph 5: Natural regulation and coexistence

This paragraph enshrines the guiding principle of professional wildlife protection in the constitution: nature largely regulates itself if humans do not intervene in population dynamics through mass killing. In Aargau, promoting coexistence includes in particular safeguarding and connecting wildlife corridors along the major rivers (Aare, Reuss, Limmat), the ecological enhancement of floodplain landscapes, and educating the public on how to behave towards wild animals (see wildbeimwild.com on wild animals in settlement areas).

Paragraph 6: Financing independent of lease revenue

In Aargau, lease revenues accrue to the canton (§ 6 AJSG), not to the municipalities. Compensation for the municipalities is therefore not necessary. Paragraph 6 ensures that professional wildlife management will be financed from general funds once lease revenues cease. In relation to the cantonal budget, lease revenues are marginal.

Transitional provisions

The two-year deadline gives the cantonal government sufficient time to draft the implementing legislation, hire professional wildlife managers, and establish the wildlife commission. The five-year transitional clause for existing hunting lease agreements respects the lessees' legitimate expectations. The existing Hunting and Fisheries Section of the Department of Construction, Transport and Environment can serve as the institutional basis.

6. On the second paragraph: Protection of endangered and protected wildlife species

The second paragraph is particularly relevant for Aargau. The canton is one of Switzerland's most important beaver cantons. A significant proportion of the Swiss beaver population lives along the Aare, Reuss, Limmat and Rhine. Since February 2025, cantons have been able to authorise the killing of individual beavers that cause substantial damage. The species protection paragraph enshrines the renunciation of such authorisations in the constitution.

The « in particular » wording is designed as a dynamic reference to federal law. It ensures that cantonal protection automatically also applies to species that the federal legislature places under protection or on a regulation list in future, without the need for a constitutional amendment. Experts expect the otter to return to north-western Switzerland; the initiative also protects future returnees (see the analysis of wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

7. Cost implications: Concrete budget for Aargau

The Geneva reference budget

In Geneva, which covers around 282 km² – roughly a fifth of the area of Aargau – and has around 500,000 inhabitants, the total cost of professional wildlife management amounts to around 1.2 million francs annually: around 600,000 francs for personnel, around 250,000 francs for prevention and around 350,000 francs for compensation payments.

Projection for Aargau

For Aargau, with an area of 1,404 km² and over 700,000 inhabitants, the following realistic cost estimate results:

Personnel costs: 600,000 to 840,000 francs annually. Between 5 and 6 full-time positions for professional wildlife managers are required. A full-time position in cantonal service, including social security contributions and additional employer costs, costs around 120,000 to 140,000 francs annually. Aargau is roughly five times the size of Geneva, but topographically simpler (Swiss plateau, no Alps), and its settlement structure is more compact.

Operating costs: 120,000 to 180,000 francs annually. This includes equipment, vehicles, deterrent devices, monitoring infrastructure (camera traps, GPS transmitters), structural protective measures, electric fences and public relations work.

Damage compensation: CHF 100,000 to 200,000 annually. Mainly wild boar damage to agriculture and beaver damage to watercourses and infrastructure.

Total costs: 820,000 to 1,220,000 francs annually (gross). This corresponds to around 1.15 to 1.70 francs per inhabitant per year.

Savings

Against this stand considerable savings: the canton would no longer need to manage hunting lease agreements for 174 hunting grounds, conduct hunting examinations, draw up kill quotas for 174 hunting grounds, or organise hunting supervision. The resources currently assigned to these tasks within the Hunting and Fisheries Section could partly be reallocated.

Lost revenue

With the abolition of recreational hunting, the lease income from territorial hunting – estimated at 400,000 to 700,000 francs annually – will no longer apply. However, this must be weighed against the never-balanced external costs of militia hunting (wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in protective forests, administrative expenses, police and court interventions), which are likely to significantly exceed this income. In the canton of Geneva, this income has been foregone since 1974 without any financial problems: before the hunting ban, over 400 recreational hunters were active; today, three full-time positions do the same work better. Sanitary and therapeutic kills carried out by professional game wardens are not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters' lore or a misunderstood “nature experience” on the part of recreational hunters. A full-cost accounting shows that militia hunting costs taxpayers considerably more than it generates in revenue (cf. «What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland» on wildbeimwild.com).

Recreational hunters in politics vote against nature conservation. The recreational hunting lobby systematically opposes biodiversity and species protection concerns. In 2024, it fought against the Biodiversity Initiative (63 per cent No). In 2020, the hunting act it had helped shape failed at the ballot box (51.9 per cent No). In 2016, the Ticino hunting association torpedoed the Parc Adula national park. During the 2015–2019 legislative period, recreational hunters in parliament voted predominantly against environmental concerns. Anyone who claims that recreational hunters are nature conservationists is ignoring their voting behaviour (cf. Ticino Hunting Association: 30 Years of Nonsense and Cost dossier).

The the net additional costs are likely to amount to 350,000 to 650,000 francs annually, which corresponds to around0.50 to 0.90 francs per inhabitant. This is among the lowest per-capita costs of all the cantons in the series and is less than half the Geneva level (cf. Hunting myths fact check on wildbeimwild.com).

8. Compatibility with superior law

First paragraph: Abolition of recreational hunting

The initiative complies with federal law. The federal Hunting Act (JSG) expressly leaves it to the cantons to regulate hunting entitlement, the hunting system, the hunting territory and hunting supervision (Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG). The three hunting systems are equivalent. The canton of Geneva has practised state-run hunting since 1974 and has never, in over 50 years, faced any objection under federal law. Ending the hunting lease agreements through non-renewal does not affect the guarantee of property, since these are fixed-term contracts to which there is no legal entitlement of renewal. The five-year phase-out clause respects the lessees' legitimate expectations.

Second paragraph: Protection of protected species

Art. 7a JSG enables cantons to carry out preventive regulation but does not oblige them to do so. The same applies to kill permits for individual animals under Art. 12 para. 2 JSG. Forgoing this option violates neither federal law nor the Bern Convention.

Unity of subject matter

The initiative preserves the unity of subject matter, as all provisions of both paragraphs relate to cantonal wildlife management and the protection of wild animals.

9. Anticipating foreseeable objections

“Aargau is too large and too rural for the Geneva model”

The facts: Topographically, Aargau is similar to Geneva: Central Plateau and Jura, no Alps, moderate differences in altitude. The area is larger, but so is the population. The per capita costs are even lower than in Geneva (under one franc instead of 2.40 francs), because the costs are spread across more than 700,000 residents. Aargau has no high Alps, no extreme topography, no sparsely populated mountain valleys. The challenges are the same as in Geneva: wild boars in agriculture, roe deer in the forest, beavers along the rivers.

Short communicative formula: «Aargau has a similar landscape to Geneva and less than half the per capita costs. Where would it work, if not here?»

«The canton loses lease income»

The facts: In Aargau, lease fees flow to the canton (§ 6 AJSG). In relation to the cantonal budget, the amount is marginal. At the same time, the leasing of 174 hunting grounds, the kill quota planning and hunting supervision would be eliminated, leading to administrative savings (see the Psychology of hunting in the Canton of Aargau).

Short communicative formula: «The lease income is a small amount within the cantonal budget. And the administration becomes simpler.»

«Costs will rise, and in the end the taxpayer pays»

The facts: Under one franc per resident per year. That is less than half of Geneva's level. Geneva has been doing this for 50 years, at 2.40 francs per capita, and has never lifted the ban. In Zurich, alleged costs of 20 million francs were claimed, which were never substantiated. In Aargau, concretely calculated figures are available.

Short communicative formula: «Under one franc per person per year. Less than half of Geneva's figure. The Zurich bogeyman of 20 million was never substantiated.»

10. Summary

This initiative gives the population of Aargau the opportunity to speak out in favour of modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wild animal species. The first paragraph follows the Geneva model, proven for over 50 years, and replaces recreational hunting with professional wildlife protection, at very low per capita costs. The second paragraph specifically protects the beaver, the most important protected species for Aargau, and ensures that the canton refrains from the preventive killing of protected species.

The result would be an Aargau 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 nature, 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 in accordance with cantonal law, resident in the canton of Aargau)

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.

Scientific studies: wildbeimwild.com/studien-ueber-die-auswirkung-der-jagd-auf-wildtiere-und-jaeger. Collection of scientific studies on the self-regulation of wildlife populations and the ecological impacts of recreational hunting.

Hunting in Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com/warum-die-hobby-jagd-in-der-schweiz-kein-naturschutz-ist. Continuously updated overview of Swiss hunting policy.

The psychology of hunting in the canton of Aargau: wildbeimwild.com: Psychology of hunting in the canton of AG. A canton-specific analysis of the psychology behind recreational hunting.

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

Wolf dossier: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/wolf-in-der-schweiz-fakten-politik-und-die-grenzen-der-jagd. Current developments in wolf policy in Switzerland.

Wild animals and predators: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere. Information on wild animals, predators and the coexistence of humans and wild animals.

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen. Fact check on the most common claims made by the recreational hunting lobby.

Cantonal popular initiative Basel-Stadt: Template text of the initiative in the canton of Basel-Stadt. The template for the entire initiative series.

Note on the procedure

The initiative committee submits the text of the initiative to the State Chancellery of the canton of Aargau for preliminary review before the start of the signature collection. For the initiative to come into effect, 3,000 valid signatures are required. The collection period is 12 months from publication in the official gazette. The submission procedures are governed by the Act on Political Rights (GPR).

Strategic briefing for activists

Popular initiative “For professional wildlife protection”, canton of Aargau Internal working document, as of March 2026

Summary

Aargau is the fourth most populous canton in Switzerland and has very low per capita costs: under one franc per resident per year. The Mittelland topography is similar to that of Geneva. Aargau is one of Switzerland's most important cantons for beavers, which makes the species protection clause particularly relevant. With over 700,000 residents, 3,000 signatures in 12 months is achievable. Eastern Aargau belongs to the Zurich agglomeration and has an urban character. A success in Aargau would prove that the Geneva model works in a large Mittelland canton.

1. Why Aargau, of all places?

Very low per capita costs. Under one franc. Less than half of Geneva's. The cost argument, which proved fatal in Zurich, has no effect in Aargau.

Central plateau topography. No Alps, no high mountains. Similar to Geneva. The argument “Geneva is a city canton, that won't work here” doesn't hold up.

Beaver canton. A significant share of the Swiss beaver population. Since February 2025, kills of individual beavers have been permissible. The species protection clause mobilises nature conservation associations.

3,000 signatures among over 700,000 residents. That's around 0.4 per cent. 12 months collection period. Realistic.

Urban base in the east. Baden, Wettingen, Spreitenbach belong to the Zurich agglomeration.

2. Lessons from Zurich: What we are doing differently

Positive title. "For professional wildlife protection" instead of "Game wardens instead of hunters." The opponents must position themselves against "professional wildlife protection."

Concrete budget calculation. In Zurich, the figure of 20 million was floated, and the initiators had nothing to counter it with. In Aargau, concretely calculated figures are available: under one franc per capita.

Secure party support early. In Zurich, the cantonal parliament rejected the initiative without a single dissenting vote. In Aargau, the SP, Greens and GLP must be involved early on.

Species protection as coalition broadening. The beaver clause additionally mobilises nature conservation associations that cannot be reached with a pure anti-hunting message.

3. Opponent analysis and prepared responses

Counter-argument 1: "Aargau is too big"

What the opponents will say: Aargau covers 1,404 km², Geneva only 282. The Geneva model is not transferable.

The facts: The area is larger, but so is the population. The per capita costs are cheaper than in Geneva. The topography is similar: Central Plateau and Jura, no Alps.

Short communicative formula: "Similar landscape, less than half the cost. Where does it work, if not in Aargau?"

Counter-argument 2: "The canton loses revenue"

The facts: The lease fees flow to the canton and are marginal within the cantonal budget. Administration becomes simpler.

Short communicative formula: "The lease revenue is a fraction of the cantonal budget. And the hunting administration is eliminated."

Counter-argument 3: "This will cost the taxpayer"

The facts: Under one franc per person per year. Zurich's bogeyman figure of 20 million was never substantiated. Geneva has been doing it for 50 years.

Short communicative formula: "Under one franc. Less than half of Geneva's figure. Zurich's 20 million was never substantiated."

4. Communication strategy: The three core messages

«Geneva has been demonstrating it for 50 years.» More biodiversity, stable populations, minimal costs, never repealed since 1974.

«Professional instead of hobby.» Professionals instead of recreational shooters. In the public interest rather than as a leisure activity.

"Under one franc per person per year." Very low per capita costs.

5. Timetable and next steps

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & preliminary text review	Consult a lawyer; recruit committee members with residence in Aargau in accordance with cantonal law	Month 1–3
Submission for preliminary review	Aargau State Chancellery	Month 3–4
Publication & start of signature collection	12-month deadline; target: 3,500+ signatures as a buffer	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	SP, Greens, GLP; nature conservation associations; beaver groups	Month 1–12
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official verification	Month 14–16
Grand Council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media work	Month 17–28
Voting campaign	Final mobilisation, infographics, media presence	Month 28–36

6. Campaign material

Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as the central set of arguments.
The Psychology of hunting in the Canton of Aargau as background material.
Local media: Aargauer Zeitung, Badener Tagblatt, Lenzburger Bezirks-Anzeiger, Tele M1, Radio Argovia.
Infographic: beavers on the Aare, Reuss and Limmat as a visual centrepiece. Cost comparison AG vs. GE.

7. 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 circumstances in the canton of Aargau.

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 an advertising flyer, yet its central claims do not withstand a fact check. Ten narratives put to the test, ranging from “state task” and “species diversity” to “80% approval”: Dossier: Fact check on the JagdSchweiz brochure →