Cantonal Popular Initiative: Canton of Basel-Stadt

«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of a drafted proposal

Pursuant to § 47 of the Constitution of the Canton of Basel-Stadt of 23 March 2005 and the Act concerning Initiative and Referendum (IRG) of 16 January 1991

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Text of the initiative

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

The Constitution of the Canton of Basel-Stadt of 23 March 2005 is amended by the addition of the following paragraphs:

§ [new] Professional wildlife protection

1 The exercise of hunting by private individuals (territorial hunting, recreational hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Canton of Basel-Stadt.

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 proven insufficient. It requires the prior approval of 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 promotes the natural regulation of wildlife populations, the connectivity of habitats, and the coexistence of humans and wild animals in settled areas.

6 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 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 authorisations expire upon the entry into force of the implementing legislation.

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

Explanatory notes

1. Starting position

In the Canton of Basel-Stadt, an almost entirely urban canton with around 200,000 inhabitants on an area of just 37 km², today's recreational hunting is an anachronism. Recreational hunting serves neither species conservation nor modern wildlife management. It is the pursuit of a bloody leisure activity at the expense of sentient beings, legitimised by outdated narratives that do not withstand scientific scrutiny (see the Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Basel). The claim that without recreational hunting the ecological balance would collapse has been empirically refuted for over 50 years by the Geneva model (see the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban on wildbeimwild.com).

At the same time, more and more protected wild animal species are coming under pressure at federal level. With the revision of the Hunting Act in December 2022, preventive regulation of the wolf was introduced. In the first two regulation periods, 2023/2024 and 2024/2025, the FOEN approved the kill of a total of around 225 wolves; 147 animals were actually killed (55 in the first period, 92 in the second). In December 2024, the wolf's protection status under the Bern Convention was downgraded from «strictly protected» to «protected». Political pressure on other species such as the lynx, beaver, otter and goosander is steadily increasing (see the analysis of recreational hunting in Switzerland).

The canton of Basel-Stadt has the opportunity to send a clear signal here: not only in favour of professional wildlife protection instead of recreational hunting, but also for the consistent protection of endangered wild animal species at 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 waterbirds has multiplied from a few hundred to around 30,000. The area around Lake Geneva and the Rhône gained international significance for bird protection, as a study by the Swiss bird protection organisation SVS-BirdLife demonstrates.
Geneva is now home to the largest population of brown hares and one of the last remaining grey partridge populations in Switzerland. Before the 1974 vote, the recreational hunting lobby had claimed that the brown hare would, without recreational hunting, be Predators without recreational hunting. The opposite has occurred.
Today, the canton has a growing population of around 60 to 100 red deer (depending on source and counting method) and around 680 roe deer (2024, according to the Swiss federal hunting statistics FOEN). The roe deer population has doubled since 2015, from around 330 to 680 animals, starting from a very low level after decades of hunting and with an annual special kill by professional game wardens of just 20 to 36 animals. The population is growing moderately despite selective regulation and is maintained at a density that is sustainable for the forest area. The professional wildlife wardens intervene in a targeted and minimal manner, rather than aiming for the highest possible kill numbers as is the case in recreational hunting.
The ban has been in force continuously for over 50 years. Geneva has never repealed it.
The total cost of professional wildlife management in Geneva amounts to around 1.2 million francs annually, split into approximately 600,000 francs for personnel (around three full-time positions, shared among roughly a dozen environmental officers), 250,000 francs for prevention, and 350,000 francs for damage compensation. This corresponds to around 2.40 francs per resident per year.

The wild animals in the canton of Geneva show a significantly shorter flight distance from humans than in hunted areas. Walkers regularly encounter roe deer, brown hares and a rich variety of birdlife. The long-serving Geneva fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker (2001 to 2025) reported a positive effect of direct contact with wild animals on the population's quality of life. A detailed account of the Geneva model with all figures can be found in the dossier «Geneva and the hunting ban» on wildbeimwild.com.

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. In contrast, recreational hunting is systemically driven by the interest of securing its own raison d'être through high populations of huntable species (cf. the hunters dossier 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 organisations, scientists and authorities, prevents political pressure from individual interest groups from diluting wildlife management. The Basel initiative enshrines this protective mechanism by constitutionally fixing the approval requirement of the Wildlife Commission.

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

4. Why Basel-Stadt?

Basel-Stadt is particularly well suited to the introduction of professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

The small cantonal area of 37 km² makes the transition practically simple and financially manageable. The specific costs are set out in Section 7.
As an almost entirely urban canton, Basel-Stadt has no hunting-cultural tradition intertwined with the population's self-image. The few active recreational hunters in the canton have no political weight comparable to that in rural cantons.
The population has shown, with the Primate Initiative (2022) and the Pigeon Initiative (which came about in 2024), that animal welfare is a central concern. In the case of the Primate Initiative, the SP and the Greens spoke out in favour of acceptance, which shows that there is party-political support for animal rights concerns.
The signature threshold of 3,000 valid signatures within an 18-month collection period is realistically achievable, as previous Basel animal welfare initiatives demonstrate.
A success in Basel would be (after Geneva) the second Swiss example of professional wildlife protection and would have signal effect for the whole of Switzerland and beyond.

5. On the first paragraph: professional wildlife protection

Paragraph 1: Ban on recreational hunting

The ban on militia-style recreational hunting by private individuals is at the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model (Art. 162 of the Geneva cantonal constitution: «La chasse aux mammifères et aux oiseaux est interdite. Les mesures officielles de régulation de la faune sont réservées.»). The cantonal competence for this is undisputed: the federal hunting act (JSG) explicitly leaves the organisation of hunting operations to the cantons (Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG). The three hunting systems in Switzerland (licence hunting, territorial hunting and state or regie hunting) are of equal standing. The canton of Geneva has practised regie hunting since 1974 in compliance with federal law, without ever having been challenged by the federal government.

Paragraph 2: Professional wildlife management

Instead of recreational hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the canton take over all tasks relating to 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 successful for over 50 years. The long-serving Geneva fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker described the ban on recreational hunting as the financially most favourable alternative for the canton and as clearly sustainable in the long term.

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).

Paragraph 3: Kill as a last resort

The central innovation compared to today's 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, average 2015–2024), with the kill figures fluctuating depending on population dynamics and the potential for agricultural damage. Mainly young animals are killed, with lead animals explicitly spared for ethical reasons and to preserve the social stability of the sounders. The kill figures in Geneva are thus considerably lower than in comparable cantons with recreational hunting, where kills serve not only to prevent damage but primarily the hobby itself.

Paragraph 4: Wildlife commission

The independent wildlife commission is modelled on the Geneva commission for fauna regulation (Commission consultative de régulation de la faune). It ensures that animal welfare and nature conservation associations have a say in regulation decisions, and prevents the government from independently approving exceptions under pressure from interest groups. The involvement of science ensures that decisions are evidence-based rather than resting on the hunting-ideology myths that 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 when humans do not interfere with population dynamics through mass killing. In Geneva, the federal hunting statistics (FOEN) show a roe deer population of around 680 animals (2024), with an annual special kill of only 20 to 36 animals carried out by professional game wardens. The ratio of population to removal is thus less than 5 per cent — a fraction of what is customary in cantons with recreational hunting. In a city canton such as Basel, promoting coexistence includes in particular securing and networking wildlife corridors, ecologically upgrading green spaces, and educating the public on how to behave towards wild animals in built-up areas (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wild animals).

Transitional provisions

The two-year deadline gives the cantonal government sufficient time to draw up the implementing legislation, hire professional wildlife managers, and constitute the wildlife commission. The continuity clause ensures that there is no gap in wildlife management during the transitional phase. The existing Office for Forest and Wildlife of both Basel cantons can serve as the institutional basis.

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

Paragraph 1: Renunciation of preventive regulation of protected species

The core of this paragraph is the canton's deliberate renunciation of the option to submit applications to the federal government for the preventive population regulation of protected species. The revised federal hunting act (Art. 7a JSG) allows cantons to preventively regulate wolves from 1 September to 31 January, but does not require them to do so. The wording in the federal law is “may”, not “must”. With this paragraph, the canton is therefore merely exercising its authority not to make use of a power granted under federal law.

The enumeration of species using the word “in particular” is legally decisive. It ensures that the protection also extends to species protected under federal law in the future, without requiring a constitutional amendment. This is particularly important because political pressure to add further species is foreseeably increasing. The recreational hunting lobby has already repeatedly demanded that lynx, beaver and grey heron be added to the list of species subject to regulation (cf. the wolf dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

Paragraph 2: Coexistence and passive damage prevention

Instead of kills, the canton relies on preventive, non-lethal measures: the ecological enhancement of habitats, the networking of wildlife corridors, structural protective measures, deterrence, and scientific monitoring of wildlife presence through research. In an urban canton such as Basel-Stadt, the focus is not on livestock losses but on questions of coexistence between humans and wild animals in settled areas: how should foxes, badgers, beavers or waterfowl be dealt with? How can conflicts in gardens, along waterways, or in road traffic be prevented? Professional wildlife management modelled on the Geneva approach provides evidence-based answers to these questions that go beyond simply shooting animals. Educating the public about the correct way to behave towards wild animals is a central element of this.

Paragraph 3: Reservation for hazard prevention

This reservation is legally indispensable. It ensures that the canton can fulfil its duty to avert danger when an individual wild animal poses an immediate and significant threat to people. The double restriction (“immediate” and “significant”) prevents the reservation from being misused as a gateway to routine kills. Responsibility lies with the cantonal specialist authority, not with private individuals. This provision corresponds to the Geneva principle: there, too, official regulatory measures are reserved, but they are applied restrictively and exclusively by professional specialists.

Paragraph 4: Active protection policy towards the Confederation

This paragraph goes beyond a mere declaration of renunciation. It obliges the canton to actively advocate for species protection in inter-cantonal cooperation, in consultations on federal ordinances, and in inter-cantonal expert conferences. This would give Basel-Stadt, as a canton, a clear voice for the protection of endangered species in the national debate. Given the downgrading of the wolf's protection status under the Bern Convention on 3 December 2024 and the ongoing parliamentary pressure on other protected species, this active protection policy is of growing importance.

7. Cost implications: Concrete budget for Basel-Stadt

The Geneva reference budget

In Geneva, which at 282 km² is almost eight times larger than Basel-Stadt and has around 500,000 inhabitants, the total cost of professional wildlife management amounts to roughly 1.2 million francs annually. The budget is structured as follows: around 600,000 francs for personnel (approx. 3 full-time positions), around 250,000 francs for prevention (electric fences, protective netting, deterrent measures), and around 350,000 francs for damage compensation (mainly wild boar damage to vines and crops).

Projection for Basel-Stadt

For Basel-Stadt, with an area of 37 km² and around 200,000 inhabitants, the following realistic cost estimate results:

Personnel costs: 180,000 to 240,000 francs annually. What is needed is 1.5 to 2 full-time positions for professional wildlife managers. A full-time position in cantonal service costs around 120,000 to 140,000 francs annually, including social contributions and employer ancillary costs. For 1.5 to 2 positions, this amounts to 180,000 to 240,000 francs. These specialists can be based within the existing Office for Forests and Wildlife of both Basel cantons, which minimises administrative effort.

Material costs: 30,000 to 50,000 francs annually. This includes equipment, vehicles (proportionally), deterrent devices, monitoring infrastructure (camera traps, GPS transmitters for scientific monitoring), structural protective measures, and public relations work.

Damage compensation: 10,000 to 30,000 francs annually. The wildlife damage expected in Basel-Stadt is very manageable due to the small area and minimal agricultural share.

Total costs: 220,000 to 320,000 francs annually. This corresponds to around 1.10 to 1.60 francs per inhabitant per year.

Savings

These costs are offset by savings: the canton would no longer need to run a hunting administration, conduct hunting examinations, issue and manage licences, or organise hunting supervision. The resources currently assigned to these tasks within the Office for Forests and Wildlife could partly be reallocated. The long-standing Geneva fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker pointed out that organising a licence hunting system would require at least two full-time positions, whereas wild boar regulation in Geneva takes up around one full-time position.

Costs of the second paragraph

The second paragraph on the protection of endangered species does not entail any significant additional costs, since it essentially involves foregoing regulation requests and realigning the canton's stance towards the Confederation. The costs for passive damage-prevention measures and scientific monitoring can partly be covered by federal contributions towards the management of protected species.

Lost revenue

Abolishing recreational hunting would mean the loss of the lease income received by the municipalities of Riehen and Bettingen, which is minor. However, this is offset by the never-accounted-for external costs of militia-style hunting (wildlife accidents, administrative effort, 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, more than 400 recreational hunters were active; today, three full-time positions do the same job better. Sanitary and therapeutic culls carried out by professional game wardens are not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters' folklore or a misunderstood sense of «nature experience» among recreational hunters. A full-cost analysis shows that militia-style hunting costs the taxpayer considerably more than it brings in (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).

8. Compatibility with superior law

First paragraph: Abolition of recreational hunting

The initiative is compliant with federal law. The federal hunting act (JSG) expressly leaves the regulation of hunting entitlement, the hunting system, the hunting area and hunting supervision to the cantons (Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG). The three hunting systems in Switzerland (licence hunting, territorial hunting and state or management hunting) are of equal standing. The canton of Geneva has practised management hunting since 1974 and has never, in over 50 years, faced any federal-law objection. The constitutional basis corresponds to Art. 162 of the Geneva cantonal constitution (in its current version, adopted by popular vote in October 2012), whose compliance with federal law is confirmed by more than five decades of practice.

Second paragraph: Protection of protected species

Art. 7a JSG allows the 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. Foregoing this option violates neither federal law nor the Bern Convention. The reservation for measures in cases of immediate danger to humans ensures that the canton can fulfil its duty to avert danger. Even today, cantons deliberately refrain from submitting regulation requests for inconspicuous packs. Foregoing such requests is therefore already common practice.

Unity of subject matter

The initiative maintains the unity of subject matter, as all provisions of both paragraphs relate to cantonal wildlife management and the protection of wild animals. The thematic link (the transition from a system based on recreational hunting to a professional, science-based system of wildlife protection) connects both paragraphs into a coherent regulatory subject.

9. Anticipating foreseeable objections

«The new wild animal and hunting act 2024 is already wildlife-friendly enough»

It is foreseeable that opponents of the initiative will point to the cantonal Wildlife and Hunting Act of 2021 (in force since 2024) and argue that the existing legal framework is already sufficiently modern and wildlife-friendly. This objection misses the point. The current law regulates the framework conditions for recreational hunting. It optimises a system built on the premise that private individuals kill wild animals as a leisure activity. It does not call this premise itself into question. The present initiative, by contrast, carries out a systemic change: from recreational hunting to professional wildlife wardens. This is not a contradiction of the current law, but a deliberate step beyond it, just as the canton of Geneva went beyond its then hunting act in 1974. Nor can the cantonal Wildlife and Hunting Act provide any answer to the growing threat posed to protected species by federal policy. It contains no mechanism preventing the canton from submitting regulation requests to the FOEN, and it contains no obligation for the canton to actively advocate for species protection. It is precisely these gaps that the second paragraph of the initiative closes.

Bi-cantonal coordination: The Office for Forests and Wildlife of both Basels

Basel-Stadt and Basel-Landschaft jointly operate the Office for Forest and Wildlife of the two Basel cantons. This office is responsible for enforcing hunting and wildlife legislation in both cantons. The initiative concerns exclusively the constitution of the canton of Basel-Stadt and thus the cantonal territory of Basel-Stadt. It changes nothing about the cooperation with Basel-Landschaft in the area of joint administration. The division of responsibilities between the two cantons is regulated in the existing intercantonal treaty and the administrative agreement. The implementing legislation for the initiative must clarify how the professional wildlife managers are to be organisationally embedded into the existing structure of the joint office. Experience from Geneva shows that such embedding into existing administrative structures works smoothly: there, wildlife management was integrated after 1974 into the existing wildlife and fisheries authority, without the need to create a new authority. No binding effect arises for Basel-Landschaft. Basel-Landschaft can retain its own hunting system. However, a success in Basel-Stadt could well spark a debate in Basel-Landschaft.

The “in particular” formula for species protection

The open formulation “in particular wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden jackal, golden eagle, goosander and other species protected under federal law” could be attacked as legally unclear. The opposite is the case: the formulation is deliberately 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 requiring a cantonal constitutional amendment every time. This technique of dynamic reference is established and well-proven in Swiss constitutional law. The explicit listing of the most important species serves to provide concreteness and comprehensibility, while the addition “and other species protected under federal law” serves to future-proof the provision. Together, both elements produce a formulation that is both legally definite and forward-looking.

Wolf presence in Basel-Stadt

The wolf does not currently occur in the canton of Basel-Stadt in any practical sense. Opponents might therefore question the relevance of the second paragraph. This criticism fails to recognise the threefold function of the paragraph. First, the provision has an inter-cantonal signalling effect: Basel-Stadt positions itself as a canton that takes the protection of endangered species seriously and advocates accordingly at federal level (paragraph 4). This signal is all the more important given that the majority of cantons are, on the contrary, pushing for a relaxation of protection. Second, the provision is forward-looking: wolves are spreading across Switzerland. In July 2025, a first wolf pack was confirmed in the canton of Schwyz by means of camera-trap evidence. Barely around five weeks later, the canton applied to the FOEN for regulation and, on 28 August 2025, received authorisation to have two-thirds of the pups shot. By the end of November 2025, three of the five young wolves had been killed. The gap between first confirmation and kill illustrates how quickly a biological fact can turn into a political killing order, and why constitutional protection is needed before matters reach that point. Basel-Landschaft borders Basel-Stadt, wolf packs live in the Jura arc, and a wolf presence in the wider agglomeration area cannot be ruled out in the medium term. Third, the paragraph does not concern the wolf alone, but all protected species, many of which actually occur in or pass through the canton of Basel-Stadt, including the beaver (documented on the Birs and the Rhine), various protected bird species, and potentially the otter, whose return to north-western Switzerland is expected.

10. Summary

This initiative gives the population of Basel the opportunity to speak out in favour of modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection for endangered wild animal species. The first paragraph follows the Geneva model, proven over more than 50 years, and replaces recreational hunting with professional wildlife protection, at a cost of around 1.10 to 1.60 francs per inhabitant per year. The second paragraph ensures that the canton of Basel-Stadt refrains from the pre-emptive killing of protected species and instead actively commits to their conservation.

The result would be a Basel 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 vibrant urban nature, for the benefit of the animals and the entire population.

Initiative committee “For professional wildlife protection”

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3], [Name 4], [Name 5], [Name 6], [Name 7]

(At least 7 eligible voters resident in the canton of Basel-Stadt)

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 on recreational hunting: wildbeimwild.com: Scientific studies. Studies on the impact of recreational hunting on wild animals and recreational hunters.

Recreational hunting in Switzerland: facts and criticism: wildbeimwild.com: Recreational hunting in Switzerland. Why recreational hunting in Switzerland is not nature conservation.

The wolf in Switzerland: facts, politics and hunting: wildbeimwild.com: Wolf dossier. The wolf in Switzerland: facts, politics and the limits of hunting.

Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Basel-Stadt: wildbeimwild.com: Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Basel-Stadt. Canton-specific analysis.

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

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

Note on the procedure

Before the collection of signatures begins, the signature list must be submitted in writing to the State Chancellery of the canton of Basel-Stadt for preliminary review. The initiative committee consists of at least 7 eligible voters resident in the canton of Basel-Stadt. 3,000 valid signatures are required for the initiative to come into effect. The collection period is 18 months from publication in the Cantonal Gazette. The submission procedures are governed by the Act on Initiative and Referendum (IRG) of 16 January 1991.

Preliminary review by the State Chancellery by email to abstimmungen@bs.ch or by post to Rathaus, Marktplatz 9, 4001 Basel https://www.bs.ch/themen/sicherheit-und-demokratie/politische-mitsprache/eine-initiative-einreichen

Strategic briefing for activists

Popular initiative «For professional wildlife protection», canton of Basel-Stadt Internal working document, as of March 2026

Summary

Basel-Stadt is the strategically best canton in Switzerland in which to launch an initiative for professional wildlife protection. The signature threshold is low, the population is animal-welfare-friendly, the costs are minimal, and the Geneva model, after more than 50 years, provides empirical proof that it works. A success in Basel would be a second Geneva and would have a signalling effect far beyond the cantonal border.

1. Why Basel-Stadt of all places?

Low threshold, high willingness

In Basel-Stadt, just 3,000 valid signatures are needed for a cantonal popular initiative, with a collection period of 18 months from publication in the Cantonal Gazette. Recent examples show that this hurdle is realistic: the popular initiative «Fundamental Rights for Primates» was achieved in 2017 with 3,080 signatures, and the Pigeon Initiative was achieved in 2024. Basel is a canton where animal welfare issues mobilise people.

Almost entirely urban

The canton is practically a pure urban region: around 200,000 inhabitants on 37 km². There is hardly any rurally shaped population that would traditionally be affinity for hunting. The political landscape is shaped by the left and the Greens: the SP, the Greens and the GLP hold a solid base in the Grand Council (Grosser Rat). This was decisive in the Primate Initiative, where the SP and the Greens had already issued yes recommendations. This matters, because in Zurich the «Game Wardens Instead of Hunters» initiative failed not least because there was not a single vote in favour in the cantonal parliament, not even from the left-green side.

Minimal costs, maximum impact

The small size of the canton renders the cost argument, which was fatal in Zurich, ineffective in Basel. The concrete budget calculation shows: professional wildlife protection in Basel-Stadt costs between 220,000 and 320,000 Swiss francs annually, i.e. 1.10 to 1.60 francs per inhabitant. In Geneva, it is 2.40 francs. That is less than a cup of coffee per person and year. Basel-Stadt in any case has hardly any recreational hunting activity: only the municipalities of Bettingen and Riehen hold the hunting regalia, which they transfer to a hunting association by lease agreement (§ 16 WJG). The transition is not a revolution, but the formalisation of a reality that already exists in large parts of the canton.

Signal effect: a second Geneva

A success in Basel would be proof that the Geneva model is transferable. Basel-Stadt is even more urban than Zurich. If it can work anywhere in German-speaking Switzerland, it is here.

2. Why not another canton?

Zurich: Burned for a generation

The «Game Wardens Instead of Hunters» initiative was rejected in 2018 with 84 percent against. Not a single municipality voted yes. It was rejected in the cantonal parliament without a single dissenting vote. A renewed attempt within the next 10 to 15 years would be counterproductive and would be used by the opposing side as proof of the «incorrigibility» of hunting opponents.

Grisons and other mountain cantons

Recreational hunting is deeply rooted in the culture there. In Grisons, even an initiative against the special hunt was rejected, despite having been submitted with over 10,000 signatures. The conditions for a systemic change are not in place in alpine cantons for the foreseeable future.

Vaud

Borders Geneva and could be interesting in the long term. However, Vaud requires significantly more signatures within a shorter deadline than Basel-Stadt. It also lacks the concentration of animal welfare organisations and left-green parties typical of Basel, found in a small, manageable canton.

Basel-Landschaft

Would be even easier to collect signatures for, with only 1,500 required, but is markedly more rural in character. Recreational hunting carries a different weight there. However, a success in Basel-Stadt could trigger a debate in Basel-Landschaft, which is why the order makes sense: first the city, then the countryside.

3. The lessons from Zurich: What we're doing differently

The failure in Zurich was not proof that the cause was wrong. It was proof that the strategy was wrong. The decisive mistakes and our responses to them:

Mistake 1: No party supportIn Zurich, there were zero votes for the initiative in the cantonal parliament. Not even the Social Democrats or the Greens supported it. The starting position in Basel-Stadt is different: the Social Democrats and the Greens issued a 'Yes' recommendation for the primate initiative. Contacts with these parties must be built up and cultivated early on. An initiative committee that includes prominent Basel politicians is crucial.

Mistake 2: Confrontational title‘Game wardens instead of hunters’ was a title defined by opposition to an adversary. Our initiative is called ‘For Professional Wildlife Protection’. The title is phrased positively, emphasises professionalism rather than prohibition, and forces opponents to take a stance against ‘professional wildlife protection’, which is communicatively difficult.

Mistake 3: The cost argument was not refutedIn Zurich, the figure of 20 million francs was in play, and the initiators had nothing concrete to counter it with. This figure was never substantiated. Our initiative includes a detailed budget calculation based on the Geneva reference model, scaled down for Basel-Stadt. The figures are verifiable and realistic.

Mistake 4: Too little time for the campaign A referendum campaign needs lead time. From the outset, we must plan the campaign on a timeline of two to three years: signature collection, cantonal parliament debate, referendum campaign.

Mistake 5: The Geneva experience was underused In 1974, no reference model existed. In 2018 in Zurich, it was not sufficiently placed at the centre. Today, after more than 50 years of Geneva practice, it is the strongest argument of all. The dossier «Geneva and the hunting ban» on wildbeimwild.com must become the central campaign document.

4. The second paragraph: Why species protection belongs in it

The initiative deliberately goes beyond the abolition of recreational hunting. The second paragraph on the protection of endangered and protected wild animal species is strategically important for three reasons:

Broader coalition. A purely anti-recreational-hunting article appeals to animal welfare advocates. The species protection paragraph additionally mobilises conservationists, bird enthusiasts, beaver groups, wolf advocates and all those who are frustrated by the federal government's increasing kill policy. The coalition becomes broader without diluting the message.

Topicality. Wolf regulation is present in the public debate like rarely before. In July 2025, a first wolf pack was confirmed in Schwyz; five weeks later the kill permit was issued; by November, three of five pups were dead. The Bern Convention downgraded the wolf's protection status in December 2024. Parliament is pushing for further relaxations. This paragraph gives the Basel population the opportunity to set a counter-signal. Particularly relevant in the Basel context are species present in settlement areas: beaver, bats, kingfisher and peregrine falcon. The initiative does not need to argue through the wolf alone.

Future-proofing. The “in particular” wording ensures that protection automatically extends to species that the federal government places on a kill list in future. The canton does not need to launch a new initiative every time.

5. Why the framework in 2026 is broader than in 2020

In 2020, the Swiss electorate rejected a flawed revision of the hunting act with 51.9 percent. Today, the initiative “For professional wildlife protection” operates in a fundamentally changed political environment. This change can be substantiated concretely on four levels:

What was hypothetical in 2020 is reality in 2026

In 2020, the attack on several protected species was mainly theoretical. The revised hunting act would have made it easier to regulate protected species. Opponents argued: “Today the wolf, tomorrow the beaver and the lynx.” That was an effective but ultimately hypothetical argument. Today, this scenario has become reality: since February 2025, individual beavers may be killed with cantonal authorisation, the protection status of the goosander is being actively lowered, and BirdLife publicly names a list of further species that are in the political pipeline. What was a warning in 2020 is a fact in 2026.

More affected interest groups

In 2020, the core issue was the wolf, the lynx and protected zones. The mobilised circles were primarily nature conservation associations and wolf advocates. Today, the following are specifically added: fishing associations (because the killing of goosanders ignores the research evidence and harms anglers who depend on intact ecosystems), bird protection groups in the narrower sense (BirdLife as the main party affected by the debate over grey herons, mute swans and gulls), and beaver advocates, who bring their own support base together with Pro Natura and WWF. Each additional species widens the potential coalition by a group that was not directly affected in 2020.

The democratic-policy argument did not exist in 2020

In 2020, it was about a law that went to a popular vote and was rejected. That was a clean democratic process. Today, a dimension is added that was missing back then: Federal Councillor Rösti has overridden the will of the people expressed in 2020 by means of an ordinance, without holding another vote. This “ordinance minister” argument appeals to people who care little about species protection but react strongly when a Federal Councillor undermines a popular decision through administrative channels. This broadens the debate beyond the conservation scene into the democratic-political mainstream.

The international dimension is new

In 2020, the Bern Convention played no role in the referendum debate. Today, Swiss wolf policy is also the subject of international criticism and complaints. This makes it possible to frame Swiss wolf policy as a loss of international reputation, which is a relevant argument particularly for centre-right voters.

Summary

In 2020, the frame was: «One law threatens several species.» In 2026, the frame is: «A Federal Council has overridden a popular vote decision, several species are already being killed, and parliament is systematically dismantling the protective mandate of the law.» This is not only broader, but also more concrete and emotionally accessible, because it is no longer about hypotheses, but about facts that have already occurred.

6. Opponent analysis and prepared answers

This is the section most often neglected in campaign preparation. Anyone who doesn't know the counterarguments and isn't prepared loses the media battle. Below are the three most likely lines of attack from opponents, and our answers to them.

Counterargument 1: «This is an interference in cantonal hunting legislation»

What the opponents will say: Under the Federal Constitution, the cantons have the authority to regulate their own hunting legislation. An initiative that interferes with hunting law is constitutionally delicate or violates federal law.

The facts: Exactly the opposite is true. Swiss hunting law is explicitly structured along federalist lines: the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds limits federal authority to defining huntable species, closed seasons and federal wildlife sanctuaries. Implementation and the detailed arrangements are regulated by the cantons themselves. Geneva did this in 1974, and the federal government has never challenged it, because it is the canton's right. Basel-Stadt passed a new cantonal wild animal and hunting act in 2021 (in force since 2024), proving that the canton acts autonomously in this area. A popular initiative seeking to amend this law is the normal democratic process.

Short communicative formula: «Geneva did it in 1974. The federal government never challenged it. It is our cantonal right, and our democratic right.»

Counterargument 2: «Basel hardly has any wild animal problems. What's the point of the initiative?»

What the opponents will say: There are hardly any wild animals in Basel and hardly any hunting activity. The initiative is solving a problem that doesn't even exist. This is political activism without practical relevance.

The facts: This argument unintentionally reveals the strength of our position. If Basel has hardly any wildlife problems and barely any hunting activity, then the system change is all the easier, cheaper and less risky. In fact, only the municipalities of Bettingen and Riehen hold the hunting regalia, transferred by lease agreement to a single hunting association. This means the change affects only a minimal area. At the same time, wildlife populations are also growing in and around Basel in settled areas: foxes, badgers, beavers, roe deer, wild boars. Professional wildlife management is not a luxury but preventive infrastructure, just as a fire brigade is not founded only once a fire breaks out.

Short communicative formula: “If there is so little to do, professional wildlife protection costs even less. The argument refutes itself.”

Counter-argument 3: “Costs will rise, and in the end the taxpayer will foot the bill”

What the opponents will say: Professional game wardens cost taxpayers' money. Today, hunting is co-financed through licence fees and lease income. The switch would place a financial burden on the canton.

The facts: The cost argument was effective in Zurich because it went unchallenged. The alleged 20 million francs in additional costs were never substantiated. In Basel, the starting situation is fundamentally different:

Geneva: 1.2 million francs Total costs per year for 500,000 inhabitants = 2.40 francs per capita.
Basel-Stadt (projection): 220,000 to 320,000 francs per year for 200,000 inhabitants = 1.10 to 1.60 francs per capita.
For comparison: A cup of filter coffee costs around 4.50 francs in Basel. Professional wildlife protection for an entire year costs less than a third of that.

What's more: in Basel, where agricultural land is minimal, the risk of damage is correspondingly lower. The long-serving wildlife inspector Gottlieb Dandliker confirmed: «The hunting ban for recreational hunters in Geneva is the cheapest alternative for the canton and is clearly financially sustainable in the long term.»

Short communicative formula: «1 franc 60 per inhabitant per year. Zurich's figure of 20 million was never substantiated. Geneva has been demonstrating how it's done for 50 years.»

7. Communication Strategy: The Three Core Messages

The entire campaign should focus on three simple, repeatable messages:

«Geneva has been demonstrating it for 50 years.» This is the strongest argument, because it is not a thought experiment but lived reality. More biodiversity, stable populations, minimal costs, in effect for over 50 years.

«Professional instead of hobby.» The question is not whether wild animals are managed, but by whom: by trained professionals acting in the public interest, or by private individuals as a leisure activity. The answer is obvious.

«Less than the price of a coffee per year.» The cost amounts to between 1.10 and 1.60 francs per resident. This is a sum that no one can seriously use as an argument against the initiative.

8. Timetable and next steps

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & preliminary text review	Bring in a lawyer; recruit at least 7 eligible voters resident in Basel-Stadt as committee members; decide between a constitutional and a legislative initiative	Month 1–3
Submission for preliminary review	Basel-Stadt State Chancellery: abstimmungen@bs.ch, Rathaus Marktplatz 9, 4001 Basel	Month 3–4
Publication & start of signature collection	The 18-month deadline begins with publication in the Cantonal Gazette; target: 4’000+ signatures as a buffer	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	Early talks with SP, Greens, GLP, BastA!; secure letters of support	Month 1–12
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official verification	Month 19–21
Grand Council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; intensify media work	Month 22–30
Voting campaign	Final mobilisation, infographics, media presence	Month 30–36

On the question of a constitutional versus a legislative initiative: This decision must be clarified before the preliminary review. A constitutional initiative enshrines the principle at the highest level and can only be amended through a further popular vote, whereas a legislative initiative is easier to formulate and less vulnerable to potential conflicts with federal law. Seeking legal advice is mandatory.

9. Prepare campaign material

Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com to use as the central set of arguments. The scientific studies should be prepared for media discussions.
Build a dedicated dossier page for the Basel initiative, modelled on the Geneva dossier, with direct reference to conditions in Basel.
Create infographics: cost comparison per resident (BS/GE), biodiversity development in Geneva, a timeline of «50 years of success».
Involve local media early on: Bajour, bz Basel, Basler Zeitung, Telebasel. Frame the initiative as a positive vision, not as a ban.

10. Further sources

This document is a template text by the IG Wild beim Wild. It may be freely used and adapted to the circumstances of the canton of Basel-Stadt by activists, organisations or initiative committees.

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 →