The real problem wolf sits in office

Not regulate, not monitor, but exterminate.

While the international nature conservation union IUCN with Motion 142 clearly demands that wolf killings must only be permitted as an absolute last resort, Graubünden demonstrates how, with a finger on the trigger, one perverts the meaning of species protection through hunting.

Two packs have formed this year in the Lower Engadine — that is not a problem, it is a success. It shows that nature is capable of healing itself when it is allowed to do so. Yet instead of feeling pride in this return of the wild, the canton responds with fear, control, and lead. One pack has killed livestock — and immediately the order to shoot is sounded. So simple, so convenient, so retrograde.

Where is the responsibility?

The wolf is protected, and not by accident. It is part of a functioning ecosystem; it keeps wildlife populations in balance and strengthens biodiversity. Yet what does Graubünden do? It treats the wolf as though it were an unwanted intruder. Instead of investing in better livestock protection, training, and coexistence strategies — as Motion 142 demands — it relies on the easiest path: killing.

This is not wildlife management; it is politically motivated symbolic politics. A gift to those who loudly stoke fear and ignore facts. It is a capitulation to lobby pressure — and a betrayal of the responsibility we bear as a society toward nature.

Anyone who takes species protection seriously cannot accept this approach

The IUCN has given Switzerland a clear mandate: revise the hunting law, create a legal basis for genuine coexistence — and make the shooting of wolves the ultima ratio, not routine practice. Yet Graubünden does precisely the opposite, once again dragging Switzerland into an ecological and moral fiasco.

If we lose the wolf, we lose more than a species. We lose the proof that coexistence between humans and wilderness is possible at all.

And perhaps that is precisely the point: the real problem wolf does not stand on four legs in theEngadin — it sits in an office, wears a suit, and calls destruction “management.”

And theBAFU? Instead of acting as a guardian of nature conservation, it makes itself an instrument of the cantons. No critical questioning, no rigorous examination of whether herd protection measures have been exhausted — the culling requests are approved almost reflexively. In doing so, the authority hollows out its own mandate and betrays the wolf’s protected status.

Anyone who takes species protection seriously must not merely provide stamps and signatures, but must represent the voice of nature. Anything else is a declaration of bankruptcy.

Switzerland is not alone in this world. It has signed international agreements such as the Bern Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity, which require clear protection for the wolf. These treaties are not non-binding recommendations, but obligations. Those who ignore them forfeit credibility on the international stage. A country that likes to present itself as a pioneer in nature conservation cannot hide behind cantonal culling fantasies. When Switzerland breaks its own commitments, it sends a fatal signal: that treaties and species protection only apply as long as they are politically convenient.

Dossier: Wolf Switzerland: Facts, Politics and the Limits of Hunting

Participate: Demand from your municipality, on account of the catastrophic policies of Federal Councillor Albert Rösti (SVP), a petition for exemption from federal and cantonal taxes in response to the recently approved culling of wolves in Switzerland. You can download the template letter here:https://wildbeimwild.com/ein-appell-fuer-eine-veraenderung-in-der-schweiz/