How hunting associations influence politics and the public

When recreational hunting is discussed, much of it seems like a matter of professional knowledge. Terms like "regulation," "population management," or "conservation" appear neutral and technical. In reality, however, they mask underlying interests, power structures, and targeted influence. Hunting associations in Switzerland are not leisure or traditional clubs. They are political actors – at the federal and cantonal levels, within government agencies, in the media, and in European lobbying structures.

Hunting Switzerland openly describes its hunting policy work: proactive monitoring of the opinion-forming processes of political parties, authorities, and organizations; close cooperation with "hunting members of the federal parliament"; early development of positions; and the creation of studies and publications on current issues. This is not secrecy—it is strategic interest politics with parliamentary connections. At the same time, Swiss hunting association officials sit on the board of FACE, the European hunting lobby organization in Brussels, which systematically works to secure political support for the culling of wild animals in EU legislation. This role is rarely made transparent to the Swiss public.

This dossier shows how this influence actually arises, through which channels it operates, and why making it visible is relevant for wildlife conservation and democracy. In addition: our dossier " Hunters' Lobby in Switzerland: How Influence Works with Cantonal Case Studies," and the dossier "Media and Hunting Issues" on the linguistic dimension of this influence.

What awaits you here

The role of hunting associations today: Interest politics with a systemic character: Why hunting associations are not traditional clubs, but organized political actors with clear strategic goals at the federal and cantonal levels.
Where the influence actually arises: cantons as a key location, consultations as a political instrument, and multiple personal roles as a structural problem.
Parliamentary groups and direct access to parliament: How JagdSchweiz gains direct access to legislative processes through members of parliament with close ties to hunting, and what this means for the separation of powers.
FACE: Switzerland in the European hunting lobby: Why JagdSchweiz uses FACE in Brussels to lobby for more culls, which is communicated nationally as a "nature conservation partnership".
Language as a political tool: How hunting associations set terms that steer debates and delegitimize criticism – before the actual political confrontation begins.
Public relations with expert status: How hunting associations appear in the media as objective expert bodies, even though they are interest groups – and why animal welfare organizations receive structurally less access.
Data control as an instrument of power: Who decides what is documented, how it is documented, and which figures become public?
Transparency International: What makes the Swiss lobbying system structurally problematic: What the 2019 study reveals about hidden influence and sensitive entanglements in Swiss lobbying – and what this means for hobby hunting.
How to make influence visible: Concrete questions and tools for citizens, media and politics.
What needs to change: Concrete political demands for more transparency.
Argumentation: Answers to the most common counterarguments.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and dossiers.

The role of hunting associations today: Interest politics with a systemic character

Hunting associations in Switzerland have professionalized over the past few decades. They are no longer reactive interest groups reacting to initiatives critical of hunting – they are proactive political actors who anticipate legislation, develop positions early on, and strategically utilize their networks. Hunting Switzerland explicitly outlines its key hunting policy tasks on its website: monitoring the hunting policy work of political parties, authorities, and organizations; close cooperation with members of the Swiss Federal Parliament who are hunters; developing positions early on; and producing studies and publications on current issues.

This is legitimate advocacy – but it is advocacy, not nature conservation work and not neutral expert advice. The problem arises where this advocacy is perceived as neutral expertise: in dealings with authorities, in media reports, in parliamentary committees. Anyone who doesn't know that JagdSchweiz is a political organization with clear strategic goals cannot correctly assess its contributions to public debates. And a significant part of this lobby's effectiveness is based precisely on this gap in understanding.

Their core concerns are consistent and have remained stable for decades: securing and expanding hunting rights, influencing the enforcement and interpretation of hunting and nature conservation laws, and protecting recreational hunting from social and political criticism. These goals are pursued simultaneously at the federal and cantonal levels – with particular emphasis where enforcement decisions are made and where public scrutiny is least prominent.

More on this topic: Hunter lobby in Switzerland: How influence works and Hunters: Role, power, training and criticism

Where the influence actually arises

Cantons as a key location

In Switzerland, hunting policy is primarily implemented at the cantonal level. Hunting associations are particularly present and effective at this level – far more so than at the federal level, where debates are more public and parliamentary oversight is stronger. Representatives of recreational hunters regularly sit on cantonal advisory committees as recognized stakeholders. In collaboration with cantonal agencies – hunting authorities, cantonal veterinarians, and forestry offices – they develop implementation aids, culling plans, and guidelines that then serve as the "professional standard.".

Decisions are often made not in the cantonal parliament, but within the administration – in closed-door meetings between stakeholders whose conflicts of interest are not systematically disclosed. Publicity is low, but influence is high. Pro Natura explicitly criticized this mechanism during the enactment of the new hunting ordinance (JSV) effective February 1, 2025: The ordinance is problematic because it expands hunting quotas and weakens protective mechanisms – the result of a process in which hunting interests were structurally better positioned than nature conservation interests.

Consultations as a political instrument

Hunting associations regularly participate in consultation processes during legislative revisions and amendments to regulations. These statements are publicly accessible – but they are rarely covered by the media. What is striking is that formulations from hunting association statements often reappear almost unchanged in later official documents. During the revision of the hunting law, JagdSchweiz (the Swiss Hunting Association) explicitly stated in its consultation report that "no new restrictions regarding hunting freedom" was a key demand – a formulation that was clearly reflected in the considerations of the federal authorities.

Personal multiple roles

A structural problem is the practice of multiple roles: hobby hunters who simultaneously hold political office, sit on cantonal expert commissions, or combine functions in hunting, agriculture, forestry, and security. These entanglements are often not illegitimate, but remain systematically unexplained. Anyone who is simultaneously president of a hunting association, a member of the cantonal hunting commission, and a member of the cantonal parliament carries vested interests in structures that are supposed to exercise independent oversight. This is not a criticism of individuals – it is a structural weakness of the system.

More on this topic: Hunting laws and control: Why self-regulation is not enough and Hunting in Switzerland: Figures, systems and the end of a narrative

Parliamentary groups and direct access to parliament

Hunting Switzerland maintains a parliamentary group in the Federal Parliament. This group connects members of parliament from various political parties with close ties to hunting and serves as a direct link between the association's interests and legislative processes. Parliamentary groups are legal and widespread in the Swiss political system – but they are also one of the least transparent avenues of influence.

In its 2019 lobbying study, Transparency International Switzerland sharply criticized the Swiss system, citing covert influence, questionable entanglements, and privileged access. Its central demand was greater transparency throughout the entire political decision-making process, consistent documentation and disclosure of lobbying influence ("legislative footprint"), and more comprehensive disclosure of mandates and conflicts of interest. These demands have not yet been fully implemented – and hunting associations directly benefit from this gap.

In the Federal Parliament, this means specifically: Any member of parliament who is also an official of a hunting association or who grants permanent accreditations to association members creates privileged access that is not fully traceable in any public register. The consequence: Hunting interests are structurally better anchored in legislative processes than the interests of the 99.7 percent of the population who do not engage in recreational hunting.

More on this: Problem politicians instead of problem wolves: Switzerland is hunting the wrong animal and Valais wolf statistics: Figures of a massacre

FACE: Switzerland in the European hobby hunting lobby

On November 4, 2025, the FACE (Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation) Executive Committee, the European umbrella organization of hunting associations based in Brussels, met in Rome. The topic: How can the dramatic decline in the number of recreational hunters in Europe be stopped? How can lobbying efforts be coordinated with the European Parliament and the European Commission regarding migratory bird hunting, small bird hunting, and the conservation status of large predators?

JagdSchweiz is a member of FACE and sits on its board. This means that Swiss hunting association officials are not on the sidelines of the European hunting lobby – they are at its decision-making table. When FACE lobbies in Brussels for more migratory bird culls in the Mediterranean region or against the wolf's protected status in the Bern Convention, this happens with active participation and support from Switzerland.

In national communications, this role remains systematically invisible. JagdSchweiz (the Swiss Hunting Association) emphasizes "biodiversity," "nature conservation partnership," and "societal mission." The fact that this same organization is simultaneously part of a European lobby that systematically works to politically secure and expand wildlife culling in EU legislation is hardly ever mentioned in Swiss media. This discrepancy between national self-presentation and the reality of European lobbying is a key transparency issue.

More on this topic: Hunting crisis in Europe: FACE fights for shooting rights, Switzerland remains in the shadows , and wolves in Europe: protected status, conflicts, and political pressure

Language as a political tool

One of the most effective avenues of influence for the recreational hunting lobby is invisible because it operates prior to any political debate: language. Terms establish interpretive frameworks. Whoever controls language controls what is considered "reasonable" and what appears "naive" or "emotional.".

Classic hunting terms with a political function:

"Regulation" instead of killing: sounds administrative, neutral, necessary.
"Inventory management" instead of killing wild animals: places living beings in a resource logic.
"Damage" instead of conflict with human use: individualizing blame for wild animals, not for the decision to use them.
"Hege" instead of intervention in populations: evokes care, while it means control.
“Problem wolf” : establishes an interpretive framework in which a specific animal is held responsible for a systemic conflict.

These terms are found not only in association communications, but also in official documents, parliamentary debates, and media reports. Anyone who reads framing studies knows that the term used first determines the framework. Criticism formulated outside this framework automatically appears less competent. This is the political effect of linguistic dominance—and hunting associations have it.

Public relations with expert status

In media reports, amateur hunters and hunting association representatives are regularly introduced as "experts" without their interests being clearly stated. At the same time, animal welfare and wildlife organizations have structurally less direct access to authorities and the media. This is not a conspiracy, but a result of organizational capital: hunting associations are large, well-connected, well-funded, and media-savvy. They quickly provide statements that newsrooms use as "expert analysis"—without contextualizing the vested interests.

Hunting Switzerland demonstrably works with professional PR support. The Lucerne-based communications agency media-work accompanies Hunting Switzerland as a "sparring partner for the president, the board, and the office." What appears in a local newspaper as an "assessment by the hunting community" is, in many cases, the result of professionally prepared association communications. This origin is not disclosed in any of the resulting media reports. That is the structural problem: not that public relations work exists, but that it is passed off as expert opinion.

More on this topic: Media and hunting issues: How language, images and "experts" shape the debate and the psychology of hunting

Data control as an instrument of power

Whoever decides which data is collected, how it is analyzed, and which of it is made publicly available controls the basis of every political debate. In recreational hunting, actors close to the hunting community are structurally favored in data control: cantons often collect hunting statistics with the support or participation of hunting authorities that are personally and culturally close to recreational hunting. Incorrectly shot animals are not systematically recorded. Animal welfare violations during hunting are not subject to a uniform reporting requirement. The effectiveness of alternative wildlife management measures is rarely documented in a format comparable to hunting statistics.

The result is a structural information asymmetry: hunting associations can point to data that supports their positions. Critics often cannot – not because the data doesn't exist, but because independent surveys are lacking. This asymmetry is no accident. It is the result of decades of political maneuvering that has prevented independent oversight and independent data collection in recreational hunting – because both would be inconvenient for the lobby.

More on this topic: Hunting and biodiversity: How recreational hunting endangers biodiversity and Unscrupulous Swiss hunting authorities

Transparency International: What makes the Swiss lobbying system structurally problematic

In its 2019 lobbying study, Transparency International Switzerland clearly identified the structural weaknesses of the Swiss system: covert influence, problematic entanglements, privileged access – and insufficient disclosure requirements. The central demand: greater transparency throughout the entire political decision-making process, consistent documentation of lobbying activities, more comprehensive disclosure of mandates – and sanctions for violations of reporting obligations.

For recreational hunting, the Swiss lobbying system means, specifically, that a small, well-organized interest group can exert structurally more influence on hunting and nature conservation legislation than its societal base would suggest. This is not specific to recreational hunting—it applies to many sectors within the Swiss corporatist system. However, it is particularly consequential in the case of recreational hunting because the decisions made affect the life and death of tens of thousands of wild animals annually and impact biodiversity goals that are relevant to society as a whole.

More on this topic: The hunting lobby in Switzerland: How influence works and an introduction to hunting criticism

How to make influence visible

Transparency begins with specific questions. Anyone who wants to contextualize hunting policy statements, decisions, or media reports should ask the following questions:

Who is speaking here and in what capacity? Is the person an association official, a member of parliament with a hunting mandate, a cantonal official, or an independent wildlife researcher?
At what level is the decision actually made? In parliament, in the administration, in a commission – and is this level publicly accessible?
Which terms are used and what do they omit? “Regulation” instead of killing, “harm” instead of conflict of use: Who defines the term, and whose interpretive framework does it correspond to?
Who is not at the table, even though they are affected? Wildlife researchers, animal welfare organizations, and the majority of the population without hobby hunting interests.
What data is cited, and who collected it? Are these statistics from hunting associations, official data with the participation of hunting associations, or independent research findings?

These five questions are the basic tool for critically evaluating hunting policy communication – in media reports, political debates, and official documents.

More on this topic: Sample texts for motions critical of hunting in cantonal parliaments and Hunt Watch: Focusing on the people who kill animals

What would need to change

Legislative footprint for hunting legislation : Every instance of influence on hunting and nature conservation laws must be documented and publicly accessible – who communicated with whom, when, and in what format. Transparency International Switzerland demands this for the entire lobbying system – and it is particularly urgent for hunting policy decisions.
Disclosure requirement for multiple roles in hunting commissions : Anyone who is simultaneously an association official and a member of a cantonal expert commission must declare this dual role at every relevant meeting and vote. Conflicts of interest can only be assessed if they are visible.
Independent wildlife research in hunting policy bodies : Cantonal expert commissions on hunting and wildlife management must structurally include wildlife biologists, behavioral ecologists and animal welfare representatives – not just in a consultative capacity, but with the same voting rights as hunting association representatives.
Transparency regarding FACE membership and European lobbying activities : JagdSchweiz must disclose its FACE membership and the specific positions FACE represents in Brussels in its communications with authorities and the media. Anyone who presents themselves nationally as a "nature conservation partner" and acts as a hunting lobbyist at the European level owes this transparency to the public.
Independent data collection on recreational hunting : Misfires, animal welfare violations, impacts on wildlife populations and biodiversity indicators must be collected and published by independent institutions – BAFU, WSL, universities – without the involvement of the recreational hunting lobby in the methodology and evaluation.
Sample motions: Sample texts for motions critical of hunting and sample texts for motions critical of hunting in cantonal parliaments

Argumentation

"Lobbying is legitimate in a democracy – even for hunting associations." Yes. Lobbying is legitimate if it is transparent, discloses conflicts of interest, and operates within the framework of democratically legitimized regulations. According to Transparency International, the Swiss lobbying system does not meet these requirements. The problem is not lobbying itself, but rather structurally privileged access without transparency.

"Hobby hunters sit on commissions because they have expertise." Experience in hunting grounds is valuable. But hobby hunters face structural conflicts of interest: they pay for the right to kill and directly benefit from pro-hunting enforcement decisions. Wildlife biologists, ethologists, and animal welfare advocates don't have these conflicts of interest. Both perspectives belong at the table—but today, there are structurally too many of one and too few of the other.

"JagdSchweiz represents 30,000 members – that's democratically representative." 30,000 members are 0.3 percent of the Swiss population. 79 percent of the population is critical of recreational hunting. The question of representativeness is therefore clear. The problem isn't that 0.3 percent are allowed to have their interests represented – the problem is when these interests structurally carry more political weight than the remaining 99.7 percent.

"FACE membership is international cooperation, not lobbying." FACE is registered as a lobbying organization in the EU Transparency Register. It itself identifies its lobbying activities in Brussels as its core task. Membership on the FACE board constitutes participation in a lobbying organization – not nature conservation cooperation.

"Without hunting associations, policymakers would have no point of contact for wildlife management." Wildlife management requires expertise, not hunting associations. Professional game warden structures, wildlife biology institutes, specialist departments of the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), and cantonal veterinarians can provide expert guidance for wildlife management – without the structural conflict of interest that arises when regulators are also the users.

Quick links

Posts on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

External sources:

Our claim

Lobbying is legitimate in a democracy. What is illegitimate is privileged access without transparency, conflicts of interest without disclosure, and data control without independent review. The recreational hunting lobby uses the Swiss lobbying system as it can – as long as its weaknesses remain. This is not an indictment of individual recreational hunters. It is a structural argument for reform.

IG Wild beim Wild documents these structures because a democracy that takes wildlife protection and biodiversity seriously must know who influences the rules by which wild animals have lived and are allowed to die, how, and with what goal. Influence becomes visible when you start asking the right questions. That's the beginning.

If you know of any information, documents, or current cases that should be included in this dossier, please send them to us. Good information is the foundation of any effective critique.

More on the topic of hobby hunting: In our dossier on hunting, we compile fact checks, analyses and background reports.