Fact check: “Hunting in Switzerland protects and benefits”

The brochure by Anton Merkle, president of JagdSchweiz, reads like an advertising brochure for recreational hunting: smooth figures, green triangles, a smiling president and sentences such as “Hunting is a responsible activity for nature.” What sounds like PR gloss deserves a closer look, because hidden between the lines is a narrative that contradicts scientific findings, ecological facts and ethical standards in key respects.

Claim 1: “Regulating wildlife populations is a state task; recreational hunters provide expert support”

JagdSchweiz suggests that the 30,000 recreational hunters are a kind of extended arm of the state. In fact, recreational hunting is not, legally speaking, a nature conservation task, but rather a use and regulation within wildlife management. Under federal law, no canton in Switzerland is required to provide for recreational hunting at all. Each canton is free to decide whether or not to permit recreational hunting, as the example of Geneva has proven since 1974.

In Geneva, around ten state game wardens, sharing three full-time positions, handle the entire wildlife management — without recreational hunters, without licences, without kill competitions. According to Gottlieb Dandliker, the long-serving Geneva fauna inspector (2001 to 2025), wildlife damage to agriculture was “practically insignificant”. The annual costs for the entire wildlife management amount to around one million francs. That is equivalent to a cup of coffee per resident. Since the hunting ban, the number of overwintering waterbirds has more than tenfolded. At the same time, the damage figures in Geneva are comparable to those in the canton of Schaffhausen, even though regular, and cruel, hunting takes place there.

Claim 2: “Recreational hunters are committed to biodiversity and habitats”

The brochure claims that recreational hunters are “mainly” committed to biodiversity and habitats. The reality in Switzerland paints a different picture. In the OECD Environmental Performance Review 2017 it states: «In an OECD-wide comparison, Switzerland has among the highest proportions of threatened species, including among mammals.» The OECD also noted that Switzerland «relies heavily on the designation of wildlife sanctuaries», which «originally were meant to limit excessive hunting», and that the «quality of the protected areas is deficient».

The WWF confirms 2025: in an international comparative study on combating the biodiversity crisis, Switzerland comes last. This does not fit with a lobby that claims its 30,000 members are the driving force behind nature conservation. Half of the animal species once huntable are not in a favourable conservation status or have gone extinct. Protected species such as the European hare, black grouse or woodcock are still on the list of huntable species.

Fighting nature conservation instead of promoting it

Particularly revealing is the behaviour of the JagdSchweiz board on concrete nature conservation issues. Fabio Regazzi, vice-president of JagdSchweiz and Centre Party Councillor of States, actively fought the Adula National Park in 2016, the largest nature conservation project in Switzerland in decades. The planned park around the Rheinwaldhorn in Grisons and Ticino could have given biodiversity an enormous boost: 250 to 300 million francs in investment over ten years, around 200 jobs, and a sustainable future perspective for mountain communities facing depopulation. Instead, the Ticino hunters' association FCTI (of which Regazzi was long-standing president) stirred up opposition with scaremongering propaganda. Eligible voters in the affected municipalities rejected the park. In 2018, recreational hunters also prevented the creation of a second national park. This is not about protecting nature: it is about securing the hunting ground.

The same Regazzi campaigned in the National Council for wolf-free zones, fought the biodiversity initiative, and tried to make barbed hooks in angling socially acceptable again, a violation of the animal welfare act. Ticino state councillor Claudio Zali described the conduct of the hunting lobby as the embodiment of «arrogance, a lack of legal awareness and egotism».

Suppressing criticism instead of engaging in dialogue

Anyone who publicly questions the narrative of JagdSchweiz must expect legal consequences. David Clavadetscher filed a criminal complaint on behalf of JagdSchweiz against the platform wildbeimwild.com, on account of fact-based reporting and analysis on recreational hunting. The aim was to make critical voices «disappear from the scene». The Criminal Court of the Canton of Ticino in Bellinzona gave this a clear rebuff: Judge Siro Quadri found that the critical statements on wildbeimwild.com are not lies and have no defamatory character. The ruling is legally binding. A civil proceeding in Locarno was also dropped. JagdSchweiz achieved none of its goals.

The court thus confirmed what observers have long criticised: JagdSchweiz cultivates intimidation instead of dialogue. Members threatened «civil war» should, for instance, fox hunting be discontinued. The association works with images of violence, scaremongering and hunters' tall tales to influence democratic processes and restrict press and freedom of expression.

Habitat promotion is nature conservation. But recreational hunting is not automatically nature conservation just because it takes place in the forest. Anyone claiming to practise nature conservation must be measured against nature conservation standards: improving habitats, reducing disturbances, promoting biodiversity, creating transparency and demonstrating impact. This is precisely where the myth begins to crumble.

Claim 3: «44,000 days of wildlife management: voluntary and unpaid services»

JagdSchweiz calculates: 44,000 «working days in the hunting ground», which at an hourly wage of 30 francs would amount to a value of 10.5 million francs. What is concealed: these so-called wildlife management days primarily serve to maintain the hunting ground for the next hunting season: setting up feeding stations, building high seats, maintaining hunting infrastructure. The «volunteer work» is therefore to a considerable extent self-serving: recreational hunters maintain the hunting ground in which they subsequently kill animals.

Genuine nature conservation work (such as habitat maintenance, renaturation and species protection projects) is primarily carried out in Switzerland by nature conservation organisations, cantons and civil society. The comparison with a hypothetical hourly wage obscures the fact that professional game wardens could accomplish these tasks more efficiently, in a more animal-welfare-compliant manner, and without any self-interest in hunting, as Geneva has demonstrated for over 50 years.

Claim 4: «Hunting is a targeted intervention in a known population»

The brochure claims that recreational hunting is preceded by "a count and planning of the wildlife population". Practice looks rather different. Even the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) has stated, via Wildtier Schweiz, that hunting statistics only allow limited conclusions about the state of populations.

Scientific evidence also shows that intensive hunting achieves the opposite of population control. Servanty et al. (2009) published in the «Journal of Animal Ecology» that under high hunting pressure, fertility in wild boars is significantly higher than in lightly hunted areas. Sexual maturity occurs earlier, with even piglet sows becoming pregnant. Recreational hunting thus produces exactly the population explosion it claims to prevent.

A study by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) from 2014 confirms that wild boar populations cannot be reduced through hunting measures alone. Wild boar reproduction is compensatory: losses caused by recreational hunting are offset by increased offspring.

Darimont et al. (2009, PNAS) showed in a meta-analysis that human recreational hunters are changing wildlife populations faster than any other evolutionary factor ever observed in wild animals. The rates of phenotypic change in hunted populations were up to 300 percent higher than under natural selection.

Claim 5: “Game meat worth 20 million francs: more organic than organic meat”

The brochure praises game meat as high-quality and sustainable. The survey even suggests that game meat is “more organic than organic meat”. What is kept quiet: The Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) makes clear that wild boar, roe deer and red deer can be “among the foods most heavily contaminated with lead”. The cause is lead-based hunting ammunition, which deforms on impact and disperses in tiny fragments throughout the meat.

The FSVO recommends that children up to the age of seven, pregnant women, breastfeeding women and women wishing to conceive should “as far as possible avoid eating game” that has been killed with lead ammunition. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) warns that in hunters' households, where up to 90 portions of game meat are consumed per year, “a health risk must be expected, particularly for unborn children and children under seven”.

Current Research also shows: the average lead content in small game killed with lead ammunition is around 5.2 ppm. That is roughly 14 times higher than assumed in EU risk assessments. On top of this come risks from zoonoses such as trichinosis and hepatitis E. The French health authority ANSES recommends limiting the consumption of game meat to a maximum of three times a year.

Carrion instead of a delicacy

What JagdSchweiz markets as a "natural resource" is, in practice, often a hygienic risk. Blood coagulation and bacterial proliferation in the animal's body begin just minutes after the shot. Within an hour, up to a million bacteria per gram of contaminated meat can form. In slaughterhouses, livestock is processed under strict hygiene regulations, but in recreational hunting these controls are largely absent.

The reality in the field: hours of delay before the animal is retrieved, inadequate cooling, unhygienic field dressing in the open air, no official meat inspection. On top of this come residues that no butcher would accept: pesticides, slurry contamination, heavy metals, PFAS — all unchecked. Wild animals that feed in intensively used farmland are not automatically "organic". They absorb whatever is present in that landscape, and that is often anything but pristine.

The risk does not end with lead. Raw or insufficiently cooked game meat can transmit trichinellosis, salmonella, E. coli and the hepatitis E virus. People with weakened immune systems and pregnant women are particularly at risk, since a hepatitis E infection can lead to liver inflammation, a chronic course of disease, or organ failure.

Game meat with lead contamination, zoonosis risk, a lack of systematic food inspection and a carrion-like character is certainly not “more organic than organic”.

Claim 6: “Hunting prevents the spread of animal diseases”

The survey in the brochure suggests that recreational hunters protect the public from animal diseases. Science says the opposite. More than 18 studies show that, for example, fox hunting does not regulate populations and does not protect against disease either. On the contrary: culling can destroy social structures within populations and even intensify disease dynamics.

Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut calls for driven hunts to be refrained from in the event of an outbreak of African swine fever in wild boars. The destruction of stable family groups not only leads to an increase in the birth rate, but also to increased migration of individual animals, thereby potentially accelerating the spread of disease.

Whoever shoots foxes is shooting at their own healthcare system

Foxes are not pests, but nature's health police. A single fox eats around 4,000 mice a year. Mice are reservoir hosts for tick-borne pathogens such as Lyme disease and TBE, as well as for the hantavirus. A study by Tim R. Hofmeester (Wageningen University, 2017, Proceedings of the Royal Society B) examined 20 forest plots and arrived at a clear result: in areas with higher fox and stone marten activity, rodents carried 10 to 20 percent fewer tick larvae. In areas with lower predator activity, nymphs were 15 percent more frequently infected with pathogens.

The consequence is measurable: fewer predators due to recreational hunting mean more mice, more infected ticks and rising numbers of TBE and Lyme disease cases in humans. TBE figures in Switzerland reached their highest level since 2013 at the start of 2025. In Germany, 686 cases were recorded in 2024, the second-highest TBE figures ever registered. The hantavirus, which is transmitted from mice via faecal dust, causes up to 2,000 cases a year, eight times more than the fox tapeworm, with which recreational hunters justify their fox hunting.

Fox hunting spreads the fox tapeworm instead of fighting it

JagdSchweiz has been claiming for years that fox hunting protects against the fox tapeworm. A long-term French study near Nancy impressively disproves this. Over four years, 776 additional foxes were killed across around 700 square kilometres, and hunting pressure increased by 35 percent. The result: the fox population did not decline, as juvenile foxes migrated in from neighbouring areas. The fox tapeworm infestation rate rose from 40 to 55 percent, because the immigrating young foxes carried contaminated faeces into new areas. The study title speaks for itself: «Echinococcus multilocularis management by fox culling: An inappropriate paradigm.»

Luxembourg demonstrates the opposite: after fox hunting was banned there in 2015, the infestation rate fell from 40 per cent to under 10 per cent. Swiss rabies was not eradicated by recreational hunting but by vaccine bait. Switzerland has been rabies-free since 1998. The Swiss Rabies Centre has already established that it is impossible for hunters to reduce the fox population.

Small game hunting as a driver of disease

The Low hunting destroys stable family groups among foxes. This causes every vixen to become pregnant and produce more pups per litter: the population rises instead of falling. At the same time, chronically high hunting pressure causes persistent stress, which suppresses the wild animals' immune systems and makes them more susceptible to infection. Recreational hunting thus produces sicker, more stressed populations at higher densities — the opposite of what JagdSchweiz claims.

The cascade continues: fewer foxes mean more mice and rats, and consequently more leptospirosis (via rodent urine in puddles), more hantavirus, more botulism (because the absence of scavengers leaves carcasses lying around) and more tick-borne diseases. Cantons with the highest fox kill numbers (including Bern, Aargau, Grisons and Zurich) have not solved any of these problems. On the contrary: they are contributing to them.

Claim 7: «Over 80% of the population confirm that recreational hunting is conducted in accordance with animal welfare»

Every two years, JagdSchweiz commissions a population survey from the firm DemoScope and presents the results as proof of broad acceptance of recreational hunting. What the brochure conceals is that the survey is based on only 1,005 respondents. The client is JagdSchweiz itself — that is, the organisation that has a commercial interest in positive results. The questions are worded suggestively: who, for instance, would spontaneously disagree with the question of whether recreational hunters « are committed to the environment» if they know of no counter-perspective?

JagdSchweiz itself admits that the results are «somewhat declining compared to previous surveys». So the trend is downward, despite massive PR efforts.

Opinion polling as a PR tool

The pattern is recognisable internationally: Jagd Österreich celebrates «85 per cent approval», yet the core question is merely: «Do you concede to other people the right to hunt, provided they do so in accordance with the applicable hunting laws?» This measures liberal tolerance towards a legal activity, not substantive endorsement of recreational hunting. The trick works in three stages: first, «tolerance» is surveyed, then reinterpreted as «societal acceptance», and finally presented as a «public mandate».

The same institute, DemoScope, delivers opposite results for different clients: for JagdSchweiz, the survey produced a «great majority» in favour of recreational hunting. For the Swiss Animal Protection STS , the same institute found: 64 per cent want to ban earth hunting, with only 21 per cent wanting to keep it. 43 per cent want to ban driven hunts entirely, and a further 32 per cent want to restrict them severely — together 75 per cent. As soon as concrete hunting practices are asked about, the supposed approval collapses.

The representative WaMos-2 study from 2012 paints an even clearer picture: 79 per cent of the Swiss population have reservations about recreational hunting or reject it outright. JagdSchweiz's «80 per cent approval» is thus not an expression of genuine support, but the product of targeted questioning and selective communication.

The facts behind the façade

More decisive than opinion polls are the facts: according to the Swiss Animal Protection STS , the success rate of follow-up searches for wounded game stands at only 35 to 65 per cent, depending on the canton. This means roughly half of the animals shot during recreational hunting can never be put out of their suffering, despite follow-up searches. In the canton of Grisons, over five years, around 3,836 animals were merely wounded rather than killed in a manner compliant with animal welfare, in addition to fines of over 700,000 francs for unlawful kills.

Under these circumstances, there can be no talk of «animal-welfare-compliant» practice.

Claim 8: «Wildlife damage is the result of intact biodiversity»

This sentence in the brochure is particularly revealing. JagdSchweiz claims that wildlife damage is «the consequence of a desired species-rich fauna» and, at the same time, the justification for recreational hunting's existence. This is circular reasoning: first a problem is constructed, then one offers oneself as the solution.

Yet the figures from Geneva show: the wildlife damage is comparable to that of Schaffhausen, a canton where hunting is practised intensively. Before the 1974 hunting ban, recreational hunters in Geneva had wiped out wild boars for decades. Today, around five wild boars live per square kilometre of forest, a low, stable level that is monitored by professional game wardens.

The actual causes of wildlife damage (intensive agriculture, habitat destruction, feeding practices by recreational hunters and the population pressure created by hunting itself) are consistently left out of the brochure.

Claim 9: «Hunting is a responsible activity for nature»

The brochure's final page presents a «hunting code» with recommended behaviours: «I avoid unnecessary suffering of animals.» «I contribute to preserving biodiversity.» «I hunt with respect and responsibility.»

The reality: Since the start of the BFU statistics in 2000, more than 75 people were killed in hunting accidents by 2019. Statistically speaking, a hunting accident happens every 29 hours. Every year there are around 300 recognised accidents associated with recreational hunting, plus a considerable number of unreported cases among pensioners and accompanying persons who are not statistically recorded.

Scientific studies systematically document the effects: wild animals live under constant stress in a «landscape of fear». In wild boars subjected to drive hunts, elevated cortisol levels were measured (Güldenpfennig et al. 2021). Mountain hares hunted with dogs showed cortisol levels 6.5 times higher (Pedersen et al. 2024). Recreational hunting destroys family groups, forces unnatural behavioural changes and triggers compensatory reproduction.

crime associated with recreational hunting

The category «Crime and Hunting» on wildbeimwild.com has for years documented criminal offences, rule violations and systemic failings surrounding recreational hunting. These include poaching, illegal killing of protected species, mistaken shootings of pets and livestock, weapons misuse and threats against those who think differently. In October 2024, a recreational hunter in Valais shot dead a livestock guardian dog that he claimed to have mistaken for a wolf. Value: around 8,000 francs. At the end of November 2024, a 64-year-old recreational hunter was killed in the canton of Vaud by a shot fired by a fellow hunter.

The Swiss Animal Protection STS calls, among other things, for a nationwide ban on earth hunting, a strict restriction of driven hunts, a mandatory reporting requirement for follow-up searches, an end to lead ammunition, and the removal of species such as the brown hare, mountain hare, black grouse, ptarmigan and woodcock from the list of huntable species. None of these demands appear in the brochure's "hunting code", and none were supported by JagdSchweiz.

«Responsible» is certainly not an apt description for a recreational activity that regularly kills people and animals, hunts protected species, and evades any independent oversight.

Claim 10: «JagdSchweiz cooperates with WWF, Pro Natura and BirdLife»

The brochure lists numerous «like-minded organisations», including WWF, Pro Natura and BirdLife Switzerland. What is suggested: that recreational hunting enjoys broad support and is accepted by nature conservation organisations.

What actually happens: according to the brochure, the institutional dialogue serves to «prevent pointless hunting restrictions and excessive over-regulation». The cooperation is therefore not a commitment to nature conservation, but a strategic lobbying instrument. It is not about jointly promoting biodiversity; it is about fending off restrictions on recreational hunting.

Dialogue broken down

What stands out is who is missing from the brochure's list of partners: the Swiss Animal Protection STS, the country's largest and oldest animal welfare organisation, has ended all dialogue with JagdSchweiz. The STS is calling for a ban on earth hunting, a strict restriction of driven hunts, an end to lead ammunition, and the removal of endangered species from the hunting list. JagdSchweiz opposes every single one of these demands.

The stakeholder process for the revision of the hunting act also collapsed: in October 2022, the Farmers' Union, the Alpine Economy Association and the SAB withdrew from the joint negotiations. The «constructive cooperation» that JagdSchweiz praises in the brochure regularly breaks down in reality, because the hunting lobby regards compromise as a threat to its hobby and systematically torpedoes conservation demands.

The list of partners in the brochure is not a coalition of like-minded parties. It is a listing of organisations with which JagdSchweiz occasionally sits in the same room, but which hold fundamentally different positions on key issues.

A promotional brochure instead of a factual basis

The JagdSchweiz brochure is not a scientific document but a PR instrument. It systematically conceals the downsides of recreational hunting: the animal suffering caused by missed shots, the health risks from lead ammunition, compensatory reproduction, hunting accidents, the catastrophic state of biodiversity in Switzerland, and the existence of functioning alternatives such as in the canton of Geneva.

Anyone who wants to honestly answer the question «Does recreational hunting protect and benefit?» must look beyond the glossy images and take note of the scientific evidence.