Forest-Wildlife Conflict in Switzerland: Why the Browsing Narrative Does Not Justify Recreational Hunting

The so-called forest-wildlife conflict is the recreational hunting community's most effective justification narrative in Switzerland. The argument follows a simple pattern: wild animals browse on young trees, the forest cannot regenerate, therefore hunting is necessary. This dossier shows why this equation does not add up, which factors the browsing narrative leaves out, and why recreational hunting does not solve the problem but rather contributes to it.

The Forest Report 2025, published by the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL), does document genuine browsing damage problems in certain regions. At the same time, the data show that the forest is primarily under climate stress, not wildlife stress. And the decisive question is not whether wild animals browse trees, but why decades of hunting by around 29,000 recreational hunters in Switzerland have not solved this problem.

State of play: What the data actually show

2025 Forest Report and National Forest Inventory

The 2025 Forest Report by FOEN and WSL provides the most up-to-date national assessment. It confirms that, in certain areas, excessive wildlife populations are impairing natural regeneration and the forest's natural capacity to adapt. At the same time, the report makes unmistakably clear that the greatest burdens on the Swiss forest are extreme events such as heat, drought, storms, pests, and high nitrogen deposition.

WSL researcher Andrea Kupferschmid and Martin Frei analysed the cantonal data for 2020 to 2024 across Switzerland: on around half of the forest area assessed, regeneration is not impaired by wild animals, while on at least 21 per cent the impact is severe (Kupferschmid and Frei 2025, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 176(3): 146–157). The narrative of a nationwide browsing collapse is not supported by these data.

The Swiss Forestry Association, in its report based on cantonal data from 2020 to 2024, arrives at a more nuanced but worrying finding: the proportion of forest area with tolerable wildlife impact has fallen from more than two-thirds in 2015 to less than half. Silver fir and broadleaf trees are particularly affected. Importantly, however, the Forestry Association itself warns of an interpretation problem, as the cantonal categories are defined inconsistently and statements about the actual scale of the issue often remain imprecise.

Protective Forests Under Pressure

In the protective forests, which make up around half of Switzerland's forests and protect people and infrastructure from natural hazards, the situation has worsened. According to the Forest Report 2025, the proportion of protective forest with very little regeneration (below 5 percent regeneration cover) has risen to 30 percent of the protective forest area. The regional differences are striking: around 12 percent in the Jura and the Central Plateau, 19 percent in the Pre-Alps, 34 percent in the Alps, and 41 percent on the southern side of the Alps.

The Forest Report cites too little light in increasingly dense stands and persistently high browsing by roe deer, red deer and chamois as causes. Both are factors that could also be addressed through silvicultural measures and habitat improvement, not only through kills.

What the Browsing Narrative Overlooks

It Is Not a Forest-Wildlife Conflict, but a Human-Human Conflict

WSL researcher Andrea Kupferschmid puts it succinctly in an interview: in principle, this is not a conflict between forest and wildlife, but a conflict between people who work in forestry and people who hunt or work as game wardens. Roe deer, red deer and chamois have no conflict with the forest. Browsing is a natural process that has been part of forest dynamics for thousands of years. The problem only arises when humans place economic expectations on the forest: timber yield, a particular composition of tree species, rapid reforestation.

Human Disturbance Drives Wildlife into the Forest

The research evidence clearly shows that human disturbance is a key driver of browsing damage. Red deer and chamois prefer to graze in open land but are increasingly pushed into the forest by leisure activities, traffic and urban sprawl. There, they browse on trees because less food is available. One game warden from Bern describes the problem in plain terms: in a round-the-clock society, even at night joggers or bikers with headlamps are still out and about. The wildlife remains in the forest and feeds on the shoots of young trees.

Wait hunting, the most commonly used hunting method, exacerbates this effect. With an average of ten stalking sessions for a single shot, wild animals are kept in a state of constant stress, which disrupts their biorhythm and drives them deeper into the forest. Studies from hunting areas show that concepts with short, intensive hunting periods achieve significantly better results for forest regeneration than the continuous hunting that prevails in Switzerland.

Failures in forest management

Browsing damage alone does not explain the regeneration deficit. Clear-cut areas, soils compacted by heavy machinery, lack of light management and spruce monocultures create conditions under which natural regeneration can fail even without any wildlife influence. The Forest Ecology Research Institute in Baden-Württemberg states clearly: in most cases, looking at hunting alone is not sufficient to achieve regeneration targets. The type of forest management determines the food availability for herbivores and is an important lever for susceptibility to wildlife damage.

Climate change as the main stressor

The 2025 Forest Report leaves no doubt: the biggest challenge for the Swiss forest is adapting to climate change. More frequent droughts, storms, forest fires and pest organisms have severely weakened the forest over the past ten years. In the Jura, the condition is already classified as «critical». Those who view the browsing problem in isolation and use it as the main justification for recreational hunting are diverting attention from the structural causes.

Legal situation in Switzerland

Federal Hunting Act (JSG) and Forest Act (WaG)

The Federal Act on Forests (WaG) and the Federal Act on Hunting (JSG) stipulate that wildlife populations must be regulated in such a way as to ensure natural forest regeneration with site-appropriate tree species without the need for protective measures (individual protection, fencing, etc.). Should this not be the case, the Forest Ordinance (WaV) requires that a concept be drawn up to prevent damage caused by wild animals.

This legal requirement has existed for decades. That it is still not met in many areas, even though recreational hunting is actively pursued in 25 of 26 cantons, is the strongest argument against the claim that recreational hunters protect the forest. In the 16 cantons with licence hunting, which organise their hunting without territorial responsibility, there is moreover no structural obligation at all for recreational hunters to preserve the forest as a habitat.

Postulate Reichmuth 23.3129

In June 2023, the Council of States adopted the postulate submitted by Othmar Reichmuth (Centre, SZ). It calls on the federal government to examine how it can assume greater responsibility in the field of forest–wildlife relations, how the impact of wild animals can be reduced to a sustainable level, and how a national monitoring system with clear target values could be introduced. Tellingly, JagdSchweiz recommended rejecting the postulate, arguing that the problem of climate change should not be shifted onto wild animals living in freedom. This argument reveals a pattern: the recreational hunting lobby systematically deflects responsibility for browsing damage, even though regulating wildlife populations is supposed to be the declared core task of hunting.

Implementation Aid: Forest and Wildlife (FOEN 2010)

The implementation aid issued by the FOEN defines damage and concept thresholds and describes the procedure for dealing with forest–wildlife problems. It explicitly emphasises that wildlife and forest management must enable the coexistence of forest and wild animals. The impact of wild animals is one factor among many, though often a decisive one. The implementation aid also names non-hunting measures: forest-edge maintenance, open clearance areas, ecological compensation areas, wildlife bridges, and wildlife refuge zones.

The role of predators: lynx and wolf as natural regulators

Scientific evidence

The return of wolf and lynx to Switzerland provides empirical data on natural population regulation. A WSL study by Kupferschmid and Bollmann (2016) shows that the equation «wolf = less game = less browsing damage» holds only to a limited extent, but reveals a more nuanced picture: wolves significantly alter the spatial behaviour of ungulates. In the Calanda region, where the first Swiss wolf pack formed, browsing damage to fir, maple and rowan declined markedly in the pack's core territory.

For the lynx, the effect is even more clearly documented scientifically. The master's thesis by Jasmin Schnyder (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, in collaboration with the canton of St. Gallen) shows that silver fir trees were significantly less browsed after the lynx was reintroduced in the core area. Martin Kreiliger, a forestry engineer from Disentis, confirms this from thirty years of professional experience: in forests where wolves or lynx are present, the regeneration situation improves noticeably.

However, an international study (Journal of Applied Ecology, 2023, 492 sites in 28 countries) puts these expectations into perspective: in Europe's cultivated landscapes, human hunting and land use determine red deer population density far more strongly than predators do. Only where wolf, lynx and bear occur together and human influence is low does deer density decline measurably.

The paradoxical logic of the hunting lobby

The recreational hunting lobby finds itself caught in an argumentative contradiction: on the one hand, it justifies the necessity of recreational hunting with the browsing-damage problem. On the other hand, it opposes the return of natural predators, which have been shown to reduce browsing pressure. The revised Hunting Ordinance even permits the regulation of the lynx if it reduces prey populations to the extent that the «cantons' hunting opportunities are excessively restricted». In plain terms, this means: the lynx may be culled if it takes too much game away from recreational hunters. The interests of forest regeneration play no role in this logic.

The Geneva model and the Swiss National Park

Canton of Geneva: over 50 years without recreational hunting

In the canton of Geneva, recreational hunting (militia hunting) was abolished by popular vote in 1974. Since then, wildlife management has been carried out exclusively by professional game wardens. The results for forest regeneration refute the recreational hunting lobby's browsing-damage narrative:

The roe deer population has stabilised at 10 to 15 animals per square kilometre of forest. Geneva's long-standing fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker (2001 to 2025) made it clear: roe deer do not threaten the forest. In the predominant oak forests, very little damage has been recorded. It is striking that practically no forestry damage is reported. The damage figures in the canton of Geneva are comparable to those of Schaffhausen, even though recreational hunting is permitted in Schaffhausen.

The cost of professional wildlife management is around CHF 1.2 million per year. That amounts to one cup of coffee per resident. By comparison: in other cantons, thousands of recreational hunters have to be managed through licence sales, hunting supervision, follow-up searches, damage compensation, kill quota planning and an administrative apparatus, and the external costs caused by browsing damage, wildlife accidents and biodiversity loss are not even included.

However, the analysis of the Geneva model also provides a more nuanced point: significant forest damage caused by cloven-hoofed game forced the creation of a forest–wildlife concept in accordance with the FOEN implementation guide. As countermeasures, the construction of wildlife fences was expanded and targeted culls of roe deer were initiated. The Geneva model is therefore not a model without any regulation at all, but a model without recreational hunting: professional intervention instead of armed leisure pursuits.

More on this: Dossier: Geneva and the hunting ban

Swiss National Park

A hunting ban has been in force in the Swiss National Park since 1914. WSL studies on wildlife browsing found that red deer contribute to forest regeneration and biodiversity: tree seedlings grow many times more abundantly along game trails. This shows that browsing is not in itself a forest problem, but part of a natural dynamic that the forest has known for thousands of years.

Why recreational hunting does not solve the browsing-damage problem

The figures speak for themselves

In Switzerland, around 29,000 recreational hunters hunt (Federal Hunting Statistics 2025: 29,328). Nevertheless, the browsing situation in many areas has not improved over decades and in some places has even worsened. The share of forest area with tolerable wildlife impact fell from over two thirds to less than half between 2015 and 2024. This deterioration took place while recreational hunting was carried out without interruption.

Structural reasons for the failure

Recreational hunting fails to reduce browsing damage for several systemic reasons:

First: licence hunting, practised in 16 cantons, creates no territorial responsibility. Recreational hunters buy a licence and hunt according to personal interest, not according to forestry requirements. There is no structural incentive to reduce the wildlife population where the forest needs it most urgently.

Secondly: the predominant form of wait hunting creates constant disturbance with low efficiency. The permanent hunting pressure drives wild animals deeper into the forest and increases browsing damage to regeneration.

Thirdly: the trophy orientation of many recreational hunters contradicts forest-friendly hunting. Where strong male animals are to be spared and female animals specifically shot, hunting interests collide with forestry necessities.

Fourthly: recreational hunting creates an economic interest in high wildlife populations. Where there is plenty of game, hunting is more enjoyable and licence revenues are higher. Reducing the wildlife population to a level sustainable for forestry contradicts the self-interest of the recreational hunting community.

The «« community service» myth

The recreational hunting lobby regularly describes its activity as «community service» for the general public. The reality looks different: recreational hunters pay for their licences in order to pursue a hobby that gives them personal satisfaction. A community service for which one must purchase a licence, in which one is allowed to collect trophies, and whose results fail to meet legal requirements after decades, does not deserve this label.

Alternatives to recreational hunting

Professional wildlife management

For more than 50 years, the canton of Geneva has shown that professional game wardens regulate wildlife more efficiently, more cheaply and in a more animal-friendly way than recreational hunting does. The cost of around CHF 1.2 million per year is a fraction of the hidden total costs of the recreational hunting system in other cantons.

Forestry measures

Research shows clearly: forest regeneration is not only a question of wildlife density, but also of forestry management. Light control through targeted thinning, promotion of mixed stands, creation of grazing areas outside the forest, and avoidance of soil compaction are levers that work independently of the form of hunting.

Wildlife refuge zones and habitat improvement

Wildlife sanctuary zones reduce stress for wild animals and thus their retreat into forest regeneration areas. The FOEN implementation guide names them as a key instrument. In practice, however, they are often enforced against the resistance of the recreational hunting community, who fear restrictions on their hunting grounds.

Natural regulation through predators

The return of the wolf and the lynx offers a long-term, natural solution to the browsing damage problem. Scientific evidence shows that predators reduce browsing damage locally and regionally by altering both wildlife populations and the spatial behaviour of ungulates. This solution is actively combated by the recreational hunting lobby.

Talking points

«Without recreational hunting, no forest will regenerate.»

False. The canton of Geneva, the Swiss National Park and Gran Paradiso National Park (Italy, hunting-free since 1922) show that forests regenerate without recreational hunting. In Geneva, forest damage is comparable to that in cantons where recreational hunting is permitted. The WSL data also show that on roughly half of the assessed Swiss forest area, regeneration is not impaired by wild animals. In the Swiss National Park, it has even been demonstrated that more seedlings grow on game trails than on undisturbed areas.

Counter-argument of the recreational hunting lobby: «Geneva is too small and too urban, the model cannot be transferred.» Context: Geneva is densely populated, has intensive viticulture, an international airport and direct border traffic. If professional wildlife management works in this context, there is no structural argument against it working equally well in larger, less densely populated cantons.

«Recreational hunting regulates the wildlife population to a forest-compatible level.»

The data disprove this. Despite uninterrupted recreational hunting in 25 cantons, the proportion of forest area with tolerable wildlife impact has fallen massively over the last ten years. In the cantons of Glarus, Grisons and Valais, even spruce trees are in places heavily browsed. Over decades, recreational hunting has failed to achieve the legally required state of ensuring natural forest regeneration without protective measures.

Counter-argument of the recreational hunting lobby: «Too little hunting is being done, not too much.» Context: If some 29,000 recreational hunters have been unable to meet the statutory requirement for decades, that is not an argument for more recreational hunting, but for a different system.

“Browsing damage is the main problem facing Swiss forests.”

No. The Forest Report 2025 identifies climate change as the greatest challenge. Heat, drought, storms, pests and nitrogen deposition place far greater strain on the forest than wildlife browsing. Browsing damage is a regional factor that can be significant locally, but it does not represent the dominant problem facing Swiss forests.

Counter-argument of the recreational hunting lobby: “Precisely because of climate change, we need climate-resilient tree species, which are particularly prone to browsing damage.” Context: It is correct that silver fir and broadleaf trees are important for forest conversion and are prone to browsing damage. The conclusion that recreational hunting is the solution, however, is wrong. The data show that recreational hunting has failed to solve precisely this problem over decades. Silvicultural measures and professional wildlife management are the more effective tools.

“Without recreational hunters, browsing damage would endanger the protective forest.”

The protective forest is indeed under pressure: 30 percent of the protective forest area shows very little regeneration. But the Forest Report cites not only browsing damage as a cause, but also insufficient light in dense stands — in other words, a silvicultural problem. Furthermore, the current situation shows that the protective forest has deteriorated, not improved, under the regime of recreational hunting. The logical consequence is not more recreational hunting, but professional management.

Counter-argument of the recreational hunting lobby: “Game wardens alone cannot achieve the kill quotas.” Context: In Geneva, around twelve professional environmental wardens manage wildlife for a canton of 500,000 residents. The costs are documented and transparent. The recreational hunting lobby has never presented a comparable full-cost accounting for its own system.

“Recreational hunting is a form of community service for the public good.”

This claim is not supported by anything. Recreational hunters pay for licences that enable them to pursue a leisure activity. They bear no responsibility for hunting grounds (licence hunting), their activity has demonstrably failed to fulfil the statutory mandate of forest regeneration, and the external costs of their hobby (wildlife-vehicle collisions, biodiversity losses, administrative burden, lead ammunition) are passed on to the general public. A professional game warden system based on the Geneva model model would be more efficient, more transparent and more cost-effective.

Quick links

Related dossiers

Further Resources

sources

BAFU / WSL (2025): Forest Report 2025. Federal Office for the Environment and Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research.
BAFU (2010): Implementation Aid Forest and Wildlife. Integral management of roe deer, chamois, red deer and their habitat. Environmental Implementation No. 1012.
Kupferschmid, A. D.; Frei, M. (2025): Auswertung kantonaler Daten zum Wildeinfluss auf die Waldverjüngung 2020–2024. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 176(3): 146–157.
Kupferschmid, A. D.; Abegg, M. (2025): Time series analyses of browsing damage in the regeneration context of the Swiss National Forest Inventory. WSL.
Kupferschmid, A. D.; Bollmann, K. (2016): Direct, indirect and combined effects of wolves on forest regeneration. Swiss Journal of Forestry 167(1): 3–12.
Kupferschmid, A. D. (2024): Methodological comparison and time series analyses of browsing damage in the regeneration context of the NFI: Final report. WSL.
Schnyder, J. (2016): Influence of the lynx on browsing damage and forest regeneration in the canton of St. Gallen. Master's thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.
Gehring, E. et al. (2025): Influence of wildlife browsing on forest regeneration. Swiss Journal of Forestry.
Swiss Forestry Association (2025): Wildlife impact on forest regeneration continues to increase in Switzerland. Swiss J. Forestry 176(3): 132–135.
University of Fribourg et al. (2023): Determinants of red deer density across Europe. Journal of Applied Ecology. 492 locations in 28 countries.
Postulate Reichmuth 23.3129: «Sustainable forests are only possible with lawful levels of wildlife browsing!» Adopted by the Council of States on 8 June 2023.
Dandliker, G. (2013): Hunting ban: scientifically feasible and practically proven. Lecture at the University of Basel, 15 October 2013.
Reimoser, F.; Stock, R. et al. (2022): Does Ungulate Herbivory Translate into Diversity of Woody Plants? A Long-Term Study in a Montane Forest Ecosystem in Austria.
Gordon, I. J.; Prins, H. H. T. (2008): The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing. Ecological Studies No. 195. Springer.
Pro Natura: «Seeing the Wolf as an Opportunity». Pro Natura Magazine.
Bebi, P. et al. (2023): Specialist publication on the forest-wildlife issue.
Position paper GWG/SFV/BWB/WaldSchweiz (2024): Excessive wildlife impact endangers forest services.
FOEN, Swiss Federal Hunting Statistics 2025 (jagdstatistik.ch).
Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds (JSG), SR 922.0.
Federal Act on Forests (WaG), SR 921.0.
Forest Ordinance (WaV), SR 921.01.
Animal Welfare Act (TSchG), SR 455.

Our Standard

The browsing-damage narrative is the heart of the justification for recreational hunting: without us, the forest will perish. The data tell a different story. Some 29,000 recreational hunters have failed for decades to fulfil their statutory mandate of ensuring forest regeneration without protective measures. Between 2015 and 2024, the situation actually worsened. Meanwhile, the canton of Geneva has shown for over 50 years that professional wildlife management is more efficient, cheaper and kinder to animals.

WSL researcher Andrea Kupferschmid puts it clearly: this is not a conflict between forest and wildlife. It is a conflict between people. And it is a conflict that recreational hunting, despite portraying itself as performing a "service to the community", does not resolve — but systematically contributes to through constant disturbance, lack of accountability for hunting grounds, and a focus on trophies.

The alternatives are on the table: professional wildlife management based on the Geneva model, silvicultural measures, wildlife quiet zones and the return of natural predators. All of these instruments are scientifically proven and tested in practice. That they are not implemented across the board is not due to a lack of evidence, but to the political influence of the recreational hunting lobby.

This dossier is continuously updated whenever new figures, studies or political developments require it.

More on the topic of recreational hunting: in our hunting dossier we bring together fact checks, analyses and background reports.