Recreational Hunting Tourism: Leisure Industry at the Expense of Animals

Around 30’000 recreational hunters are active in Switzerland. Some of them travel halfway around the world for this purpose. In hunting travel catalogues, ibex in Valais, deer in Eastern Europe and antelopes in South Africa are offered as bookable experience packages. Hunting fairs like 'JAGD & HUND' in Dortmund – Europe's largest hunting fair – bundle this market annually in a convention center where weapons dealers, travel operators and trophy taxidermists exhibit side by side.

What is marketed by recreational hunters as 'connection to nature', 'wildlife management' and 'wildlife population control' reveals itself upon closer examination as a global leisure industry that sorts animals by trophy value and willingness to pay, uses patent hunting cantons as exclusive hunting grounds for foreign guests, aestheticizes violence against wildlife as lifestyle products at hunting fairs, and instrumentalizes the argument of 'species conservation' to defend a practice that is rejected by a broad majority of the population.

The organisation Animal Rights designates hobby hunting tourism as 'questionable and highly problematic' and documents that Swiss citizens also regularly participate in trophy hunts for exotic animal species and import their trophies into Switzerland. ProTier criticizes that individual Swiss cantons issue shooting licences for sought-after species such as the ibex to affluent foreign hunting guests, sometimes with helicopter transport to the hunting grounds, sometimes for five-figure franc amounts. A broad majority of the Swiss population rejects trophy hunting and supports an import ban on hunting trophies. This dossier documents the facts, identifies the economic mechanisms and ethical contradictions, and shows why hobby hunting tourism is not a niche topic, but rather a lens that reveals what recreational hunting is at its core.

What awaits you here

From experience to package: How hobby hunting tourism functions. How hunting travel organisers market wild animals as bookable products, what appears in the catalogues and what this reveals about the self-image of recreational hunting.
Patent hunting cantons and ibex trophies. How hunting tourism functions in Switzerland, which cantons attract foreign hunting guests, which ones deter them – and why the difference is politically decisive.
Trophy hunting abroad: Price lists, safaris, trophy imports. What appears in the catalogues of safari outfitters, what amounts are paid for individual animals and what Swiss citizens bring home as hunting trophies.
JAGD & HUND and other fairs: How an industry celebrates itself. How hunting fairs normalise hunting trips, who exhibits, what is advertised and why hunting fairs shape the public image of recreational hunting.
Economics of hunting tourism: Who profits, who pays the price? Why the value-creation argument doesn't hold, where the money flows and what alternatives exist.
Animal ethics: When the value of a life depends on its trophy. What it means to categorise animals according to trophy value, why this is incompatible with modern animal welfare thinking and what surveys reveal about public attitudes.
'Conservation through use': The most popular argument and its weaknesses. Why the hunting lobby relies on conservation rhetoric, what's wrong with the logic and what alternatives exist.
What would need to change: Concrete political demands: Import ban on trophies, restriction of patent hunting licences for foreigners, regulation of hunting fairs.
Argumentarium: Responses to the most common justifications from the recreational hunting lobby.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and dossiers at a glance.

From experience to package: How hobby hunting tourism functions

Hunting travel organisers today offer their products like holiday catalogues offer beach vacations: with booking forms, reviews, image galleries and package prices. On the websites of providers such as Jagdreisen Fabrig or international safari outfitters, offers can be found in more than 20 countries across five continents. Included are access to hunting grounds, accommodation, guidance by a local hunting guide, shooting rights for specific species and trophy preparation. Those who wish can also book the export of the trophy to their home country.

The language of the catalogues is revealing. It's about 'dream hunts', 'success rates', 'trophy quality' and 'unforgettable experiences'. Wild animals appear not as individuals with their own life interests, but as performance units that cost different amounts depending on species, size and rarity. A wild boar costs less than a kudu, a kudu less than a buffalo – and a buffalo with particularly impressive horns more than an average one. The trophy is the product; the animal is the raw material.

This logic is not limited to exotic countries. It also applies to hunting offerings in German-speaking regions and in Switzerland: The hunting ground is the 'experience', the shooting fee is the price, and the shot chamois buck, deer or ibex is what the paying guest takes home – either as a trophy or as a photo. Hobby hunting tourism is thus not an exception within hunting culture, but its most consistent intensification: What can still be concealed in the local hunting ground with 'tradition' and 'conservation' appears in its naked economic logic on the international booking platform.

More on this: Hunting in Switzerland: Fact-check, hunting types, criticism and Hunting myths: 12 claims you should critically examine

Patent hunting cantons and ibex trophies: Hunting tourism in Switzerland

In Switzerland, hunting tourism is not a marginal phenomenon, but a politically regulated practice that is handled very differently by each canton. At the center are the patent hunting cantons – those cantons where hunting patents are not granted to leaseholders but allocated by authorities – and particularly sought-after species such as ibex, chamois and black grouse. Individual cantons have recognized that foreign hunting guests are prepared to pay considerable sums for these trophies.protier+1

ProTier documents that the canton of Valais has previously issued shooting licences for ibex to foreign hunting guests, sometimes combined with helicopter transport into the high mountains, for amounts in the five-figure Swiss franc range. An objective regulatory need for these culls is not proven; the animals do not die because their population is problematically large, but because someone is prepared to pay for it. In Valais too, foreign hunting guests were recently again enabled to hunt ibex trophies – a decision that remained politically controversial and led to discussions about the proportionality of such licence allocations.srf+1

That it can be done differently is shown by Graubünden. Speaking to SRF, a canton representative explained that they do not need hunting tourism: there are enough local hunters. The patent fees for foreigners were accordingly set so high that participation becomes economically unattractive: For foreigners, a high hunting patent costs almost 14,629 francs – around twenty times the price for locals (760 francs) and five times the price for out-of-canton hunters (around 2,813 francs). This example shows that hunting tourism is politically controllable. The question is whether there is political will to restrict it – or whether cantons will continue to offer wild animals as exclusive trophy goods for affluent guests.

More on this: The wolf in Europe – how politics and hobby hunting undermine species protection and Template texts for hunting-critical initiatives in cantonal parliaments

Trophy hunting abroad: Price lists, safaris and trophy imports

Abroad, the logic of hobby hunting tourism becomes particularly evident. Safari outfitters in South Africa and Namibia publish detailed price lists in which animal species are assigned fixed euro amounts. Antelopes, wild boar, jackals, big game: everything has its tariff. Additional charges apply depending on trophy class and body size, separate costs for taxidermy and fees for exporting the trophy to the buyer's home country. For buffalo, sable antelopes or other prestigious species, package prices in the five-figure euro range are demanded for just a few hunting days.gross-okandjou+1

The Foundation for Animal Law (TIR) documents in a report on trophy hunting that Swiss citizens regularly participate in this form of hunting tourism and import trophies of exotic animals into Switzerland. TIR describes this tourism as 'questionable and highly problematic' and notes that a clear majority of the Swiss population rejects the killing of wild animals solely for the purpose of trophy acquisition and supports an import ban on hunting trophies. What the affluent minority regards as an adventure trip and legitimate leisure activity thus contradicts a social consensus that has become more pronounced in Switzerland.

Particularly problematic is the selection process: It is not sick, weak or biologically expendable animals that are preferentially killed, but the strongest, largest and most impressive specimens – because they provide the coveted trophies. Studies indicate that this selection based on trophy value can permanently alter the genetic structures of wildlife populations, as dominant individuals who normally shape reproduction are systematically removed. This is not species conservation. It is the opposite of it.

More on this: Wild animals, mortal fear and lack of anaesthesia: Why animal welfare law ends at the forest boundary and Lead ammunition and environmental toxins from recreational hunting

JAGD & HUND and other trade fairs: How an industry celebrates itself

The 'JAGD & HUND' fair in Dortmund is considered Europe's largest hunting exhibition. Annually, the exhibition halls transform into what the organisers themselves call 'Europe's largest hunting ground': a multi-day event where weapons, optics, clothing, off-road vehicles and dogs are displayed alongside international hunting travel providers. The hunting community gathers here, books safaris, compares weapon catalogues and exchanges information about trophies. In parallel, the host city of Dortmund promotes the fair as an economic stimulus that fills hotels, revitalises gastronomy and brings thousands of visitors to the city.

What is missing from this self-description is the question of what is actually being promoted at such fairs. International providers present hunting trips for animal species that are partly severely endangered in their countries of origin or whose hunting is highly controversial ethically and ecologically. Trophy hunting of big game in Africa, high-altitude hunts in Central Asia, hunting trips for bears in Eastern Europe: All of this finds its market between beer stands and weapon displays. The ethical and animal welfare questions raised by these practices are not posed in the official fair communiqué. What counts is the turnover.

Hunting fairs thus fulfil a dual function: They are a marketplace for a global hunting industry, and they are a normalisation machine. Anyone visiting such a fair as a layperson experiences hunting as a matter-of-course leisure culture with its own fashion world, its own stars and its own lifestyle offerings. The animals being hunted are not present in this image – except as trophies, fur trim and specimens. The fair shows hunting as the hunting lobby wants to see it: large, attractive, modern. What it does not show is the part that appears in price lists: the dead animal as a bookable service unit.

More on this: Kill photos: Double standards, dignity and the blind spot of recreational hunting and Psychology of hunting

Economics of hunting tourism: Who profits, who pays the price

The hunting lobby regularly defends hunting tourism with economic arguments: hunting trips bring value creation to rural regions, create jobs and generate tax revenues for countries dependent on these revenues. The argument sounds pragmatic – but it is selective and incomplete in essential points.

First, significant portions of the revenue do not flow to the regions where hunting takes place, but rather to hunting tour operators in the tourists' countries of origin, to outfitting companies and to lodge operators. Local communities in hunting areas – particularly in Africa – often benefit only to a limited extent from hunting tourism revenue, while bearing the ecological and social consequences of intensive hunting of their wildlife populations. Second, for virtually all regions that currently offer hunting tourism, equivalent or economically more attractive alternatives exist: wildlife observation, nature photography, ecological tourism and educational offerings can generate the same revenue – without killing a single animal. The claim that hunting tourism is economically indispensable cannot be supported empirically.

Third and crucially: The logic of 'conservation through use' – which we will examine in more detail in the next section – links the economic value of an animal to the possibility of killing it. In this calculation, wild animals are only 'valuable' as long as they can be marketed as trophy commodities. Species that are too rare, too small or too unattractive for the trophy market do not even appear in the economic justification of hunting tourism. This is not conservation logic; this is market logic that borrows conservation rhetoric.

More on this: Hunting and Animal Welfare: What Practice Does to Wild Animals and Alternatives to Hunting: What Really Helps Without Killing Animals

Animal Ethics: When the Value of a Life Depends on Its Trophy

A large ibex with mighty horns, a magnificent stag with heavy antlers, a kudu with sweeping horn spirals: the more impressive, the more expensive the package. Recreational hunting tourism links an animal's life to its trophy value – not to its inherent worth as a sentient being, but to its utility as a decorative object. What sounds like economic common sense is, from an animal ethics perspective, a fundamental shift in values: protection exists only for animals that can be killed and marketed. Animals that 'bring in nothing' are worth less in this logic.

The Foundation for the Animal in the Law notes that a clear majority of the population opposes trophy hunting. The notion of killing protected, rare or particularly charismatic animals solely because someone desires their horns or fur as a trophy contradicts the developed standards of compassion and animal welfare that have become anchored in society over recent decades. This is particularly evident in prominent cases: when the lion Cecil was killed as a trophy in Zimbabwe in 2015 by an American dentist, it sparked worldwide outrage. The reaction showed that a growing portion of the population no longer views animals as objects whose lives can be purchased.

What applies to lions and elephants also applies to ibex in Valais, to chamois bucks in the Alps and to deer in Eastern European hunting grounds. The mechanism is the same: an animal's life is priced in a catalog. The difference lies only in geographical and media visibility. Recreational hunting tourism normalizes this logic by making it bookable, measurable and marketable – and by giving it a festive framework at hunting exhibitions.

More on this: Wild Animals, Mortal Fear and Lack of Anesthesia: Why Animal Welfare Law Ends at the Forest Edge and Wolf Trophy Hunting: How EU Bans Become Farce Through Loopholes

'Conservation Through Use': The Most Popular Argument and Its Weaknesses

«Protection through utilization» is the most commonly used justification for trophy hunting and hunting tourism. The argument is simplified as follows: If wild animals generate money for hunting trips, local communities and government agencies have an economic incentive to protect wild animals and their habitats. Animals are only safe when their survival is profitable. This logic is not entirely wrong, but it is selective, ethically problematic, and empirically less solid than its proponents claim.

The fundamental problem lies in the mechanism itself: protection in this logic is not unconditional, but tied to the possibility of killing. An animal that no one desires as a trophy receives less protection in this calculation. An animal species that loses its trophy value – because it becomes too rare, because the market shifts, because trophy prices fall – thereby also loses its «protection value». This is not conservation logic, but the application of market mechanisms to ecological systems, which produces long-term unstable and ethically unsustainable results. Moreover, the effect depends crucially on who receives the money and whether it actually flows into protection measures – a question that is not satisfactorily answered in many hunting tourism regions.

The alternative exists and works: In Botswana, for instance, hunting tourism was largely banned in 2014. Instead, the focus shifted to photo tourism and wildlife observation. Revenues increased, wildlife populations recovered, and the country is today one of the most successful examples of non-lethal nature tourism. This shows: «protection through utilization» is not a natural law, but a political decision – and one that can be reversed. The choice between «trophy hunting or no protection» is a false dichotomy that the hunting lobby maintains out of self-interest.

More on this: The Wolf in Europe – how politics and hobby hunters undermine species protection and Hunting myths: 12 claims you should critically examine

Public perception: What hunting tourism reveals about hunting

Images of posing trophy hunters next to dead lions, ibex, or antelopes circulate on social media and regularly generate public outrage. For the hunting lobby, such images are a problem: they undermine every narrative of «humility», «respect», and «connection with nature» that hunting associations use to describe their activity. Anyone smiling next to a dead lion for the camera makes visible what recreational hunting tourism means in practice – and what it decidedly does not mean: wildlife management, nature conservation, responsibility.

Even within the hunting scene, hunting tourism is not uncontroversial. When Graubünden declared it would not pursue hunting tourism and raised fees for foreign hunting guests to a deterrent level, this was also an implicit signal: hunting tourism damages hunting's image. The reasoning was revealing: foreign hunting guests are not needed because there are enough local hunters. What remains unaddressed: if hunting tourism damages hunting's image, the question arises whether this is a problem of image – or a problem of the matter itself. Anyone who allows wild animals to be killed for payment operates a service. The question of whether this service is socially acceptable cannot be answered solely by the hunting lobby.

That the population is increasingly answering this question critically is demonstrated by polls and political debates in several European countries. In Switzerland, a majority supports an import ban on hunting trophies. In the EU, stricter import restrictions for trophies from protected species have been discussed for years. Anyone who dismisses recreational hunting tourism as socially irrelevant ignores that it shapes public debates and has democratic majorities against it.

More on this: Recreational Hunting as Event and Hunter Lobby in Switzerland: How Influence Works

What would need to change

Import ban on hunting trophies in Switzerland: Switzerland is a relevant import market for hunting trophies. A legal import ban, analogous to initiatives in the EU, sends a clear signal that Switzerland will no longer be a customer for trophies from problematic hunting practices. Animal welfare organizations and a broad population majority support this step.
Federal restriction of hunting licenses for foreign guests: Cantons that issue shooting licenses for sought-after species to foreign hunting guests may only do so in the future in narrowly limited, ecologically justified exceptional cases. Patent hunting licenses for ibex, chamois and black grouse may not serve as a source of revenue.
Transparency obligation regarding hunting tourism in Switzerland: Cantons that issue hunting licenses to foreign guests are required to publicly disclose the number, type and revenues from these licenses. Model initiative: Transparent Hunting Statistics
Regulation of hunting fairs: Hunting fairs that advertise hunting trips for protected or endangered species on Swiss soil or with Swiss participation are subject to stricter requirements. What may not be directly traded may also not be indirectly marketed through hunting travel packages.
Promotion of non-lethal nature tourism alternatives: Cantons and the federal government provide funding for wildlife observation infrastructure, nature photography offerings and ecological tourism. Anyone who wants to preserve wildlife as economic value invests in non-lethal alternatives. Model initiative: Wildlife Observation as Alternative to Recreational Hunting
International cooperation for stricter CITES rules: Switzerland as a CITES member actively advocates for stricter regulations on trophy trade and trophy hunting of endangered species, as a driving force, not as a silent observer.

Arguments

«Hunting tourism brings added value and thereby protects wildlife.» This argument confuses cause and effect: If animals are only protected as long as they can be killed and marketed, that is not nature conservation, but a market mechanism with an expiration date. As soon as the trophy market collapses, the protection incentive disappears. Botswana has shown that non-lethal nature tourism creates significantly more stable and ethically justifiable protection incentives. Moreover, substantial portions of revenue from hunting tourism do not flow to local communities or protection programs, but to organizers and outfitters in the countries of origin of the hunting guests.

«Trophy hunting is legal leisure activity – it is the personal decision of the hunters.» Individual freedom ends where it is exercised at the expense of others – in this case at the expense of sentient animals and at the expense of a social consensus that predominantly rejects trophy hunting. The majority of the Swiss population supports an import ban on hunting trophies. A leisure activity that is pursued against such a clear majority will requires particularly strong justification – trophy hunting does not provide it.

«Only the strongest animals are hunted – this improves the genetics of the population.» The opposite has been proven. The selective removal of the largest, strongest and most impressive individuals deprives populations of precisely those animals that would normally dominate reproduction. Studies show that this form of selection reduces genetic traits such as antler and horn size in the long term. The hunting lobby is defending a practice here with an argument that contradicts science.

«Hunting fairs are normal events like travel fairs.» The difference lies in the product: A travel fair sells holiday experiences. A hunting fair sells, among other things, shooting rights for animal species whose hunting is ecologically controversial or internationally regulated. Anyone marketing hunting trips for lions, buffalo or ibex as a normal lifestyle product has an explanatory problem vis-à-vis a society that counts animal welfare among its values.

«Switzerland has nothing to do with it – this is a problem of other countries.» Switzerland is a country of origin for hunting tourists, an import country for hunting trophies and the location of hunting events and associations that promote and enable international hunting tourism. Switzerland is part of the system – and as a wealthy democracy has an obligation to acknowledge its co-responsibility and take appropriate measures.

«Hunting tourism in Swiss cantons is not tourism, these are domestic conditions.» An ibex that is allocated to a foreign hunting guest for five-figure sums does not die more 'domestically' than one that is killed as part of international safaris. Geographic proximity changes nothing about the economic logic: here a wild animal is commercially marketed as trophy goods – regardless of where the paying guest comes from.

Quicklinks

Articles on Wild beim Wild:

Related Dossiers:

Our Approach

Recreational hunting tourism shows recreational hunting in its most consistent and honest form: as a global leisure industry in which animals are turned into bookable experiences, price list items and decorative trophies. Anyone who markets wild animals in this way can hardly simultaneously speak of 'stewardship', 'connection to nature' and 'responsibility' towards 'creatures'. The narrative and the practice do not match, and hunting tourism makes this more visible than any other form of recreational hunting.

A modern wildlife policy that takes animal welfare and species protection seriously must identify these contradictions and correct them politically. This means: an import ban on hunting trophies, federal legal restrictions on the allocation of hunting licenses to foreign guests, more transparency about hunting tourism in Switzerland and consistent promotion of non-lethal nature offerings. The question is not whether regions may profit economically from wild animals – it is in what way: with cameras, binoculars and respect for the living animal, or with rifle bullets, price lists and trophy walls. This dossier will be continuously updated when new data, political developments or legal decisions require it.

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