Recreational hunting tourism: a leisure industry at the animals' expense

Around 30,000 recreational hunters are active in Switzerland. Some of them travel halfway around the world to pursue their hobby. In hunting trip catalogues, ibexes in Valais, red deer in Eastern Europe and antelopes in South Africa are offered as bookable experience packages. Hunting fairs such as «JAGD & HUND» in Dortmund — Europe's largest hunting fair — bring this market together every year in an exhibition centre where arms dealers, tour operators and trophy taxidermists exhibit side by side.

What the recreational hunting community markets as "connection to nature", "conservation" and "wildlife population regulation" turns out, on closer inspection, to be a global leisure industry that sorts animals by trophy value and willingness to pay, uses licence-hunting cantons as exclusive hunting grounds for foreign guests, aestheticises violence against wild animals as a lifestyle product at hunting fairs, and instrumentalises the argument of "species protection" to defend a practice that is rejected by a broad majority of the population.

The organisation Tier im Recht describes recreational hunting tourism as «dubious and highly problematic» and documents that Swiss nationals also regularly take part in trophy hunts for exotic animal species and import their trophies into Switzerland. ProTier criticises the fact that individual Swiss cantons issue kill licences for sought-after species such as the ibex to wealthy foreign hunting guests, sometimes with helicopter transport into the hunting ground, sometimes for five-figure Swiss franc sums. A broad majority of the Swiss population rejects trophy hunting and supports a ban on the import of hunting trophies. This dossier documents the facts, identifies the economic mechanisms and ethical contradictions, and shows why recreational hunting tourism is not a niche topic but a magnifying glass on what recreational hunting is at its core.

What awaits you here

From experience to package: how recreational hunting tourism works. How hunting travel operators market wild animals as bookable products, what the catalogues say and what this reveals about recreational hunting's self-image.
Licence hunting cantons and ibex trophies. How hunting tourism works 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 is written in the catalogues of safari outfitters, what amounts are paid for individual animals and what Swiss nationals bring home with hunting trophies.
JAGD & HUND and other trade 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 does not hold up, where the money flows and what alternatives exist.
Animal ethics: when the value of a life depends on its trophy. What it means to sort animals by trophy value, why this is incompatible with modern animal welfare thinking, and what surveys say about public attitudes.
«Protection through use»: the hunting lobby's favourite argument and its weaknesses. Why the hunting lobby relies on species-conservation rhetoric, what is wrong with the logic and what alternatives exist.
What needs to change: Concrete political demands: an import ban on trophies, restrictions on licence hunting permits for foreigners, and regulation of hunting fairs.
Talking points: Answers to the most common justifications used by the recreational hunting lobby.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and dossiers at a glance.

From experience to package: how recreational hunting tourism works

Hunting trip operators now market their products just like holiday brochures sell beach breaks: with booking forms, reviews, photo galleries and package prices. The websites of providers such as Jagdreisen Fabrig or international safari outfitters list offers in more than 20 countries across five continents. Included are access to a hunting ground, accommodation, guidance by a local hunting guide, kill rights for certain species, and trophy preparation. Those who wish can also book the export of the trophy back home.jagdreisen-fabrig+1

The language of these catalogues is revealing. It speaks of “dream hunts”, “success chances”, “trophy quality” and “unforgettable experiences”. Wild animals do not appear in them as individuals with an interest in their own lives, but as units of performance 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 confined to exotic countries. It also applies to hunting offers in German-speaking countries and in Switzerland: the hunting ground is the “experience”, the kill fee is the price, and the chamois buck, red deer or ibex that is killed is what the paying guest takes home – either as a trophy or as a photo. Recreational hunting tourism is thus not the exception within hunting culture, but its most consistent culmination: what can still be disguised as “tradition” and “stewardship” on the home hunting ground appears in its naked economic logic on the international booking platform.

More on this: Hunting in Switzerland: fact check, types of hunting, criticism and Hunting myths: 12 claims you should scrutinise critically

Licence 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 from canton to canton. At its centre are the licence hunting cantons – that is, those cantons where hunting licences are not leased to tenants but allocated by the authorities – and particularly sought-after species such as ibex, chamois and black grouse. Some cantons have recognised that foreign hunting guests are willing to pay considerable sums for these trophies.protier+1

ProTier documents that the canton of Valais has in the past granted kill licences for ibex to foreign hunting guests, in some cases combined with helicopter transport into the high mountains, for amounts in the five-figure Swiss franc range. There is no evidence of an objective need for regulation behind these kills; the animals do not die because their population is problematically large, but because someone is willing to pay for it. In Valais, too, foreign hunting guests were recently once again granted ibex trophy hunts – a decision that remained politically controversial and led to discussions about the proportionality of granting such licences.srf+1

Grisons shows that things can be done differently. A cantonal representative told SRF that there was no need for hunting tourism: there were enough local hunters. The licence fees for foreigners were accordingly set so high that participation becomes economically unattractive: for foreigners, a high hunt licence costs almost 14,629 francs – around twenty times the price for locals (760 francs) and five times the price for those from other cantons (around 2,813 francs). This example shows that hunting tourism can be controlled politically. The question is whether there is the political will to restrict it – or whether cantons will continue to offer wild animals as exclusive trophy merchandise to well-heeled guests.

More on this: The Wolf in Europe – How Politics and Recreational Hunting Are Undermining Species Protection and template texts for hunting-critical motions in cantonal parliaments

Trophy Hunting Abroad: Price Lists, Safaris and Trophy Imports

Abroad, the logic of recreational hunting tourism is particularly evident. Safari outfitters in South Africa and Namibia publish detailed price lists in which animal species are assigned fixed euro amounts. Antelopes, wild boars, jackals, big game: everything has its tariff. On top of this come surcharges 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 antelope or other prestigious species, package prices in the five-figure euro range are charged for just a few days of hunting.

The Foundation for the Animal in Law (TIR) documents in a report on trophy hunting that Swiss citizens also regularly take part in this form of hunting tourism and bring trophies of exotic animals into Switzerland. The 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 financially well-off minority regards as an experiential journey and a legitimate leisure activity thus contradicts a social consensus that has become clearer in Switzerland.

The selection process is particularly problematic: it is not sick, weak, or population-biologically dispensable animals that are preferentially killed, but the strongest, largest, and most impressive specimens – because they yield the coveted trophies. Studies indicate that this selection for trophy value can alter the genetic structure of wildlife populations in the long term, as dominant individuals, who normally shape reproduction, are specifically removed. This is not species conservation. It is the opposite of it.

More on this: Wild animals, mortal fear and lack of stunning: why animal welfare law ends at the forest edge 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 trade fair. Every year, the exhibition halls transform into what the organisers themselves describe as the «largest hunting ground in Europe»: a multi-day event where weapons, optics, clothing, off-road vehicles and dogs are showcased alongside international hunting travel providers. The hunting community gathers here, books safaris, compares weapon catalogues and exchanges views on trophies. Meanwhile, the host city of Dortmund praises the fair as an economic boost that fills hotels, invigorates the hospitality industry and brings thousands of visitors into the city.

What is missing from this self-description is the question of what is actually being advertised at such fairs. International providers present hunting trips targeting species that are, in some cases, severely endangered in their countries of origin, or whose hunting is highly contentious both ethically and ecologically. Trophy hunting of big game in Africa, high-mountain hunts in Central Asia, bear-hunting trips in Eastern Europe: all of this finds its market between the beer stand and the weapons display case. The ethical and animal welfare questions raised by these practices are not addressed in the official fair communiqué. What counts is turnover.

Hunting fairs thus serve 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 absent from this picture – except as trophies, fur trim and taxidermy mounts. The fair presents hunting the way the hunting lobby wants it to be seen: big, attractive, modern. What it does not show is the part that appears in price lists: the dead animal as a bookable unit of service.

More on this: Trophy photos: double standards, dignity and the blind spot of recreational hunting and The psychology of hunting

The economics of hunting tourism: who profits, who pays the price

The hunting lobby regularly defends hunting tourism with economic arguments: hunting trips, it is claimed, bring added value to rural regions, create jobs and generate tax revenue for countries that depend on this income. The argument sounds pragmatic – but it is, in key respects, selective and incomplete.blog-dortmund+1

Firstly, substantial parts of the revenue do not flow into the regions where hunting takes place, but to hunting travel operators in the tourists' countries of origin, to outfitters and to lodge operators. Local communities in hunting areas – particularly in Africa – often benefit only to a limited extent from trophy hunting tourism revenues, while bearing the ecological and social consequences of intensive hunting of their wildlife populations. Secondly, for almost all regions that currently offer trophy hunting tourism, equivalent or economically more attractive alternatives exist: wildlife observation, nature photography, ecotourism and educational offerings can generate the same revenue – without a single animal having to be killed for it. The claim that trophy hunting tourism is economically indispensable cannot be empirically sustained.

Thirdly, and decisively: the logic of “protection through use” – which we 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” for as long as they can be marketed as trophy goods. Species that are too rare, too small or too unattractive for the trophy market do not appear at all in the economic justification of trophy hunting tourism. This is not conservation logic; it is market logic borrowing conservation rhetoric.

More on this: Hunting and Animal Welfare: What the 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 red deer with a heavy antler, a kudu with widely curved horn spirals: the more impressive, the more expensive the package. Recreational trophy hunting tourism ties the life of an animal to its trophy value – not to its intrinsic worth as a sentient being, but to its usability as a decorative item. What sounds like an economic matter of course 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, in this logic, worth less.

The Foundation for Animals in Law states that a clear majority of the population is opposed to trophy hunting. The idea of killing protected, rare or particularly charismatic animals solely because someone covets their horns or fur as a trophy contradicts a growing standard of compassion and animal welfare that has become established in society over recent decades. This is especially evident in high-profile cases: when the lion Cecil was killed as a trophy in Zimbabwe in 2015 by an American dentist, it triggered outrage worldwide. The reaction showed that a growing proportion of the population no longer regards animals as objects whose lives can be bought.

What applies to lions and elephants, however, applies equally to ibex in Valais, to male chamois in the Alps and to red deer in Eastern European hunting grounds. The mechanism is the same: an animal's life is priced in a catalogue. The only difference lies in geographical and media visibility. Recreational hunting tourism normalises this logic by making it bookable, measurable and marketable – and by giving it a festive setting at hunting fairs.

More on this: Wild animals, mortal fear and lack of stunning: why animal welfare law ends at the forest edge and Wolf trophy hunting: how EU bans are turned into a farce through loopholes

«Protection through use»: the most popular argument and its weaknesses

«Protection through use» is the most commonly used justification for trophy hunting and hunting tourism. Put simply, the argument runs: if wild animals generate money through hunting trips, local communities and government bodies have an economic incentive to protect wild animals and their habitats. Animals are only safe if their survival pays off. This logic is not entirely wrong, but it is selective, ethically problematic, and empirically less sound than its proponents claim.

The fundamental problem lies in the mechanism itself: in this logic, protection is not unconditional but tied to the possibility of killing. An animal that no one desires as a trophy is, by this calculation, less protected. A 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 in the long run produces unstable and ethically untenable results. Moreover, the effect depends crucially on who receives the money and whether it actually flows into protection measures – a question that remains unsatisfactorily answered in many hunting-tourism regions.

The alternative exists and works: in Botswana, for instance, hunting tourism was largely banned in 2014. Instead, the country turned to photographic tourism and wildlife viewing. Revenues rose, wildlife populations recovered, and the country is now one of the most successful examples of non-lethal nature tourism. This shows that “protection through use” is not a law of nature 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 upholds out of self-interest.

More on this: The Wolf in Europe – How Politics and Recreational Hunting Are Undermining Species Protection and Hunting myths: 12 claims you should scrutinise critically

Public perception: what hunting tourism reveals about hunting

Images of posing trophy hunters next to dead lions, ibexes or antelopes circulate on social media and regularly spark 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 for the camera next to a dead lion makes visible what recreational hunting tourism actually means in practice – and what it does not mean: conservation, wildlife protection, responsibility.

Even within hunting circles, hunting tourism is not without controversy. When Grisons announced that it was not seeking hunting tourism and would raise fees for foreign hunting guests to a deterrent level, this was also an implicit signal: hunting tourism damages the image of hunting. The reasoning was revealing: foreign hunting guests were said to be unnecessary because there were enough local hunters. What remains unaddressed is this: if hunting tourism damages the image of hunting, the question arises as to whether this is a problem of image – or a problem with the practice itself. Anyone who has wild animals killed for payment is offering a service. The question of whether this service is socially acceptable cannot be answered by the hunting lobby alone.

Surveys and political debates in several European countries show that the public is increasingly answering this question critically. In Switzerland, a majority supports a ban on the import of hunting trophies. In the EU, stricter import restrictions for trophies of protected animal species have been discussed for years. Anyone who dismisses recreational hunting tourism as socially irrelevant ignores the fact that it shapes public debates and faces democratic majorities against it.

More on this: Recreational hunting as an event and Hunter lobby in Switzerland: how influence works

What needs to change

Import ban on hunting trophies in Switzerland: Switzerland is a significant import market for hunting trophies. A statutory import ban, in line with initiatives in the EU, would send a clear signal that Switzerland is no longer a buyer of trophies from problematic hunting practices. Animal welfare organisations and a broad majority of the population support this step.
Federal restriction of hunting licences for foreign guests: Cantons that grant kill licences for sought-after species to foreign hunting guests will in future only be permitted to do so in narrowly defined, ecologically justified exceptional cases. Licence hunting permits for ibex, chamois and black grouse must not serve as a source of revenue.
Transparency obligation regarding hunting tourism in Switzerland: Cantons that grant hunting licences to foreign guests will be required to publicly disclose the number, type and proceeds of these licences. Template motion: Transparent hunting statistics
Regulation of hunting fairs: Hunting fairs that advertise hunting trips targeting protected or endangered species on Swiss soil or with Swiss involvement are subject to stricter requirements. Whatever may not be traded directly must also not be marketed indirectly through hunting-trip packages.
Promotion of non-lethal nature tourism alternatives: Cantons and the Confederation provide funding for wildlife-observation infrastructure, nature photography offerings and ecological tourism. Anyone wishing to preserve wild animals as an economic asset should invest in non-lethal alternatives. Template motion: Wildlife observation as an alternative to recreational hunting
International cooperation for stricter CITES rules: As a CITES member, Switzerland actively advocates for stricter regulations on trophy trade and trophy hunting of endangered species, acting as a driving force rather than a silent observer.

Talking points

«Hunting tourism generates economic value and thereby protects wild animals.» This argument reverses cause and effect: if animals are only protected for as long as they can be killed and marketed, that is not conservation but a market mechanism with an expiry date. As soon as the trophy market collapses, the incentive to protect disappears. Botswana has shown that non-lethal nature tourism creates far more stable and ethically justifiable protection incentives. Moreover, a substantial share of the revenue from hunting tourism does not flow to local communities or conservation programmes, but to operators and outfitters in the hunting guests' countries of origin.

«Trophy hunting is a 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 societal consensus that largely rejects trophy hunting. A majority of the Swiss population supports an import ban on hunting trophies. A leisure activity pursued against such a clear majority will requires a particularly strong justification – trophy hunting does not provide one.

«Only the strongest animals are hunted – this improves the population's genetics.» The opposite is 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 over the long term. Here, the hunting lobby is defending a practice with an argument that contradicts science.

«Hunting fairs are normal events, just like travel fairs.» The difference lies in the product: a travel fair sells holiday experiences. A hunting fair sells, among other things, kill rights for animal species whose hunting is ecologically controversial or internationally regulated. Anyone who markets hunting trips for lions, buffalo or ibex as a normal lifestyle product has some explaining to do to a society that counts animal welfare among its values.

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

«Hunting tourism in Swiss cantons is not tourism, these are local circumstances.» An ibex sold for a five-figure sum to a foreign hunting guest does not die any more “locally” than one killed as part of an international safari. Geographical proximity does not change the economic logic: here, a wild animal is being commercially marketed as a trophy product – regardless of where the paying guest comes from.

Quick links

Articles on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

Our Standard

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. Those who market wild animals in this way can hardly speak at the same time of “stewardship”, “a bond with nature” and “responsibility” towards the “creature”. 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 name these contradictions and correct them politically. That means: an import ban on hunting trophies, a federal-law restriction on the granting of hunting licences 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 is continuously updated whenever new data, political developments or legal decisions require it.

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