Hunting and animal welfare: What the practice does to wild animals

Hunting is often portrayed as a contribution to animal welfare. Hobby hunters speak of "conservation," responsibility, and a "quick death." But animal welfare doesn't mean that an animal dies as efficiently as possible. Animal welfare means preventing suffering, reducing stress, and respecting life. This is precisely where the central conflict lies between the hunter's self-image and the reality of hunting.

Swiss animal protection law mandates the protection of the dignity and well-being of animals. The Civil Code stipulates that animals are not things. Both statements also apply to wild animals. And both statements stand in fundamental contradiction to a system that kills wild animals for recreation, tradition, and supposed "regulation"—even though alternatives exist, have been proven to work, and are simply not politically prioritized.

What awaits you here

The "instantly lethal shot": Ideal and reality: What misfires, glancing blows and searches reveal about the system – and what they mean for the animals involved.
Stress as a form of suffering: What hunting pressure triggers in the wild animal's body: What wildlife research shows about stress hormones, energy consumption and escape reactions under hunting pressure.
Driven hunts: When stress becomes a method: What driven hunts mean for wild animals from an ecological and animal welfare perspective.
Parent animals and offspring: When a gunshot destroys a social structure: Why "population control" as an abstraction hides what actually happens.
Night hunting and technology: When efficiency lowers the inhibition threshold: What thermal cameras, night vision optics and silencers mean for the animal welfare principle.
Animal welfare law versus hunting practice: The structural contradiction: What Swiss law says – and how far hunting practice is from it.
Alternatives: What works instead of killing: Which non-lethal methods for wildlife control exist, are scientifically proven, and are politically ignored.
Argumentation: Answers to the most common justifications for hunting practices from an animal welfare perspective.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and dossiers.

The "instantly lethal shot": Ideal and reality

In the self-portrayal of hunters, the clean, instantly lethal shot is the standard. In reality, it is an ideal that is regularly missed. Wild animals move, are rarely perfectly isolated, lighting conditions are difficult, shooting distances are underestimated, and excitement and group pressure reduce the quality of decision-making.

The figures from Graubünden provide the clearest available documentation: Between 2012 and 2016, 3,836 out of 56,403 animals killed were initially only wounded. Wildlife biologist Lukas Walser confirmed to SRF: "This proportion is roughly the same every year." This means that in a single canton, several hundred wild animals are wounded annually, suffer, and are only humanely euthanized after a delay – if at all. Tracking wounded animals with hunting dogs is presented as a solution. In reality, it is an admission of the systemic problem: If tracking is necessary, the system, by definition, has a core issue prone to injury. Extrapolated to all hunting cantons over several years, this results in tens of thousands of cases in which wild animals suffer – documented, structurally caused, and systematically normalized.

More on this topic: High-altitude hunting in Switzerland: traditional ritual, zone of violence and stress test , and High-altitude hunting in Graubünden: control and consequences for recreational hunters

Stress as a form of suffering: What hunting pressure triggers in the body of wild animals

Animal welfare is not limited to the moment of death. It begins where suffering begins – and suffering in wild animals begins long before the shot. For a wild animal, hunting is first a disturbance, then flight, then disorientation.

Wildlife research consistently shows that hunting stress triggers a cascade of stress hormones in the body, mobilizing energy reserves, significantly increasing heart and respiratory rates, and putting muscles into a state of emergency. This state requires energy, which is not readily available, especially in autumn and winter – the periods when high-altitude and winter hunting seasons take place. Studies from Scotland and Scandinavia show significantly higher cortisol levels in hunted red deer populations compared to unhunted populations. For females with young, this increased stress has particularly serious consequences: milk production collapses, parent-offspring bonds are disrupted, and young animals lose the protective presence of their mothers during critical phases. This is animal suffering – even if it doesn't materialize in a gunshot.

More on this topic: Psychology of hunting and Hunting and biodiversity: Does recreational hunting really protect nature?

Driven hunts: When stress becomes the method

Driven hunts are the hunting method with the highest structural stress level for wild animals. The principle is based on driving wild animals out of cover – through noise, barking dogs, human presence, and coordinated movement. The goal is to flush out as much game as possible to enable shots.

The consequences for the animals involved are well-documented in behavioral biology: During driven hunts, wild animals exhibit panic-driven flight behavior, which is extremely energy-intensive and frequently leads to injuries. Young animals, which have not yet developed a reliable escape response, are separated from their family groups. Animals run into unfamiliar territory, change their range, and become disoriented. Swiss animal welfare legislation explicitly defines suffering as a criterion for assessment – the well-being of animals expressly includes fear and stress. This makes driven hunts not a gray area, but a politically normalized contradiction to the country's own legal framework.

More on this topic: Banning driven hunts (model initiative) and ending recreational violence against animals

Parent animals and offspring: When a gunshot destroys a social structure

In public discourse, the term "population control" is used. This sounds technical and neutral. What actually happens when a parent animal is killed is neither technical nor neutral.

Social structures in red deer, wild boar, and wolves are complex and learning-based. Young animals learn from adults how to use territory, which food sources to access, and how to avoid conflicts with humans. If a leading female—a hind, a sow, or a dominant wolf—is killed during her raising period, young animals can be orphaned, starve, or find themselves in conflict-prone situations because they lack this social learning capital. Under the Valais wolf management policy for 2025/2026, seven young wolves were killed as part of "basic regulation"—animals that never had the chance to learn how their pack interacts with livestock farming and the cultivated landscape. The irony is that these very learning processes are crucial for reducing wolf conflicts in the long term. Killing young animals invests in more conflict—not fewer.

More information: Protection of young and parent animals (model initiative) and wolves in Switzerland

Night hunting and technological advancements: When efficiency lowers the inhibition threshold

Night vision optics, thermal cameras, silencers, and drones for wildlife searches increase hunting efficiency. They also change the ethical landscape in a direction that is rarely discussed in the public hunting debate: they lower the inhibitions against hunting.

When hunting becomes technically easier, diligence doesn't automatically increase. Often, the pressure to perform rises: culling quotas must be met, hunting leaseholders expect performance, and social recognition within the hunting community depends on success. Technologization in this context doesn't lead to fewer shots, but to more shots under more difficult conditions. Night hunting means disturbing wild animals during their main activity period – the only time window that still offers them relative protection in populated areas. The revised Hunting Ordinance (JSV) has fundamentally prohibited night hunting in the forest, but at the same time introduced cantonal exceptions for "damage prevention." These exceptions are being consistently used – as demonstrated by Graubünden, Bern, and Valais. The prohibition has thus de facto become a regulated framework for permission.

More on this topic: Night hunting and hunting technology , and hobby hunting starts at the desk.

Animal welfare law versus hunting practice: The structural contradiction

The Swiss Animal Welfare Act (TSchG) explicitly protects the dignity and well-being of animals. According to Article 3 of the TSchG, well-being explicitly includes freedom from pain and fear, and the opportunity to exhibit species-appropriate behavior. This applies to all animals – including wild animals not kept in captivity. Since its revision in 2003, Article 641a of the Swiss Civil Code (ZGB) stipulates that animals are not things.

Both legal principles are effectively suspended in hunting policy practice. Stress, fear, flight, pain from misfires, and subsequent suffering from pack destruction are documented and systematic consequences of recreational hunting. They constitute avoidable suffering—and would be unacceptable under animal welfare law in any other context. The hunting law creates an exception that is hardly justifiable on objective grounds: A system that regularly produces animal suffering is privileged under animal welfare law because it has been socially normalized. This is a political condition—not a natural one. It can be changed.

Alternatives: What works instead of killing

The hunting lobby claims that wildlife management would collapse without recreational hunting. The canton of Geneva has refuted this since 1974: professional wildlife management by state game wardens, no recreational hunting, the highest brown hare density in Switzerland, the country's last remaining grey partridge population, and significantly increased biodiversity. What else works:

Habitat improvement: Extensive meadows, hedgerows, fallow land and small-scale structures promote population balances naturally – without shooting.
Natural predators: Wolves, lynxes, and foxes regulate wildlife populations more efficiently, cost-effectively, and humanely than recreational hunters. Their eradication over decades is the root cause of many "overpopulation problems."
Non-lethal deterrents: Acoustic and optical systems, fences, odor barriers and adapted land use have been proven to effectively reduce wildlife conflicts in agriculture.
Targeted professional interventions: State game wardens with a clearly defined mandate, independent monitoring and scientific support can intervene where documented, significant and repeated damage occurs – without the area-wide program of recreational hunting.

These alternatives are not used because they don't work. They are not used because the lobby that benefits most from maintaining the status quo is also the one that has the greatest influence on hunting policy, hunting authorities, and hunting policy narratives.

More on this topic: Geneva and the hunting ban , and arguments against recreational hunting and in favor of game wardens.

What would need to change

Make missed shot rates transparent and sanction them: All cantons must systematically record and publish tracking data, missed shot rates, and resulting injuries. Repeated missed shots must lead to the revocation of the hunting license. Sample motion: Sample texts for motions critical of hunting practices.
Ban driven hunts: Driven hunts and battues cause the highest structural stress levels of all hunting methods and are incompatible with animal welfare laws. Model motion: Ban driven hunts and battues.
Extend closed seasons consistently to include parent animals and young: Leading parents and dependent young must not be hunted at any time of year. Social structures are not collateral damage, but the foundation of functioning wildlife populations. Model initiative: Protection of young and parent animals
Restrict night hunting and technological upgrades: Night vision optics, thermal cameras, and silencers lower the inhibition threshold and disturb wild animals in their final resting phase. Cantonal exceptions to the JSV night hunting ban must be handled restrictively and limited in time.
Professional wildlife management instead of recreational hunting: Where intervention is necessary, state game wardens take over, supported by scientific research, independent monitoring, and a clearly defined mandate. A model initiative: Hunting ban based on the Geneva example.

Argumentation

“Hunting is animal welfare – without regulation, populations would explode and starve.” The canton of Geneva has had no recreational hunting for 50 years and has recorded no population explosions, no starvation epidemics, and no ecological collapses. Luxembourg has had no fox hunting since 2015 and maintains stable fox populations. Natural regulatory mechanisms – food supply, predators, diseases – function. They were displaced, not replaced, by decades of recreational hunting.

"Experienced recreational hunters shoot cleanly and humanely." In Graubünden, several hundred animals are only wounded each year – documented over five years by the Office for Hunting and Fishing itself. This is not a failure of individual recreational hunters. It is a structural characteristic of an activity that involves shooting at moving targets under unpredictable conditions. Structural problems cannot be solved simply by increasing training – but rather through systemic changes.

"Death by hunting is faster and more humane than death by predators." This statement ignores the stress and suffering before death and sets a standard that systematically whitewashes hunting. Animal welfare is not "less bad than the worst." Animal welfare is the avoidance of suffering wherever possible. And there are documented alternatives that do not cause suffering to wild animals.

"Care and management by recreational hunters benefit wildlife." Those who manage a population only to kill it are not practicing animal welfare. This is resource management, not animal protection. True animal protection lies in habitat improvement, promoting natural predators, and conflict-reducing agriculture – all measures that do not require recreational hunting.

Quick links

Posts on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

Our claim

Animal welfare is not a marketing tool for recreational hunting. It is a legal right that applies to all animals, including wild animals, including those in the forest, including in autumn. Swiss animal welfare law protects the dignity and well-being of animals. The Civil Code stipulates that animals are not things. Both of these principles are effectively suspended in hunting policy because a socially normalized leisure activity is given preferential treatment under animal welfare law.

This dossier documents the structural contradiction between animal welfare law and recreational hunting, based on data, studies, and legal frameworks. The information is continuously updated as new findings, rulings, or political developments necessitate it.

Do you know of specific cases, documented hunting consequences, or media reports that show what recreational hunting does to wild animals? Write to us with the date, location, and source: wildbeimwild.com/kontakt

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