Hunting dogs: Use, suffering and animal welfare

Around 30,000 amateur hunters are active in Switzerland. Many of them use dogs: as flushing dogs in driven hunts, as terriers in fox dens, and as bloodhounds for tracking wounded game.

What is marketed by hobby hunters as "humane hunting practices" turns out, upon closer inspection, to be a system of organized animal exploitation that sends dogs into life-threatening situations, trains them on live wild animals, disposes of them if they are "unsuitable", and often subjects them to a life of low stimulation in kennels outside of the hunting season.

The Swiss Animal Welfare Ordinance generally prohibits "the use of live animals to train or test dogs" (Art. 22 para. 1 lit. d TSchV), but grants an explicit exception for hobby hunting dogs. The Swiss Animal Protection Association (STS) rejects the use of hunting dogs in burrows from an animal welfare perspective in its position paper. The Foundation for Animal Law (TIR) concludes that burrow hunting constitutes animal cruelty in several respects, and a 2019 survey shows that 95 percent of dogs used in driven hunts for wild boar sustain injuries. In Germany, hobby hunting dogs are allowed to have their tails docked, a practice that has been prohibited in Switzerland since 1997. This dossier documents the facts, identifies the animal welfare problems, and shows why the way hobby hunters treat "their" dogs is far less loving than hunting jargon suggests.

What awaits you here

Quick links. All relevant articles, studies and dossiers at a glance.

Training on live animals. How hobby hunting dogs are "trained" on live foxes in artificial fox dens and on wild boar in wild boar enclosures, and why the Swiss Animal Welfare Ordinance contains an explicit exception for hobby hunting.
Hunting in fox dens: Why sending dogs into fox dens is equally brutal for both dog and wild animal, which cantons have already banned hunting in fox dens, and why the TIR classifies the practice as animal cruelty.
Driven hunts and wild boar. How hunting dogs get into life-threatening confrontations during driven hunts and why 95 percent of the dogs used suffer injuries.
"Sharpness" as a breeding goal. What "predator-sharp" and "wild boar-sharp" mean, why hobby hunting dogs are allowed to have their tails docked in Germany, and why these practices contradict animal welfare.
Kennel housing and keeping conditions. Why many hobby hunting dogs lead a life of little stimulation outside of the hunting season and what the animal welfare regulations stipulate.
"Disposing" of unusable dogs. What happens to dogs that fail tests, and why the fate of Galgos and Podencos is not an isolated case.
Swiss legal situation. How the Animal Welfare Act regulates the use of hobby hunting dogs, where the gaps lie and what would need to change.
Argumentation. Answers to the most common justifications of amateur hunters.
Quick links. All relevant articles, studies and dossiers at a glance.

Training on live animals: How dogs are trained for "usefulness"

For many hobby hunting dogs, the training begins as early as puppyhood and includes methods that are highly problematic from an animal welfare perspective. Three training methods are particularly criticized: artificial hunting tunnels, wild boar enclosures, and training with live ducks. All three have one thing in common: live wild animals are instrumentalized as training and testing subjects, with an explicit legal basis that overrides general animal welfare principles for the interests of hobby hunting.

The Swiss Animal Welfare Ordinance (TSchV) prohibits in Article 22, paragraph 1, letter d, "the use of live animals to train or test dogs." This is immediately followed by the exception: "except for the training and testing of hunting dogs according to Article 75, paragraph 1, and for the training of livestock guardian and herding dogs." This exception is remarkable. In plain terms, it means that what would be considered animal cruelty for all other dog owners—setting a dog on a live animal—is legal for recreational hunters. Article 75, paragraph 3, of the TSchV merely stipulates that "facilities for the training and testing of hunting dogs on live wild animals" require a cantonal permit. The procedure itself is not prohibited; only its infrastructure is regulated.

In so-called fox dens, dogs are trained for hunting foxes in their dens. These are artificially constructed tunnel systems in which a live fox is kept. The dog is supposed to track down the fox in the narrow tunnel and bark at it without attacking. Although dog and fox are separated by a glass pane or a wire mesh in modern facilities, the fox still experiences mortal fear. The organization Wildtierschutz Deutschland (Wildlife Protection Germany) documented the conditions at a fox den near Hanau: "A stench greets visitors approaching the far too small fox enclosure. For days, the excrement of the foxes, which remain on the bare concrete floor, appears to have gone uncleaned. Outside the enclosure, a fox carcass covered in maggots is rotting." Around 100 such facilities exist in Germany. In Switzerland, there are hardly any legally compliant training opportunities, which is why Swiss hobby hunters often have their dogs trained abroad. In its position paper, the STS concludes: "From the STS's point of view, training dogs on live foxes constitutes animal cruelty."

In wild boar enclosures, dogs from about nine months of age are introduced to wild boar. The dogs are meant to learn to find, bark at, and flush out wild boar without endangering themselves. There are at least 19 such enclosures in Germany. In Switzerland, a working group of the Conference of Hunting and Fishing Administrators (JFK) has been examining potential locations for the first wild boar enclosure for some time. The wild boar in the enclosure are hand-reared and accustomed to dogs; their behavior in no way resembles that of their wild counterparts. Dogs that "perform" in these enclosures may behave completely differently in the wild. Furthermore, the question arises as to what happens to dogs that do not exhibit the desired "aggressiveness" in the enclosure. There is a fear that many of these dogs will still be used or disposed of as "unusable." As the old hunting adage goes: "If you want to reap the boar's head, you have to give up the dog's head."

In live duck training, a mallard's wing is clipped, glued, or fitted with a paper cuff to prevent it from flying. The duck is then released into a body of water where the dog is supposed to find and retrieve it. In technical terms, this is called "working with a temporarily flightless duck." What this means for the duck is clear: it is reduced to a training object and subjected to an extremely stressful situation from which it cannot escape. The German Hunting Association defends the practice as "humane" and argues that without testing on live ducks, "proof of suitability cannot be provided." The conclusion is revealing: because recreational hunters refuse to change their testing systems, the animal must suffer.

The training of hobby hunting dogs follows a strictly instrumental approach: the dog is a tool that must be made "useful." If the dog fails the test, a new one is bought. While thousands of dogs wait for homes in animal shelters, every new purchase of a hobby hunting dog promotes overbreeding.

More on this topic: Hunting in burrows – legal animal cruelty in the name of hunting tradition and wild boar enclosures? No, thank you!

Construction Hunt: Bloody Battles Underground

Hunting in fox or badger dens is one of the most controversial hunting methods in Switzerland. In this form of recreational hunting, specially trained dogs – usually dachshunds or terriers – are sent into fox or badger dens to drive the animals out, where waiting recreational hunters shoot them. Reality regularly deviates from the "ideal scenario" described by recreational hunters. Underground fights frequently occur, in which both dog and animal are seriously injured or killed.

Veterinarian Dr. Ralf Unna reports from his practice: “If they do manage to get out alive, they are often badly injured. I can tell you about cases of seven to eight fractures of the lower jaw, animals with multiple injuries to their front legs and face that require weeks of care just to survive. This is a clear violation of the Animal Welfare Act.” Because dogs enter burrows headfirst during hunting, their eyes, lips, jaw, and neck are particularly vulnerable. Broken teeth, circulatory problems, and infectious diseases such as mange and ear infections are among the typical consequences. Dirt and dust in the tunnels can cause the dogs' eyelids to stick together and become inflamed. In the Canton of Bern, the hunting regulations stipulate that “wounded game and hunting dogs trapped in burrows” may only be “dug out with the assistance of the game warden.” The very existence of this regulation shows that dogs getting stuck are not a theoretical possibility, but a regularly occurring reality.

For wild animals, hunting in dens is no less brutal. A fox's den is naturally a place of refuge where no predators can enter. Den hunting violates this fundamental principle and subjects foxes and badgers to extreme stress. Particularly insidious is the fact that den hunting is often practiced during the winter months until the end of February, a time when heavily pregnant vixens are expecting their cubs in the den or are already raising young. In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region), dogfighting, cockfighting, and any form of inciting animals against each other are prohibited, yet recreational hunting is permitted to do precisely that and calls it "den hunting." Hunters' jargon romanticizes the practice: dogs "work" in the den, the fox is "fed out." The reality is: animal is set upon animal, resulting in a fight.

The Foundation for Animal Law (TIR) has argued in a legal opinion that hunting animals in their burrows constitutes multiple forms of animal cruelty under Article 26 of the Swiss Animal Protection Act (TSchG) – both towards the wild animals and the dogs used. A representative survey conducted by the Swiss Animal Protection Association (STS) in 2009 shows that 70 percent of the population supports a ban on hunting animals in their burrows. Criticism is also increasingly coming from the recreational hunting community itself.

In Switzerland, several cantons have already banned or restricted fox hunting in dens, including Bern, Zurich, Basel-Landschaft, Vaud, and Thurgau. The canton of Zurich has completely prohibited fox hunting in its new hunting law . However, a patchwork of regulations remains: den hunting is still practiced in other cantons, and a nationwide ban is lacking. The "necessity" of this hunting method is a myth: in 2006, only five to ten percent of all foxes killed in Switzerland were killed by den hunting. Studies show that fox hunting generally has no long-term impact on the population because losses are compensated for by increased reproduction. The canton of Geneva has demonstrated since 1974, and Luxembourg since 2015, that wildlife management works without any form of recreational hunting.

The STS clearly states its position: "For foxes and badgers, the den is naturally a place of refuge where no predators can enter. This should also be respected by recreational hunters. Furthermore, hunting in dens is not necessary for hunting foxes, as there are more humane alternatives."

More on this topic: Cruel hunting methods – tolerated and promoted , and small game hunting and wildlife diseases

Driven hunts and wild boar: When dogs fight against wild boar

During driven hunts for wild boar, flushing dogs are used to drive the animals from cover. What recreational hunters describe as "necessary" for wild boar population control poses considerable dangers for the dogs involved. A boar's razor-sharp tusks can inflict gaping wounds; the tusks of a large boar can reach 14 to 15 centimeters in length. A 2019 survey revealed that 95 percent of dogs used in wild boar hunts sustained injuries from wild boar. Approximately one in three dogs suffered injuries to their hind legs, an area that even special protective vests offer ineffective protection against.

The spectrum of injuries is well-documented. Typical traumas include falls, lacerations or puncture wounds, bite wounds, and gunshot wounds. Since the dog always leads the way during recreational hunting, the eyes, head, and neck are particularly vulnerable. Besides skin injuries of varying degrees, the body and extremities are highly exposed, especially during encounters with wild boar. There are countless guides and manuals for treating wounds in hunting dogs, explaining to recreational hunters how to administer first aid. The existence of such a vast body of literature on wound care should give us pause: injuries are not the exception, but the rule.

The recreational hunting industry has not responded to the risk of injury by restricting hunting practices, but rather with a booming market for protective equipment. Kevlar-reinforced vests, collars with artery protection, and GPS trackers are marketed as "solutions." A pack leader with 32 dogs openly states in a trade magazine that he rejects protective vests because dogs without painful contact with wild boar become "increasingly aggressive and bold," which "can inevitably lead to very serious injuries at some point." Other pack leaders report average annual kills of 1,200 wild boar. This is not nature conservation; this is industrialized killing with the dog as a tool.

The danger doesn't only come from wild boars. The chronicle of hunting accidents repeatedly includes cases where hobby hunting dogs were shot by hobby hunters during driven hunts because they were mistaken for game. In December 2022, a hobby hunting dog was shot in northern Hesse, even though it was wearing a high-visibility vest and wasn't pursuing any game. In November 2019, a hobby hunting dog was killed by a bullet during a wild boar hunt; two others were injured, and one had to be euthanized. In the district of Külsheim, a hobby hunter mistook his colleague's dog for a wild boar and shot it. Legally, if a dog is killed by a boar during a hobby hunt or remains trapped in its burrow, the dog owner is generally liable for the damage, because "they used their dog at their own risk and voluntarily." From an insurance perspective, the dog is considered property, and its suffering is a factor in the calculation.

The collateral damage extends beyond recreational hunting. During a driven hunt in the Vordereifel region in 2023, two recreational hunting dogs killed 15 sheep. Wildlife Protection Germany filed criminal charges against the hunt leader and dog handlers. In Rhineland-Palatinate in 2017, a recreational hunter was convicted for setting his 26 recreational hunting dogs on a cat and watching as the dogs killed it. In the Rhein-Lahn district in 2023, a recreational hunter repeatedly set his dog on an injured wild boar, shouting "catch it!" and "go for it!" Such cases demonstrate that the line between "usefulness" and brutalization is blurred.

More on this topic: Hunting and animal cruelty , and hobby hunters and their enjoyment of animal cruelty.

"Sharpness" as a breeding goal and tail docking as a symptom

Hobby hunters use terms like "game sharpness," "predator sharpness," and "wild boar sharpness" to describe dogs that should react aggressively towards wild animals. This "sharpness" is not natural behavior but is selectively bred and fostered through training. In relevant online forums, hobby hunters openly discuss which "kennels" produce the "sharpest" dogs and which breeds "work uncompromisingly on predators and wild boar." The term "kennel" is used in hobby hunting dog breeding to refer to breeding facilities, which, even in its terminology, reveals the instrumental treatment of the animals.

In Germany, the Animal Welfare Act explicitly prohibits "training or testing an animal's aggression against another living animal." However, this prohibition is systematically circumvented by hunting exemptions. The "necessary aggression towards wild animals" is not considered "aggression within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act" in the administrative regulations – a legal technicality that effectively negates the prohibition. In wild boar enclosures, young dogs are introduced to live wild boars. The operators speak of "controlled contact," but dogs exhibiting "excessive aggression" are banned from the enclosures, while dogs lacking "aggressiveness" are deemed unusable. The system produces a narrow range of tolerated aggression that is neither humane nor acceptable for the wild animal or the dog.

A particularly telling symptom of this system is tail docking. In Switzerland, ear cropping (since 1981) and tail docking (since 1997) are prohibited in dogs – even for hobby hunting dogs. Importing docked dogs is also forbidden. In Germany, however, the Animal Welfare Act allows an exception: For "hunting dogs," the tail may be docked in puppyhood if the procedure is "essential in individual cases for the intended use of the animal." The German Hunting Dog Association (JGHV) passed a resolution in 2021 declaring the "maintenance of this regulation urgently necessary for animal welfare reasons." The hobby hunting lobby defends the practice as "health protection," arguing that undocked dogs could injure their tails while flushing game in thickets. The German Veterinary Association for Animal Welfare (TVT) disagrees, and the German government also does not recommend tail docking.

The logic is the same as with bulletproof vests: instead of ending the dangerous practice, the dog's body is adapted to the practice. Newborn puppies lose part of their tails so they can later "function" better in the service of recreational hunting. Scientific studies have refuted the claim that very young dogs feel no pain during tail docking. Newborn dogs actually feel pain more intensely than adult dogs. A docked tail also puts the dog at a disadvantage in communicating with other dogs and in its movement.

Kennel life: A life on call

The living conditions of many hobby hunting dogs outside of the hunting season are a topic that hobby hunters are reluctant to discuss. In parts of German-speaking countries, and especially in Southern and Eastern Europe, hobby hunting dogs are predominantly kept in kennels, often in cramped conditions, without sufficient social contact or exercise. Even in Switzerland and Germany, hobby hunters sometimes keep their dogs in kennels because the animals' high drive makes normal cohabitation in a household difficult, particularly with breeds bred for maximum "aggressiveness.".

The Swiss Animal Welfare Ordinance stipulates in Article 68 ff. that dogs must have sufficient daily contact with people and, where possible, with other dogs. Keeping dogs alone in crates or kennels is prohibited. Dogs must be exercised outdoors daily to meet their needs. These regulations also apply to hobby hunting dogs. In practice, however, enforcement is incomplete, and hobby hunters argue that "high-drive" dogs require special housing conditions.

The Swiss Animal Protection Association (STS) states in its position paper that hobby hunting dogs trained to kill pose "a significant danger to their environment (humans, domestic and farm animals, wildlife)" and must be "kept under constant control (or in a kennel, on a leash, with a muzzle)," which is "not species-appropriate." The dilemma is inherent in the system: Hobby hunting breeds dogs with extreme instincts that can only be kept under restrictions in everyday life. The consequence is either inhumane treatment or the owners are constantly overwhelmed. This is the hobby hunting version of the irresolvable contradiction: A problem is bred, and restrictions are offered as the solution.

More on this topic: Switzerland still hunts, but why? and Dossier Hunting in Switzerland

"Disposing" of useless dogs: When the tool no longer works

The fate of hobby hunting dogs that don't meet the requirements is a blind spot within the hobby hunting community. Dogs that fail tests, get too old, are injured, or whose owners give up hobby hunting face an uncertain future. The animal welfare organization Jägerhunde eV confirms: "Experience has shown that surrendering a hunting dog to an animal shelter is often the worst solution, as the hunting dog, being a demanding working dog and specialist, doesn't find the right professional clientele there." Some animal shelters, for ethical reasons, no longer rehome dogs to hobby hunting because they cannot justify their renewed use.

Online platforms for rehoming hobby hunting dogs from "second-hand" sources illustrate the extent of the problem. Dogs are given up because "work, family, and three hunting dogs became too much for the hunter," because "the owner's hunting focus has changed," because the dog "can no longer be adequately exercised," or because moving house makes it impossible to take the dog along. The reasons are varied, but the result is the same: The dog loses its home because it was acquired as a hobby hunting tool and, without hobby hunting, has no further "use.".

In Southern Europe, the problem manifests itself in its most extreme form. Every year in Spain, tens of thousands of Galgos and Podencos are discarded after the end of the recreational hunting season on February 1st. They are abandoned, taken to kill shelters (perreras), shot, hanged, or killed in other brutal ways. The animal welfare organization VETO documents: "Galgos are bred in large numbers and kept in overcrowded enclosures. They are discarded if perceived deficiencies are apparent from birth, if they are injured, if their performance is too poor, or if they live longer than the average four years." The perreras are massively overcrowded: After a period of 11 to 28 days, dogs that remain unadopted are killed. This is often dismissed as a "Southern European problem," but the pattern is universal: Dogs are viewed as functional units, and when their function ceases, the dog becomes a problem.

Many hobby hunters are assumed to have a certain affection for their dogs. But is it truly love, or simply satisfaction from the dog's loyal devotion and selfless service to hunting? As soon as the dog's reliability wanes, this supposed love can turn into indifference or even harshness in some. A new dog is needed, and the cycle begins anew.

Swiss legal situation: gaps, exceptions, patchwork

Switzerland has a comparatively progressive animal welfare law that recognizes animals as sentient beings and ascribes dignity to them. Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Animal Welfare Act stipulates that "no one may unjustifiably inflict pain, suffering, or harm on an animal, cause it fear, or otherwise disregard its dignity." With regard to dogs, Switzerland goes further than its neighboring countries in some areas: Ear and tail docking has been prohibited since the 1980s and 1990s, the import of docked dogs is forbidden, and keeping them individually in boxes or kennels is not permitted according to Articles 68 et seq. of the Animal Welfare Ordinance.

However, in practice, this law is systematically undermined by legislation governing recreational hunting. Article 22, paragraph 1, letter d of the Animal Welfare Ordinance prohibits the use of live animals for training and testing dogs, but grants an explicit exception for recreational hunting dogs. This exception is the legal crux of the problem: it permits a practice that would be considered animal cruelty for all other dog owners.

Hunting in burrows is prohibited in several cantons (Bern, Zurich, Basel-Landschaft, Vaud, Thurgau), but remains legal in others. A nationwide ban is lacking. The TIR (Tier im Innkreis) has demonstrated that hunting in burrows constitutes animal cruelty under Article 26 of the Animal Welfare Act. Nevertheless, the authorities do not intervene because the legislation governing recreational hunting is treated as a "lex specialis": the Animal Welfare Act applies, but recreational hunting has its own rules. The cantonal hunting dog regulations stipulate that only trained dogs may be used for hunting in burrows, but leave open how this training should be conducted in accordance with animal welfare standards. This is the Swiss version of a regulatory loophole: training is mandated, but no legal training opportunities are provided, and it is tacitly tolerated that training takes place in less regulated countries.

Regulations for driven hunts vary from canton to canton. In the canton of Schwyz, for example, only hobby hunting dogs that have passed a obedience and tracking test will be permitted to be used from 2024 onwards. The canton of Zurich has created the possibility in its new hunting law to limit the number of driven hunts and to completely prohibit fox hunting. The Swiss Animal Protection Association (STS) fundamentally demands that "only dogs trained for blood tracking may be used" and that "the killing of wounded game by dogs should be strictly avoided." These demands are not yet comprehensively enshrined in law. There is no obligation to report injured or killed hobby hunting dogs at either the federal or cantonal level. Switzerland records approximately 100,000 wild animals killed by hobby hunters annually. No one knows how many hobby hunting dogs are injured or killed in the process.

More on this topic: Dossier on hunter images: Double standards, dignity and the blind spot of recreational hunting and sample texts for initiatives critical of hunting.

What would need to change

Nationwide ban on hunting foxes in their dens: Hunting foxes in their dens is unnecessary for fox population control, causes unnecessary suffering for dogs and wild animals, and, according to the TIR (Tier im Innkreis), constitutes animal cruelty. The cantons that have already banned it demonstrate that it works. Model motion: Sample texts for motions critical of hunting.
Deletion of the recreational hunting exemption in Art. 22 para. 1 lit. d of the Animal Welfare Ordinance: The prohibition of training dogs on live animals must apply without exception. Artificial burrows, wild boar enclosures, and training on live ducks are incompatible with a modern understanding of animal welfare. Mandatory reporting of injuries and deaths of recreational hunting dogs: Currently, there are no official statistics. A reporting requirement would reveal the true extent of the problem and create a basis for regulatory measures. Model motion: Recreational hunting and crime: Suitability tests, reporting requirements, and consequences
Stricter regulations for keeping hunting dogs: Keeping hobby hunting dogs solely in kennels outside of the hunting season must be consistently prosecuted as a violation of the Animal Welfare Ordinance. The existing regulations (Art. 68 ff. Animal Welfare Ordinance) must also be actively enforced for hobby hunting dogs.
Proof of whereabouts for all hobby hunting dogs: Hobby hunters should be required to provide complete documentation of their dogs' whereabouts, similar to the registration requirement via microchip and database. This would make it more difficult to "dispose of" unusable dogs.
Restrictions on the use of dogs in driven hunts: Maximum deployment times, mandatory protective equipment, veterinary accompaniment, and a limit on the number of group hunts per season. Model proposal: Ban on driven hunts.

Argumentation

"The hunting dog is the hobby hunter's best friend." A "best friend" that is sent into fox dens and against wild boars, that bears the cost of its own injuries, and ends up in an animal shelter if deemed "unsuitable," deserves a different description. The emotional portrayal of the human-dog relationship masks an instrumental one: The dog is either "useful" or it isn't.

"Without hunting dogs, humane recreational hunting would be impossible." This argument is circular: Recreational hunting creates the need for tracking wounded animals because hunters shoot them instead of killing them immediately. Then, the argument is made that dogs are necessary for tracking. The German Veterinary Association for Animal Welfare (TVT) reports that during driven hunts, two-thirds of wild boar do not have immediately fatal gunshot wounds. According to the TVT, approximately 60 percent of female deer have abdominal gunshot wounds. The "solution" to the problem that recreational hunting itself creates is not an argument for using dogs, but rather against recreational hunting.

"Hunting foxes in their dens is necessary to regulate fox populations." In reality, hunting foxes in their dens is irrelevant: in 2006, only five to ten percent of all foxes killed in Switzerland were killed through den hunting. Studies show that fox hunting generally has no long-term impact on the population because losses are compensated for by increased reproduction. Geneva has demonstrated since 1974, and Luxembourg since 2015, that it is possible to manage fox populations without hunting or recreational hunting.

"Dogs want to work – hobby hunting corresponds to their natural instinct." However, the "aggressiveness" towards wild animals is not a natural instinct, but a trait selectively bred for. There are countless ways to provide dogs with species-appropriate exercise without putting them in life-threatening situations: tracking, mantrailing, agility, search and rescue work. The claim that dogs "need" hobby hunting confuses the need for exercise with the misuse of hunting as a tool.

"Ballistic vests and GPS trackers make recreational hunting safer." However, these vests only protect the torso, not the most frequently injured areas. They restrict movement and increase the risk of overheating. One pack leader rejects them, arguing that without learning to tolerate pain, dogs would become "increasingly aggressive and bold." This technological upgrade creates an illusion of control instead of addressing the root cause.

"These are isolated incidents – most hunting dogs are well treated." The 95 percent injury rate during wild boar hunting is not an "isolated incident," but the norm. Training on live animals is not the exception, but standard practice. The disposal of "unusable" dogs is the logical consequence of a system that views dogs as mere tools.

"Switzerland has the most progressive animal welfare laws." Switzerland banned tail docking in 1997. At the same time, Article 22 of the Animal Welfare Ordinance allows an exception that permits recreational hunters to use live wild animals as training aids for their dogs. This practice would be punishable for any other dog owner. This is not progressive animal welfare legislation, but rather a two-tier system.

Quick links

Posts on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

External sources:

Our claim

Hobby hunting dogs are doubly victimized: they are bred for a system that sends them into life-threatening situations, trains them on live animals, selects for aggression, discards them if deemed "unsuitable," and often keeps them in unsuitable conditions outside of the hunting season. At the same time, the wild animals they are set upon suffer from mortal fear, injuries, and stress. Swiss animal welfare law grants hobby hunters exceptions that it does not allow any other dog owner and tolerates a patchwork of cantonal regulations that is unworthy of one of the world's wealthiest countries. Hobby hunters like to portray themselves as "dog lovers," but the facts paint a different picture: a system that views animals as a means to an end and hides their suffering behind hunting jargon and traditional rhetoric. This dossier is continuously updated as new data, rulings, or political developments necessitate it.

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