Hunting Dogs: Use, Suffering and Animal Welfare

Around 29,000 recreational hunters are active in Switzerland (Federal Hunting Statistics 2025: 29,328 people practising hunting). Many of them use dogs: as flushing dogs in driven hunts, as earth dogs in fox dens, as tracking dogs in follow-up searches.

What recreational hunters market as "animal-welfare-compliant hunting" turns out, on closer inspection, to be a system of organised animal use that sends dogs into life-threatening situations, provides for their training on live wild animals, disposes of them when they prove "unsuitable" and often condemns them to a stimulus-poor existence in a kennel outside the season.

The Swiss Animal Welfare Ordinance fundamentally prohibits "the use of live animals to train or test dogs" (Art. 22 para. 1 let. c TSchV), but grants an explicit exemption for recreational hunting dogs. In its position paper, the Swiss Animal Protection (STS) rejects the use of ground dogs in earth hunting on animal welfare grounds, the Foundation for Animal Law (TIR) concludes that earth hunting meets the criteria for animal cruelty on several counts, and a 2019 survey shows that 95 per cent of the dogs deployed in drive hunts for wild boar sustain injuries. In Germany, the tails of recreational hunting dogs may be docked, a practice that has been banned in Switzerland since 1997. This dossier documents the facts, identifies the animal welfare problems and shows why the way recreational hunting treats "its" dogs is far less loving than hunters' language suggests.

What awaits you here

• Training on live animals. How recreational hunting dogs are "worked in" on live foxes in artificial earth facilities and on wild boars in enclosures, and why the Swiss Animal Welfare Ordinance contains an explicit exemption for recreational hunting.
• Earth hunting. Why sending dogs into fox dens is equally brutal for the dog and the wild animal, which cantons have already banned earth hunting, and why the TIR classes the practice as animal cruelty.
• Drive hunts and wild boar. How flushing dogs end up in life-threatening confrontations during drive hunts and driven hunts, and why 95 per cent of the dogs deployed suffer injuries.
• «Sharpness» as a breeding goal. What «raubwildscharf» (sharp on small predators) and «schwarzwildscharf» (sharp on wild boar) mean, why in Germany the tails of recreational hunting dogs may be docked, and why these practices contradict animal welfare.
• Kennel keeping and living conditions. Why many recreational hunting dogs lead an impoverished, under-stimulated existence outside the season, and what the Animal Welfare Ordinance requires.
• «Disposing of» useless dogs. What happens to dogs that fail their tests, and why the fate of the galgos and podencos is not an isolated case.
• The Swiss legal situation. How the Animal Welfare Act regulates the use of recreational hunting dogs, where the gaps lie and what would need to change.
• Argumentary. Answers to the most common justifications of the recreational hunting lobby.
• Quick links. All relevant articles, studies and dossiers at a glance.

Training on live animals: how dogs are drilled to become «usable»

For many dogs, training for recreational hunting begins as early as puppyhood and involves methods that are highly problematic from an animal welfare perspective. Three forms of training come in for particular criticism: artificial earth-hunting facilities, wild boar enclosures and training on the live duck. All three have one thing in common: live wild animals are instrumentalised as objects for practice and testing, backed by an explicit legal basis that overrides general animal welfare protections in the interests of recreational hunting.

Article 22(1)(c) of the Swiss Animal Welfare Ordinance (TSchV) prohibits “the use of live animals to train or test dogs”. The exception follows immediately: “except for the training and testing of hunting dogs pursuant to Article 75 paragraph 1 and for the training of livestock guardian dogs and driving dogs”. This exception is remarkable. In plain terms, it means that what would count as animal cruelty for every other dog owner (setting a dog on a live animal) is legal for recreational hunters. Article 75(1) TSchV expressly permits the use of live animals at artificial earths for earth hunting, in wild boar enclosures, and for pointing and retrieving. Paragraph 2 does prohibit direct contact between dog and wild animal, “unless it is indispensable for achieving the training or testing objective”, and paragraph 3 merely stipulates that “facilities for the training and testing of hunting dogs on live wild animals” require cantonal authorisation. The practice itself is not prohibited; only its infrastructure is regulated.

In so-called den-training facilities, dogs are prepared for Earth hunting. 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 it. Although in modern facilities dog and fox are separated by a glass pane or a grille, the fox endures mortal terror. The organisation Wildtierschutz Deutschland documented the conditions at a den-training facility near Hanau: “A stench greets the visitor approaching the far too small fox pen. The droppings of the foxes, who remain on the bare concrete floor, appear not to have been removed for days. Outside the fencing, a fox carcass crawling with maggots is decomposing.” Around 100 such facilities exist in Germany. In Switzerland there are hardly any training options that comply with the law, which is why Swiss recreational hunters often have their dogs trained abroad. In its position paper, the STS concludes: “In the STS's view, training dogs on live foxes constitutes animal cruelty.”

In wild boar enclosures, dogs are introduced to wild boars from the age of about nine months. The dogs are meant to learn to find black game, bay it and set it in motion without endangering themselves. In Germany there are at least 19 such enclosures. In Switzerland, a working group of the Conference of Hunting and Fishing Administrators (JFK) has been examining for some time where a first wild boar enclosure could be built. The wild boars in the enclosure are hand-reared and used to dogs; their behaviour bears no resemblance to that of free-living members of their species. Dogs that "function" there may behave completely differently in the wild. The question also arises of what happens to dogs that do not show the desired "sharpness" in the enclosure. It is to be feared that many of these dogs will be deployed anyway or disposed of as "useless". To paraphrase the hunters' proverb: "Whoever wants to harvest boars' heads must give dogs' heads for it."

In training on the live duck, a mallard's wing is clipped, glued or fitted with a paper cuff so that it cannot fly. The duck is released on a body of water, where the dog is supposed to find it and retrieve it. In the technical jargon this is called "work on the temporarily flightless duck". What it means for the duck is clear: it is degraded to a training object and exposed to an extreme stress situation from which it cannot escape. The German Hunting Association defends the practice as "compliant with animal welfare" and argues that without testing on the live duck, "proof of usability cannot be provided". The conclusion is revealing: because recreational hunting does not want to change its examination systems, the animal has to suffer.

The training of recreational hunting dogs follows a strictly instrumental understanding: the dog is a tool that has to be made "usable". If the dog fails the test, a new one is bought. While thousands of dogs wait for a home in animal shelters, every new purchase of a recreational hunting dog encourages overproduction through breeding.

More on this: Earth hunting: legal animal cruelty in the name of hunting tradition and Wild boar enclosures? No, thank you!

Earth hunting: bloody fights underground

Earth hunting is among 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 setts to drive the wild animals into the open, where waiting recreational hunters shoot them. Reality regularly departs from the “ideal case” described by the hunting community. Underground fights are common, in which dog and wild animal are seriously injured or die.

The veterinarian Dr Ralf Unna reports from his practice: “If they do come out alive, they are often in a terrible state. I can tell you of lower jaws broken seven or eight times over, of animals with multiple injuries to the forelegs and the face who have to be nursed for weeks just to survive. That is a clear breach of the Animal Welfare Act.” Because dogs enter the burrow head first during earth hunting, their eyes, lips, jaws and throats are particularly at risk. Broken teeth, circulatory weakness, contagious diseases such as mange, and ear infections are among the typical consequences. Dirt and dust in the tunnels can clog and inflame the dogs’ eyelids. In the canton of Bern, the hunting directorate ordinance stipulates that “wounded game and hunting dogs left in the burrow” may only be “dug out with the involvement of the game warden.” The very existence of this rule shows that dogs getting stuck is not a theoretical possibility but a regularly occurring reality.

For the wild animals, earth hunting is no less brutal. A fox den is by nature a place of refuge that no enemies enter. Earth hunting breaks with this basic principle and exposes foxes and badgers to extreme stress. Particularly perfidious: earth hunting is often carried out in the winter months until the end of February, a time when heavily pregnant vixens are expecting their young in the den or are already rearing cubs. In German-speaking countries, dog fights, cock fights and any form of setting animals against each other are prohibited, yet recreational hunting is allowed to do exactly that and calls it “earth hunting”. Hunting jargon glosses over the reality: dogs “work” in the den, the fox is “bolted”. The reality is: one animal is set upon another, and an animal fight ensues.

In a legal opinion (Bolliger, Rüttimann, Gerritsen: «Baujagd unter dem Aspekt des Tierschutz- und Jagdrechts», Schriften zum Tier im Recht Vol. 10, 2012), the Foundation for Animal Law (TIR) has demonstrated that earth hunting meets the criminal definition of animal cruelty under Art. 26 of the Swiss Animal Welfare Act (TSchG) on several counts, both with regard to the wild animals and the dogs used. A representative Demoscope survey commissioned by the STS (September 2017, 1,015 respondents) shows that 64 per cent of the population support a ban on earth hunting, while only 21 per cent want to keep it (A ban on senseless fox hunting is long overdue). Criticism is increasingly coming from within the recreational hunting community itself.

In Switzerland, only a few cantons have so far banned or restricted earth hunting: Thurgau was the first canton, followed later by Zurich. In the canton of Bern, a ban was demanded by motion in 2020, but earth hunting remains permitted there. The canton of Zurich has banned fox earth hunting entirely in its new hunting act. Yet it remains a cantonal patchwork: in other cantons earth hunting is still practised, and there is no nationwide ban. The supposed 'necessity' of this hunting method is a myth: in 2006, only five to ten per cent of all foxes killed in Switzerland were killed by earth hunting. Studies show that fox hunting in general has no long-term effect on the population, because losses are compensated by increased reproduction. The canton of Geneva has shown since 1974 that wildlife management works without recreational hunting, and Luxembourg has shown since 2015 that it works without fox hunting.

The STS states its position unequivocally: «For foxes and badgers, the den is naturally a place of refuge that no enemies enter. Recreational hunters should respect this too. Earth hunting is also unnecessary for hunting foxes, as there are gentler alternatives.»

More on this: Cruel hunting methods: tolerated and promoted and Small game hunting and wildlife diseases

Drive hunts and wild boars: when dogs fight wild boars

Drive hunts and driven hunts on wild boars use flushing dogs to force the animals out of cover. What recreational hunters describe as “necessary” for regulating wild boar populations exposes the dogs deployed to considerable danger. The razor-sharp canines (tusks) of a boar can tear gaping wounds; the tusks of a large boar reach 14 to 15 centimetres. A survey from 2019 found that 95 per cent of the dogs used in wild boar hunts had suffered injuries caused by wild boars. Around one in three dogs was injured on the hind legs, an area that even special protective vests fail to shield effectively.

The range of injuries is widely documented. Typical traumas include falls, lacerations or stab wounds, bite injuries and gunshot wounds. Because in recreational hunting the dog always goes in head first, the eyes, head and neck are particularly at risk. Besides skin injuries of varying severity, the body and limbs are heavily exposed, above all in confrontations with wild boars. There are “countless guides and manuals on treating wounds in hunting dogs”, explaining to recreational hunters how to give first aid. The very existence of an entire body of advice literature on wound care should give us pause: injuries are not the exception but the rule.

The recreational hunting industry has responded to the risk of injury not by restricting the practice, but with a booming market for protective equipment. Kevlar-reinforced protective vests, collars with artery protection and GPS transmitters are marketed as the “solution”. A pack handler with 32 dogs openly explains in a trade magazine that he rejects protective vests because dogs without painful contact with sows become “sharper and bolder all the time”, “which will inevitably lead at some point to very serious injuries”. Other pack handlers report average annual bags of 1,200 wild boars. That is not nature conservation; it is industrialised killing with the dog as a tool.

The danger does not come from wild boars alone. The record of hunting accidents repeatedly includes cases in which recreational hunting dogs were killed or injured during drive hunts were shot by recreational hunters who mistook them for game. In December 2022, a recreational hunting dog was shot in northern Hesse even though it was wearing a signal vest and was not chasing game. In November 2019, a recreational hunting dog died from a bullet wound during a wild boar hunt; two others were injured, and one had to be put down. In the district of Külsheim, a recreational hunter mistook his colleague's dog for a wild boar and shot it. Legally, the position is this: if the dog is struck by a boar during recreational hunting or stays trapped in the earth, the dog owner generally bears the loss, because "he deployed his dog on his own responsibility and voluntarily". For insurance purposes, the dog is a thing, and its suffering a factor in the calculation.

The collateral damage extends beyond recreational hunting. During a driven hunt in the Vordereifel in 2023, two recreational hunting dogs killed 15 sheep. Wildtierschutz Deutschland filed a criminal complaint against the hunt leader and the 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 urged his dog on against an injured wild boar with the words "get it" and "go on". Such cases show that the line between "usability" and brutalisation is blurred.

More on this: Hunting and animal cruelty and Recreational hunters and their delight in animal cruelty

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

Recreational hunting speaks of "game sharpness", "predator sharpness" and "wild boar sharpness" when it means that dogs should react aggressively towards wild animals. This "sharpness" is not natural behaviour but is deliberately bred and reinforced through training. In the relevant forums, recreational 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 recreational hunting dog breeding for breeding establishments, which already reveals, in the very language, the instrumental attitude towards the animals.

In Germany, the Animal Welfare Act expressly prohibits "training or testing an animal for sharpness on another living animal". Yet this ban is systematically undermined by hunting exemptions. The "required game sharpness" is not classed in the administrative regulations as "sharpness within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act", a legal quibble that effectively nullifies the ban. In wild boar enclosures, young dogs are introduced to live wild boars. The operators speak of "controlled contact", yet dogs with "excess sharpness" are banned from the enclosure, while dogs without "sharpness" are deemed useless. The system produces a narrow band of tolerated aggression that is compatible with animal welfare neither for the wild animal nor for the dog.

A particularly telling symptom of the system is tail docking. In Switzerland, the docking of ears (since 1981) and tails (since 1997) is prohibited for dogs, including recreational hunting dogs. The import of docked dogs is likewise banned. In Germany, by contrast, the Animal Welfare Act permits an exception: in the case of "dogs to be used for hunting", the tail may be shortened in puppyhood if the procedure is "essential in the individual case for the intended use of the animal". In 2021, the German hunting dog association (JGHV) passed a resolution declaring "the retention of this rule to be urgently necessary for animal welfare reasons". The recreational hunting lobby defends the practice as "health protection", claiming that undocked dogs could injure their tails when flushing game in dense undergrowth. The German veterinary association for animal welfare (TVT) disagrees, and the federal government does not recommend docking either.

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

More on this: The psychology of hunting and Hunting myths: 12 claims you should scrutinise critically

Kennel keeping: a life on call

The living conditions of many recreational hunting dogs outside the season are a subject that recreational hunters prefer not to discuss. In parts of the German-speaking world, and above all in southern and eastern Europe, recreational hunting dogs are kept predominantly in kennels, often in cramped spaces, without sufficient social contact and without adequate stimulation. In Switzerland and Germany too, recreational hunters sometimes keep their dogs in kennels, because the animals' strong drive makes normal life in the household difficult, particularly in breeds that have been bred for maximum “sharpness”.

Article 70 of the Swiss Animal Welfare Ordinance stipulates that dogs must have sufficient daily contact with people and, where possible, with other dogs. If dogs are kept in boxes or kennels for longer than three months, they need visual, auditory and olfactory contact with another dog, unless they spend at least five hours a day outside the enclosure with people or dogs. Under Article 71, dogs must be taken outdoors every day in line with their needs; time spent in a kennel does not count as exercise. These rules also apply to recreational hunting dogs. In practice, however, enforcement is patchy, and recreational hunters argue that “high-drive” dogs simply require special housing conditions.

In its position paper, the STS states that recreational hunting dogs trained to kill pose “a not inconsiderable danger to their surroundings (people, pets and livestock, wild animals)” and must be “kept under constant control (or in a kennel, on a lead, muzzled)”, “which is not species-appropriate”. The dilemma is inherent in the system: recreational hunting breeds dogs with extreme drives that can only be kept in everyday life under restrictions. The consequence is either housing that is not species-appropriate or a permanent overburdening of their keepers. This is the recreational hunting version of the irresolvable contradiction: a problem is bred, and the restriction is offered as the solution.

More on this: Switzerland hunts, but why still? and Hunting in Switzerland: figures, systems and myths

“Disposing” of useless dogs: when the tool no longer works

The fate of recreational hunting dogs that fail to meet requirements is a blind spot of the recreational hunting community. Dogs that fail exams, grow too old, are injured or whose owners give up recreational hunting face an uncertain future. The animal welfare association Jägerhunde e.V. confirms: “It has become clear that handing a hunting dog over to an animal shelter is often the worst solution, because the hunting dog, as a demanding working dog and specialist, does not meet the right expert clientele there.” For ethical reasons, some animal shelters no longer rehome dogs back into recreational hunting because they cannot justify their renewed deployment.

The rehoming platforms for “second-hand” recreational hunting dogs show the scale of the problem. Dogs are given up because “work, family and three hunting dogs became too much for the hunter”, because the “hunter's hunting focus has changed”, because the dog “can no longer be kept sufficiently occupied” or because a move makes it impossible to take the dog along. The reasons vary, but the outcome is the same: the dog loses its home because it was acquired as a recreational hunting tool and, without recreational hunting, has no more “use”.

In southern Europe, the problem appears 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 1 February. They are abandoned, handed over to killing stations (perreras), shot, hanged or killed in brutal ways. The animal welfare organisation VETO documents: “Galgos are bred in huge numbers and kept in mass enclosures. They are discarded if supposed defects are apparent from birth, if they are injured, if they perform poorly or if they grow older than an average of four years.” The perreras are massively overcrowded: after a period of eleven to 28 days, dogs that have not been rehomed are killed. This is readily dismissed as a “southern European problem”, yet the pattern is universal: dogs are regarded as mere instruments, and when the function ceases, the dog becomes a problem.

Many recreational hunters are assumed to feel a certain affection for their dogs. But is it really love, or satisfaction at the dog's loyal obedience and selfless service to the hunter's interests? As soon as reliability wanes, the supposed love turns into indifference or harshness for some. A new dog has to be found, and the cycle begins anew.

More on this: Alternatives to recreational hunting and What it takes to be a recreational hunter

The Swiss legal situation: gaps, exceptions, a patchwork

Switzerland has a comparatively progressive animal welfare act that recognises animals as sentient beings and attributes dignity to them. Art. 4 para. 2 of the Animal Welfare Act (TSchG) states that "no one may unjustifiably cause an animal pain, suffering or harm, put it in a state of anxiety or otherwise disregard its dignity". When it comes to dogs, Switzerland goes further than its neighbours in some respects: the docking of ears and tails has been banned since the 1980s and 1990s, the import of docked dogs is prohibited, and Art. 70 of the Animal Welfare Ordinance (TSchV) requires dogs kept in boxes or kennels to have contact with other dogs.

In practice, however, this law is systematically undermined by recreational hunting legislation. Art. 22 para. 1 let. c TSchV does prohibit the use of live animals for training and testing dogs, but it grants an explicit exemption for recreational hunting dogs. This exemption is the legal core of the problem: it permits a practice that would count as animal cruelty for every other dog owner.

Earth hunting has so far been banned only in a few cantons (Thurgau, Zurich) and remains legal in most others. There is no nationwide ban. The TIR has demonstrated that earth hunting meets the definition of animal cruelty under Art. 26 TSchG. The authorities nevertheless fail to intervene, because recreational hunting legislation is treated as a "lex specialis": the Animal Welfare Act applies, but recreational hunting has its own rules. Cantonal hunting dog ordinances require that only trained dogs be used for earth hunting, yet leave open how this training is supposed to be carried out in compliance with animal welfare. This is the Swiss version of a regulatory vacuum: training is mandated, but no lawful training opportunities are provided, and it is tacitly tolerated that the training takes place in less regulated countries abroad.

Different cantons apply different rules to drive hunts and driven hunts. In the canton of Schwyz, for instance, from 2024 only recreational hunting dogs that have passed a down-stay and obedience test may be used. The canton of Zurich has created, in its new hunting act, the possibility of limiting the number of driven hunts and of banning fox earth hunting entirely. The STS demands as a matter of principle that “only dogs trained specifically for tracking work may be used” and that “the killing of injured game by dogs must urgently be avoided”. These demands have so far not been comprehensively enshrined in law. A reporting obligation for injured or killed recreational hunting dogs exists neither at federal nor at cantonal level. The Federal Hunting Statistics 2025 records 133,508 wild animals killed; how many recreational hunting dogs are injured or killed in the process, nobody knows.

More on this: Dossier on trophy photos: double standards, dignity and the blind spot of recreational hunting and Template texts for hunting-critical motions

What needs to change

• Nationwide ban on earth hunting: Earth hunting is not necessary for fox management, causes needless suffering for dogs and wild animals and, in the assessment of the TIR, constitutes animal cruelty. The cantons that have already banned it show that it works. Template motion: Template texts for hunting-critical motions
• Deletion of the recreational hunting exemption in Art. 22 para. 1 let. c TSchV: The ban on training dogs on live animals must apply without exception. Artificial fox earths, wild boar enclosures and training on live ducks are incompatible with a modern understanding of animal welfare.
• Mandatory reporting of injuries and deaths among recreational hunting dogs: There is currently no official statistic. A reporting obligation would make the true extent visible and create a basis for regulatory measures. Template motion: Recreational Hunting and Crime: Suitability Checks, Reporting Obligations and Consequences
• Tightening of the rules on keeping dogs: Keeping recreational hunting dogs exclusively in kennels outside the season must be consistently prosecuted as a breach of the Animal Welfare Ordinance. The existing provisions (Art. 70 and 71 TSchV) must also be actively enforced for recreational hunting dogs.
• Proof of whereabouts for all recreational hunting dogs: Recreational hunters should be required to document the whereabouts of their dogs without gaps, analogous to the reporting obligation via microchip and database. This would make it harder to “dispose of” dogs deemed unusable.
• Restriction on the use of dogs in drive hunts and driven hunts: Maximum working times, mandatory protective equipment, veterinary supervision and a limit on the number of group hunts per season. Template motion: Ban on driven hunts and drive hunts

Talking points

«The hunting dog is the recreational hunter's best friend.» A «best friend» who is sent into fox dens and against wild boars, who bears the cost himself when injured and ends up in an animal shelter when deemed «unsuitable» deserves a different description. The emotional staging of the human–dog relationship masks an instrumental one: the dog is «useful» or it is not.

«Without hunting dogs, animal-welfare-compliant recreational hunting would not be possible.» The argument is circular: recreational hunting produces follow-up searches because it wounds animals instead of killing them instantly. It then argues that dogs are needed for the follow-up search. The Tierärztliche Vereinigung für Tierschutz (TVT, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Welfare) reports that in driven hunts two thirds of wild boars show shots that were not immediately lethal. According to the TVT, around 60 per cent of female roe deer show abdominal gunshot wounds. The «solution» to a problem that recreational hunting itself creates is not an argument for using dogs, but against recreational hunting.

«Earth hunting is necessary to regulate fox populations.» Earth hunting is in practice irrelevant: in 2006, only five to ten per cent of all foxes killed in Switzerland were killed by earth hunting. Studies show that fox hunting in general has no long-term effect on the population, because losses are compensated by increased reproduction. Geneva has shown since 1974 that it is possible without recreational hunting, and Luxembourg since 2015 that it is possible without fox hunting.

«Dogs want to work; recreational hunting corresponds to their natural instinct.» The «sharpness» towards wild animals is not a natural instinct but a trait deliberately bred into them. There are countless ways of keeping dogs suitably occupied without sending them into life-threatening situations: tracking work, mantrailing, agility, search-and-rescue work. The claim that dogs «need» recreational hunting confuses the need for activity with abuse as a tool.

«Protective vests and GPS transmitters make recreational hunting safer.» Protective vests shield only the torso, not the areas most frequently injured. They restrict mobility and increase the risk of overheating. One pack leader rejects them because dogs without pain-based learning would become “ever sharper and bolder”. Technical upgrades create an illusion of control instead of removing the cause.

“These are isolated cases; most hunting dogs are treated well.” An injury rate of 95 per cent in wild boar hunting is not an “isolated case” but the norm. Training on live animals is not an exception but standard practice. The disposal of “useless” dogs is the logical consequence of a system that regards dogs as functional tools.

“Switzerland has the most progressive animal welfare legislation.” Switzerland banned tail docking in dogs in 1997. At the same time, Art. 22 of the Animal Welfare Ordinance (TSchV) permits an exception allowing recreational hunting to use live wild animals as training objects for dogs, a practice that would be punishable for any other dog owner. That is not progressive animal welfare law, but a two-tier society.

Quick links

Articles on Wild beim Wild:

• Earth hunting: legal animal cruelty in the name of hunting tradition
• Wild boar enclosures? No, thank you!
• Cruel hunting methods: tolerated and promoted
• Recreational hunters and their delight in animal cruelty
• Hunting and animal cruelty
• Small game hunting and wildlife diseases
• Zurich: first canton to ban alcohol for recreational hunters
• Initiative calls for «Game wardens instead of hunters»
• Switzerland hunts, but why still?
• Poland ends fur farming: a victory for animals

Related dossiers:

• Hunting and Wildlife Diseases
• Night hunting and high-tech: the myth of fair hunting
• Hunting Dogs: Use, Suffering and Animal Welfare
• Lead ammunition: the toxic legacy of recreational hunting
• High hunt Switzerland: Traditional ritual and stress test
• Swine fever as a justification for recreational hunting
• Hunting Accidents in Switzerland
• Hunting and Animal Welfare: What the Practice Does to Wild Animals
• Hunting and Weapons
• Driven Hunt in Switzerland
• Wait Hunting: Waiting, Technology and Risks
• Earth hunting
• Trap hunting
• Wait hunting
• Special Hunt in Grisons
• Swiss Hunting Statistics 2025: What the Federal Figures Show
• Poaching and hunting crime in Switzerland: Systematic impunity and the limits of self-control

Our Standard

Recreational hunting dogs are doubly victimised: they are bred for a system that sends them into life-threatening situations, trains them on live animals, selects them for aggression, disposes of them when they are deemed “unsuitable” and, outside the season, often keeps them in conditions that are not species-appropriate. At the same time, the wild animals they are set upon suffer mortal fear, injuries and stress. Swiss animal welfare law grants recreational hunting exceptions that it allows no other dog owner, and tolerates a cantonal patchwork unworthy of one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Recreational hunters like to present themselves as “dog lovers”, yet the facts paint a different picture: a system that regards animals as a means to an end and hides their suffering behind hunters' jargon and the rhetoric of tradition. This dossier is updated continuously as new data, rulings or political developments require.

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