Stand Hunting: Waiting, Technology and Risks

Stand hunting is portrayed in hunting self-representation as a controlled, quiet and animal-welfare-friendly alternative to drive hunting. A closer examination reveals a more nuanced picture. Stand hunting frequently takes place in high-risk lighting conditions, is heavily mechanized, relies on elevated blind infrastructure that is illegal in many parts of Switzerland, and is by no means free from grazing shots, missed shots and tracking wounded game. Furthermore: The success rate of tracking wounded game lies at merely 35 to 65 percent according to Swiss Animal Protection STS, depending on the canton. Around half of the wild animals wounded during recreational hunting are therefore never found and die slowly without help.

Stand hunting is thus not the 'harmless hunting method' it is communicated to be. It is a hunting method with a high technological component, legally problematic infrastructure in public spaces and structurally conditioned animal welfare problems that arise independently of the quality of individual hunters. This dossier exposes the reality behind the ideal.

What awaits you here

How stand hunting works in practice: Process, locations, methods and the difference to drive hunting.
Twilight, moonlight, fog: When 'quiet' doesn't mean 'safe': What the STS report says about shooting conditions and grazing shot risks.
Grazing shots, missed shots, tracking wounded game: The reality behind the ideal: What Swiss data and the STS report concretely prove.
Elevated blinds as infrastructure: From planks to hunting towers: How stand hunting turns forests into hunting installation areas.
Illegal elevated blinds: When hunting practice undermines building and protection regulations: What spatial planning law, forest law and cantonal practice say about illegal elevated blinds.
Dangers to the public: Rotten, unmarked, uncontrolled: Why illegal hunting blinds are also a security problem.
Thermal imaging, night vision, silencers: When technology lowers inhibition: What modern hunting technology means for animal welfare and safety.
Ethics: Ambush hunting and the question of asymmetry: What it means when an animal should not recognize the threat.
Demands: What minimum standards for ambush hunting would mean.
Arguments: Answers to the most common justifications.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and resources.

How ambush hunting works in practice

Typical is the ambush at dusk or night: The hunting person sits motionless for hours on a hunting blind, pulpit or high stand. They observe game trails, clearings, forest edges or baiting stations – feeding places that specifically attract wildlife – and wait until an animal comes within shooting distance. Hunting blinds vary from simple wooden ladders to elaborate pulpits with camouflage nets, heaters, reclining surfaces and mobile variants for flexible use.

In hunting communication, ambush hunting is presented as the preferred control method over driven hunting: more time for animal identification, calmer target, better bullet trap. This is not wrong, but it is incomplete. 'More time' does not mean 'no mistakes', and 'calmer animal' does not mean 'no animal suffering'. What matters is what happens in the details of practice and what the data show.

Dusk, moonlight, fog: When 'calm' does not mean 'safe'

Ambush hunting is preferably practiced when wildlife is active: at dusk, at night and in the hours just before dawn. Precisely these lighting conditions structurally increase the risk of poor hits. The STS report 'Wounding shots and tracking on Swiss hunting' explicitly names shots in moonlight, at dusk or in fog as factors that increase the risk of wounding shots.

Added to this are wind, cold and fatigue after hours of waiting, all factors that affect shot quality. These are not exceptional conditions. They are the typical conditions of ambush hunting. Anyone who sells a hunting method as 'animal-friendly' that is structurally practiced under the worst possible visibility conditions is not describing reality – but the ideal.

Wounding shots, missed shots, tracking: The reality behind the ideal

The STS report on wounding shots and tracking is the most important available Swiss document on the question of hunting-related animal suffering. Its central finding: The success rate of tracking wounded game is only 35 to 65 percent depending on the canton. This means: Around half of the wounded wildlife is never found. They flee, collapse somewhere and die slowly, invisible to statistics, the public and control.

According to STS, the identified risk factors for poor hits include inadequate practice, overestimation of abilities, false ambition, age-related limitations in vision and reaction ability, as well as external circumstances such as poor light and crosswinds. An obligation to track is not expressly regulated by law at the federal level. Anyone who fails to do so commits abuse in the sense of Art. 26 Para. 1 lit. a TSchG according to various experts, but can only be prosecuted criminally via this detour because the direct norm is missing. The STS has therefore been demanding an explicit federal legal tracking obligation, a reporting obligation and public transparency about success rates for years – so far without result.

Hunting blinds as infrastructure: From board to hunting pulpit

Ambush hunting is hardly conceivable without hunting blinds. What is often not discussed: Hunting blinds are not hunting accessories. They are structures and are therefore subject to Swiss spatial planning law, cantonal forest law and building law. The spectrum ranges from simple wooden boards to elaborate pulpits with camouflage nets, reclining surfaces, mobile variants and solid foundations.

Legally, the situation varies by canton, but is clearer than is often communicated:

Canton Bern: Pulpits in the forest – freestanding or attached to trees – are considered non-forestry small buildings and require an exemption permit according to Art. 24 RPG. Simple, mobile ladder seats that are removed after hunting are exempt from permits.
Canton Thurgau: The cantonal forest law requires in § 15 Para. 1 the consent of the canton (forestry office) for the building application for hunting blinds.
Canton Glarus: A cantonal information sheet regulates which hunting blinds require permits.
Canton Uri: Projects outside building zones are strictly examined according to federal law; the responsible cantonal office decides on zone conformity or exemption permits.
Municipality of Flims: Has introduced its own regulations for hunting blinds and huts, with clear requirements for location, building permits and maximum duration.

Illegal hunting blinds: When hunting practice undermines building and protection rules

Hundreds of unauthorized hunting blinds stand in Swiss forests, as the Beobachter documented as early as 2009. The situation has not fundamentally improved since then: Municipalities, cantons and the federal government rarely care about compliance with building laws and forest regulations. Anyone walking through Swiss forests sees countless pulpits that comply with neither area, material nor permit requirements, erected as if public forest were the private property of a hunting interest group.

The decisive point is: Consent from the landowner is not sufficient. Municipal building permits without cantonal approval are also not sufficient. Without correct exemption or zone conformity permits, such structures are simply unlawful. And the statute of limitations for building law violations does not automatically begin with construction in Switzerland – as long as significant nature and landscape interests are affected, unlawful hunting blinds can still be removed decades later. Public forest is not a private hunting preserve. The law says this clearly – enforcement has hardly followed this so far.

For organizations and political actors: Every hunting blind in the forest can be checked for its legality. A complete hunting blind inventory – with location, materials, construction year and permits – does not exist in any Swiss canton. This is not an administrative oversight. It is a control failure that could be specifically remedied.

Dangers to the public: rotten, unmarked, uncontrolled

Illegal and uncontrolled hunting blinds are not just a legal problem. They are also a safety problem. Old, rotten constructions can collapse – as a danger to recreational users who are out in the forest. If there is no clear marking with owner, hunting area and construction year, neither liability nor dismantling can be enforced.

What is self-evident in every other area – permit requirement, safety inspection, liability, dismantling when not in use – is missing for hunting blinds in the majority of Swiss cantons. The public discussion about ambush hunting therefore cannot stop at animal welfare and shooting accuracy. It must also ask the question: Who decided that Swiss forests may be used as hunting installation areas, without inventory, without control, without liability?

Thermal imaging, night vision, silencers: When technology lowers inhibition

Ambush hunting is today often the area where hunting technology has the strongest impact. Thermal cameras for wildlife detection, night vision optics, silencers and ballistic apps for wind correction and distance calculation fundamentally change the hunting field of action. The JSV revision 2025 has legalized silencers and shortened minimum barrel lengths – both measures that primarily serve the efficiency of ambush hunting.

What is often not addressed: Thermal imaging attachments when shooting are expressly problematic according to hunting technology experts. Point of impact deviations occur at different digital magnification levels, ricochets from minimal obstacles – a blade of grass is enough – lead to uncontrollable fragment hits, and the background is often not recognizable at the transition to the horizon. A German-speaking specialist dealer for hunting technology writes unambiguously: 'The explosively increased number of hunting accidents in night hunting with thermal imaging technology speaks a crystal-clear language.' When technology increases efficiency but simultaneously structurally introduces new sources of error, this is not progress for animal welfare. It is a shift of risk.

Ethics: Ambush hunting and the question of asymmetry

Ambush hunting is based on a fundamental asymmetry: The hunting person is elevated, camouflaged, motionless. The wildlife should not notice the threat, because otherwise it does not come close enough. This is precisely why ambush hunting is sometimes classified as 'less stressful' – the animal dies before it knows danger is there. This is true in the ideal case. In the non-ideal case, it does not die immediately, flees wounded and suffers for a long time.

The ethical problem runs deeper: The assessment 'animal-friendly' refers to the moment of death, not to the system behind it. The system includes targeted attraction through baiting, hours-long presence of humans in wildlife habitat, use of night and dusk as cover, technologization up to thermal imaging optics, and an infrastructure of hunting blinds that permanently changes the forest. Less flight stress at the moment of the shot does not mean less suffering in the system. It only means that the suffering occurs at a different point – and is more invisible.

Demands: What minimum standards would mean

If ambush hunting takes place at all, at least the following conditions would have to be met:

Complete hunting blind inventory per canton: Every hunting blind in the forest is recorded, measured and legally examined – with location, materials, construction year, permits and owner. Unlawful hunting blinds are removed or legalized within a defined period.
Permit requirement and removal obligation: Every new hunting stand requires a permit. Hunting stands that are no longer actively used must be removed within two hunting seasons. Liability lies with the hunting license holder.
Federal tracking obligation: Tracking wounded game is regulated by federal law. Every tracking operation must be reported. Cantonal success rates are published annually.
Ban on night hunting without safety perimeter: Night hunting with thermal imaging optics and silencers takes place only with prior official authorization and a clearly defined, closed perimeter.
No baiting in sensitive habitats: Baiting in natural forest reserves, protection forests, and recreational areas is prohibited.
Priority for non-lethal alternatives: Before a hunting stand shooting is authorized, documented non-lethal alternatives must have been examined and rejected.

Arguments

«Stand hunting is more animal-friendly than driven hunting – this is scientifically proven.» In direct comparison, stand hunting produces less flight stress. That's true. But 'less bad than driven hunting' is not an animal welfare standard. When around half of the wounded animals are not found and die, when shots are structurally fired under poor visibility conditions, and when the infrastructure is illegal in many places, 'less bad' is insufficient as an evaluation standard.

«Hunting stands are harmless tools – nobody makes a problem out of them.» The Beobachter investigation already showed in 2009: Hundreds of unauthorized hunting stands exist in Swiss forests. Federal spatial planning law is clear: anyone building outside construction zones needs an exceptional permit. Hunting stands without such permits are not in a legal gray area – they are in the realm of illegality.

«Thermal imaging and night vision make hunting safer and more precise.» Hunting equipment dealers explicitly contradict this statement: Thermal imaging attachments when shooting lead to point-of-impact deviations, unpredictable ricochets, and poor hit situations. The number of hunting accidents during night hunting with thermal imaging technology has increased. Efficiency and safety are not the same thing. Technology that lowers inhibitions does not create more ethical hunting practices.

«Tracking resolves the problem of wounded animals.» The STS data says the opposite: 35 to 65 percent success rate means that up to 65 percent of tracked animals are not found. Tracking is not a safety net. It is a partially functioning corrective in a system that structurally produces animal suffering.

Quick links

Articles on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

Our standard

Stand hunting is marketed as the 'controlled' form of hunting. In practice it means: shots at dusk, illegal hunting stands in forests, tracking success rates between 35 and 65 percent, and technologization that increases efficiency without improving safety. IG Wild beim Wild demands that stand hunting be subject to the same transparency, permit and animal welfare standards as any other activity with firearms in public spaces.

We document what lies behind the ideal so the public can judge whether 'quiet' also means 'responsible.' This dossier is continuously updated when new data, court rulings or political developments require it.

Call to Action: Do you know of illegal hunting stands in your region or have you documented hunting incidents during stand hunting? Write to us with date, location and source: wildbeimwild.com/kontakt

More on recreational hunting: In our Hunting Dossier we compile fact-checks, analyses and background reports.