Livestock protection Switzerland

Every year, around 4,000 sheep die in the Swiss mountains from disease, falls, and severe weather. Wolf attacks, which have dominated political debate for years, represent a fraction of this: wolves killed 336 farm animals in 2022 (the second-highest number since 1998), and 318 in Valais in 2025. Despite this, the money is not being spent on protecting the animals, but on killing the predators. In Valais, the culling programs in 2025 consumed between 0.8 and just over 1 million Swiss francs of taxpayers' money, roughly 35,000 francs per wolf. A single livestock guardian dog costs around 3,000 to 5,000 francs per year and protects an entire flock.

This dossier shows which livestock protection measures work in Switzerland, why they are nevertheless insufficiently implemented, and what interests lie behind the systematic underfunding. It is based on data from the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the KORA Foundation, cantonal administrations, and international research.

What awaits you here

Overview of measures: electric fences, night enclosures, livestock guardian dogs, herding, adapted grazing methods and their proven effectiveness.
Calanda pack: The evidence that is ignored: 1,500 sheep, 37 attacks in five years, consistent herd protection in the most wolf-populated area of Switzerland.
Costs: Culling vs. prevention: 35,000 Swiss francs per wolf, 0.8 to 1 million in Valais in 2025. What livestock protection would cost and why it is cheaper.
Financing and responsibilities: BAFU, BLW, cantonal programs, program agreements and the gaps in the system.
Livestock guardian dogs: Effectiveness and political instrumentalization: How the hobby hunting lobby uses encounters with hikers as an argument against livestock protection.
The political failure: Why livestock protection remains underfunded: Valais priorities, cantonal resistance, DJFW criticism in 2016 and the role of the hobby hunting lobby.
International role models: France, Italy, Spain, Norway and what Switzerland can learn from them.
What needs to change: 6 demands for consistent livestock protection as a prerequisite for wolf management.
Argumentation: Answers to the most common objections to livestock protection.
Quick links: All relevant articles, dossiers and external sources.

Overview of livestock protection measures

Switzerland has a wide range of proven livestock protection measures which, in combination, offer highly effective protection against wolf attacks. No single measure is sufficient, but the systematic application of several instruments demonstrably reduces attacks to a minimum.

Electric fences form the basis of every modern livestock protection concept. Wolf-proof fences (at least 4,000 volts, 90 cm high, with a ground wire) prevent access to fenced pastures. The KORA Foundation documents that correctly installed electric fences are effective in over 90 percent of cases. The costs are around 3 to 5 Swiss francs per linear meter and are therefore significantly cheaper than shooting a single wolf.

Night enclosures protect the herd during its most vulnerable period: at night, when wolves are most active. Confining the animals overnight in a mobile or fixed enclosure, combined with an electric fence, drastically reduces attacks. This measure would be feasible on most affected alpine pastures, but is not consistently mandated in many cantons.

Livestock guardian dogs are the single most effective tool. In Switzerland, around 300 livestock guardian dogs are in use, primarily Maremma Sheepdogs and Pyrenean Mountain Dogs. They live with the flock, detect predators early, and drive them away by barking and displaying dominance. AGRIDEA and the Livestock Guardian Dog Center have been documenting their effectiveness for over 20 years.

Herding means the constant presence of a herder with the flock. In combination with dogs and fences, herding is the most effective measure. However, in many Swiss alpine regions, the flocks are left unherded during the summer months for cost reasons, leaving the animals unprotected not only against wolves, but also against diseases, falls, and severe weather.

Adapted grazing practices include selecting suitable pastureland, avoiding grazing across the entire area, and adjusting the timing of the cattle drive to alpine pastures. In some regions, switching from sheep to cattle farming (which is less vulnerable to wolves) may be beneficial. The combination of grazing adaptation and livestock protection measures is what "coexistence" means in practice.

More on this topic: Alternatives to recreational hunting , wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity

Calanda pack: The evidence that is ignored

The Calanda pack in Graubünden has been the best-documented wolf pack in Switzerland since 2012 and provides the strongest empirical evidence for the effectiveness of livestock protection. Around 1,500 sheep graze in the pack's territory during the summer months. In the first five years of its existence, the Calanda pack killed only 37 farm animals, a rate far below what is typical in unprotected areas.

The reason is no coincidence: In the Calanda region, consistent investment in livestock protection has been made from the very beginning. Electric fences, night enclosures, livestock guardian dogs, and adapted grazing practices have been systematically implemented. Experience shows that where livestock protection is consistently implemented, livestock depredation decreases, even when the wolf population grows.

Nevertheless, the Calanda model is rarely used as a benchmark in political debate. In Valais, where 27 wolves were killed in 2025 alone, the Valais wolf statistics that 13,390 working hours were spent on wolf management and regulation, but not on advising on and implementing livestock protection measures. The Calanda pack demonstrates what would be possible. Valais shows what is politically desired.

More on this topic: Wolves in Switzerland: Facts, politics and the limits of hunting and Wolves: Ecological function and political reality

Costs: Shooting vs. Prevention

The cost accounting for the wolf culling policy reveals a grotesque disproportion. In Valais, between 0.8 and just over 1 million Swiss francs were spent in 2025 on regulating the 27 wolf populations, which equates to roughly 35,000 francs per wolf killed. These costs include professional game warden deployments, hunting support groups, helicopters, coordination, and administration. During the same period, the canton had 3.2 full-time equivalent positions available for the entire livestock protection program, positions that were also used for other tasks.

What would consistent livestock protection cost? The calculation is manageable. A livestock guardian dog costs between 3,000 and 5,000 Swiss francs annually (food, veterinary care, training). An electric fence for an average alpine pasture: 5,000 to 10,000 Swiss francs initial investment, followed by minimal maintenance costs. A shepherd for an alpine season: 15,000 to 25,000 Swiss francs. The cost of a single wolf shot could finance seven to ten livestock guardian dogs for a year.

At the national level, the federal government invests around 5 million Swiss francs annually in livestock protection (FOEN program agreements with the cantons). This sounds like a lot, but it's spread across more than 6,000 alpine farms. That amounts to less than 1,000 francs per farm per year, a sum that's hardly enough for a serious change in practices. The question is: Is Switzerland prepared to invest in the protection of live animals, or does it prefer to spend taxpayers' money on killing predators?

More on this topic: Valais wolf statistics: figures of a massacre and hunting laws and control: why self-regulation is not enough

Funding and responsibilities

Livestock protection in Switzerland is financed and coordinated through a collaboration between the federal government, the cantons, and specialist agencies. The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) finances livestock protection measures through program agreements with the cantons. The Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG) provides additional funding through summer grazing subsidies and structural improvement programs. The KORA Foundation conducts scientific monitoring. AGRIDEA coordinates the livestock protection specialist agency and advises farmers.

In practice, a patchwork of federal regulations is evident: implementation lies with the cantons, and the differences are considerable. While Graubünden demonstrates what is possible with its Calanda model, Valais relies primarily on culling. Although the program agreements for 2025 to 2028 provide for an increase in federal funding, cantonal implementation remains voluntary. No canton is legally obligated to finance livestock protection beyond a minimum level.

The Livestock Protection Unit at AGRIDEA, which has been providing advice, training, and placement of livestock guardian dogs for over 20 years, is chronically underfunded. Its recommendations are treated as "suggestions" in many cantons, not as binding standards. As long as livestock protection is not a mandatory requirement for culling permits, it remains politically optional and therefore structurally weak.

More on this topic: How hunting associations influence politics and the public , and the hunter lobby in Switzerland: How influence works

Livestock guardian dogs: Effectiveness and political instrumentalization

Livestock guardian dogs are a key element of non-lethal wolf management. Around 300 dogs are deployed in Switzerland, and demand exceeds supply. These dogs live with the flock year-round, are conditioned to protect the animals, and deter predators simply by their presence. Studies from Italy, France, and the USA demonstrate protection rates of over 80 percent when the dogs are properly trained and deployed.

In Switzerland, livestock guardian dogs occasionally lead to conflicts with hikers: If a dog perceives a threat to its flock, it may bark at walkers or block the path. These incidents are systematically exploited by the recreational hunting lobby to portray livestock guardian dogs as "dangerous" and "unacceptable." The reality: In over 20 years of use in Switzerland, not a single case of serious injury caused by a livestock guardian dog has been documented. The few incidents that do occur can be resolved through signage, information, dog training, and adapted hiking trail management.

Professional training is crucial: The Livestock Protection Service trains puppies, oversees their placement, and advises alpine farms. The training lasts approximately two years and requires experience with both the dog breed and the specific conditions of Swiss alpine farming. The biggest bottleneck is not effectiveness, but availability: There is a shortage of trained dogs and qualified breeders.

The political failure: Why livestock protection remains underfunded

Livestock protection in Switzerland fails not because of technology, but because of politics. In Valais, the Office for Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife (DJFW) was already heavily criticized by the Business Audit Commission in 2016: weak leadership, outdated administration, and structural deficiencies. The DJFW is simultaneously responsible for livestock protection and wolf population control, an institutional conflict of interest that is systematically resolved in favor of culling policies.

Christophe Darbellay, a member of the Valais cantonal government and an amateur hunter himself, has made his canton's priorities unambiguous: The goal is to reduce the number of wolf packs from 11 to 3. In this logic, livestock protection appears as an obstacle, not a solution, because effective livestock protection would undermine the justification for culling.

The hobby hunting lobby has a strategic interest in portraying livestock protection as "inadequate." If livestock protection works, the main argument for wolf culls disappears. Therefore, in parliamentary debates, isolated incidents (a goat killed despite a fence, an incident with a livestock guardian dog) are regularly exaggerated into systemic failures, while systemic successes (Calanda, Project Alps) are ignored.

The lack of transparency in damage reporting exacerbates the problem: In many cantons, wolf attacks are reported without documenting whether and which livestock protection measures were in place at the time of the attack. Without this data, a reliable cost-benefit analysis is impossible, which benefits the wolf culling lobby.

More on this topic: Cultural landscape as myth , media and hunting themes

International role models

Livestock protection is not a Swiss experiment, but common practice in numerous European countries.

Since the 1990s, France

Italy, as the country of origin of the Maremmano-Abruzzese, has the longest tradition of using livestock guardian dogs. In Abruzzo, Liguria, and Piedmont, livestock protection measures have been promoted by the government for decades. The local population has more experience with coexistence than any other region in Europe.

Spain is relying on participatory approaches in the mountainous regions of Cantabria and Asturias: Local coexistence projects, in which farmers, nature conservation authorities and communities jointly develop solutions, show that acceptance arises not through culling, but through participation.

Norway is a counterexample: despite massive culling programs, the conflicts persist because Norwegian sheep farming is largely based on unattended free-range grazing. Norway demonstrates that culling without herd protection does not solve the problem, but rather creates a cycle of killing and renewed immigration.

What would need to change

Livestock protection as a mandatory prerequisite for culling permits: No culling without documented proof that all reasonable livestock protection measures have been implemented and evaluated for at least one full grazing season. This condition is already stipulated in the Wolf Switzerland 2008 concept, but is systematically circumvented in practice.
Triple federal funding for livestock protection: The current 5 million francs annually is insufficient for effective implementation. 15 million francs, specifically allocated to livestock guardian dogs, herding, and fencing infrastructure, would enable Switzerland to provide comprehensive protection instead of resorting to shooting.
Independent damage documentation: Every report of a livestock kill must include mandatory documentation of whether and which livestock protection measures were effective at the time of the event. Without this data, any cost-benefit analysis is worthless.
National Livestock Guardian Dog Program: Waiting lists for livestock guardian dogs are long, and breeding is inadequately organized. A federally coordinated breeding and training program with a target of 500 active dogs by 2030 would resolve the most pressing shortage.
Institutional separation of livestock protection and recreational hunting: Responsibility for livestock protection must be separated from agencies that are also responsible for wolf management. In Valais, the institutional conflict of interest between the Department of Hunting, Wildlife and Forestry (DJFW) and livestock protection has demonstrably led to underfunding.
Mandatory livestock protection consultation for summer grazing in wolf territories: Every alpine farm that summers its livestock within a wolf perimeter must undergo a consultation with the livestock protection advisory service before the season begins. The consultation is free of charge and concludes with a documented protection plan.

Sample proposals: Sample texts for proposals critical of hunting and sample letter: Appeal for change in Switzerland

Argumentation

"Livestock guarding doesn't work in steep alpine regions." The Calanda pack proves otherwise: 1,500 sheep, 37 attacks in five years in one of the steepest areas of Switzerland. This claim has been repeated for years without defining the conditions under which livestock guarding is supposedly impossible. In reality, livestock guarding works wherever it is consistently implemented. The question is not whether it works, but whether there is a willingness to implement it.

"Livestock protection is too expensive for mountain farming." A livestock guardian dog costs between 3,000 and 5,000 Swiss francs per year. Shooting a wolf costs 35,000 Swiss francs. The Valais culling programs consumed between 0.8 and 1 million Swiss francs in 2025. This money could finance 200 to 300 livestock guardian dogs for a year. It's not livestock protection that's too expensive, but the culling policy.

"Livestock guardian dogs are dangerous for hikers." In over 20 years of use in Switzerland, not a single case of serious injury caused by a livestock guardian dog has been documented. Encounters with hikers can be resolved through signage, information campaigns, and adjusted trail management. The recreational hunting lobby is deliberately exploiting these isolated incidents to discredit livestock guardian dogs altogether.

"If livestock protection were necessary, our ancestors would have done it already." And they did. Livestock guardian dogs, shepherds, and night enclosures were standard practice in the Alps for centuries, until the predators were eradicated. The fact that alpine farming abandoned these practices was a consequence of the eradication, not a sign of their obsolescence. The return of predators necessitates the return of livestock protection.

"Wolves are causing increasing damage despite livestock protection measures." Attacks are rising where there is no or insufficient livestock protection. In areas with consistent protection (Calanda, AGRIDEA Alpine Project), attacks remain at a low level. Those who complain about increasing attacks without considering the level of livestock protection are shifting the focus of the problem.

Quick links

Posts on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

External sources:

Our claim

This dossier demonstrates that livestock protection is not a utopian demand from animal rights activists, but a tried and tested, financially viable, and internationally proven practice. Those who call for culling before all other livestock protection measures have been exhausted are not acting in the interest of mountain farming, but rather in the interest of a hobby hunting lobby that needs the wolf to justify its own existence. The Calanda pack and the experiences from France, Italy, and Spain prove that coexistence with predators is possible when the political will exists.

If you have any information, data, or testimonials about livestock protection that should be included in this dossier, please write to us. We are particularly interested in documentation from alpine farms that successfully use livestock protection.

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