The hobby hunt starts at the desk

Hunting is not just about the forest – it's about administration. Since January 1, 2026, the updated version of the Hunting Ordinance (JSV) has been published on Fedlex, making it a citable reference for all objections, appeals, and political initiatives. At the same time, the annual recruitment rounds are starting in the cantons: In the Canton of Zurich, the places for the 2026 hunting supervisor examination are already fully booked, and the registration deadline for the 2026 hunting exam is March 15. In the Canton of Schwyz, registration for the 2026/2027 hunting course is underway and requires a criminal record check, proof of liability insurance, and a passport photo.

These dates are not mere footnotes. They are the administrative starting signals for a year in which hunting will once again be offered as a qualification course – while questions of animal suffering, ecological impact, and societal legitimacy remain secondary in practice. Anyone who wants to effectively control recreational hunting must start before the first shot is fired: with rules, training, regulations, access to files, and deadlines. This dossier provides the tools for doing so.

What awaits you here

Hunting 2026 as administrative routine: How the updated JSV, registration deadlines and training courses renew the system every year – and why this is politically relevant.
What the JSV 2026 regulates anew: The most important changes that will come into force on January 1, 2026, and what they mean for hunting practice and control.
Training as a normalization machine: How hunting training functions as an administrative process – and what is said about animal welfare, animal suffering and responsibility: very little.
Transparency Protocol 2026 – Step 1: Making hunting decisions visible early: Why formal opening is crucial and how to demand it.
Transparency Protocol 2026 – Step 2: Secure access to files and deadlines immediately: Which steps are necessary within which deadlines and what irreversible interventions are required.
Transparency Protocol 2026 – Step 3: Uniform questionnaire for the cantons: The complete instrument for organisations and media professionals – with a ready-to-copy template.
Transparency Protocol 2026 – Step 4: Publication based on the principle of “We asked”: How public inquiries become political pressure.
A comparison of cantonal training logics: How Zurich, Schwyz and other cantons organize hunting training – and what is missing.
Argumentation: Answers to the most common objections to greater transparency in hunting administration.
Quick links: All relevant articles, regulations and resources.

Hunting in 2026 as an administrative routine

"Soft news" such as updates on regulations and registration deadlines may seem harmless. In reality, they are the maintenance cycles of a system that organizes and socially normalizes the killing of wild animals as a qualification. Anyone criticizing recreational hunting must expose this normalization before the next intervention occurs.

With the publication of the Hunting and Wildlife Ordinance (JSV) as of January 1, 2026, a current, citable reference is available. It defines terms, responsibilities, and thresholds that constitute regular enforcement of regulations concerning wildlife populations. In the Canton of Zurich, applications for the 2026 hunting exam are accepted until March 15 – exam fee CHF 250 – the game warden exam costs CHF 200 – plus CHF 80 for the hunting law exam and CHF 100 for the communication course. In the Canton of Schwyz, registration for the 2026/2027 hunting course requires a criminal record check, proof of liability insurance, and a passport photo – all standard administrative requirements for an activity that leads to the death of tens of thousands of wild animals per year. Authorities communicate hunting as a training program that is handled like an administrative process: registration start date, deadlines, and reporting requirements. This very language is documentable and therefore usable for both journalistic and political purposes.

More on this topic: Hunting laws and control: Why self-regulation is not enough and The hunter lobby in Switzerland: How influence works

What the JSV 2026 will regulate anew

The revised Hunting and Wildlife Ordinance (JSV), which came into force on February 1, 2025, and is currently citationable in its version of January 1, 2026, introduced several significant changes. Drones are explicitly listed as prohibited hunting aids, with the exception of their use for rescuing fawns. The minimum barrel length requirement for hunting firearms was reduced from 50 cm to 45 cm. A ban on night hunting in forests was introduced, but simultaneously supplemented with cantonal exceptions for "damage prevention," which in practice still permit nighttime shooting under certain conditions. The JSV now explicitly refers to the Animal Welfare Act (TSchG) in its preamble – a formal recognition that, however, remains ineffective without effective control mechanisms.

For organizations and political actors, the following is crucial: The updated JSV (Jagdschutzgesetz – Hunting and Wildlife Protection Act) is the legal basis upon which shooting orders, population regulations, and exemptions are based. Anyone wishing to challenge an order needs the current version – not the one from the previous year.

More on this topic: Stand hunting: Waiting, technology and risks , and Hunting and weapons: Why "hobby" and firearms are politically linked

Training as a normalization machine

Hunting training in Switzerland is regulated differently by each canton, but follows a common logic: it is structured in two phases. In the canton of Zurich, the theory exam and shooting test are followed by a "candidate period" of at least two years in a Zurich hunting area before the practical hunting exam can be taken. In the canton of Schwyz, registration for the hunting course includes a data protection declaration, a criminal record check, and proof of insurance.

What is conspicuously absent from all publicly available training documents and communications is this: How many training hours are specifically dedicated to wildlife ecology, animal behavior, and animal welfare – compared to weapons handling and shooting practice? What role does animal suffering play as a subject of study, not just as a means of dealing with errors? How is decision-making competence assessed – that is, the ability to decide when a shot is ethically unacceptable – and not just marksmanship? These questions remain unanswered in the publicly available training records. This in itself constitutes political information.

More on this topic: The hunting license and hunting and children: What it means to sell killing as a nature experience

Transparency Protocol 2026

The following protocol is addressed to organizations with party status and political actors who wish not only to comment on hunting decisions but also to monitor them in a verifiable manner. The legal basis and a list of authorized organizations are documented at the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). Those who only criticize hunting after culls have taken place are merely reacting to enforcement. A more effective approach lies earlier: in the transparency of decision-making criteria, deadlines, access to files, and the question of how hunting is organized as a qualification.

Step 1: Make hunting decisions visible early

Many hunting-related measures are communicated informally – via websites, press releases, or official gazettes. For legal protection, it is crucial that a decision is formally issued and is available as a contestable act, complete with justification, conditions, and information on legal remedies. If formal notification is lacking, it must be actively requested. Administrative authorities are obligated to issue a formal notification as soon as an organization with party status makes such a request. This transforms official communication into a legally reviewable administrative act.

Step 2: Secure access to files and deadlines immediately

The right to inspect files is a component of the right to be heard and is well established in Swiss administrative law practice. It generally applies to pending proceedings and can be exercised informally – including by email. Once a decision is announced, four steps are necessary:

Request access to files: In particular to data sources, proportionality assessments and examined alternatives.
Record the deadline for legal remedies: Document when it starts – usually from the formal opening, not from the media release.
Check for suspensive effect: In the case of irreversible interventions such as group removals or complete population reductions, immediately check whether an application for suspensive effect or precautionary measures are necessary.
Documenting silence: If an authority does not respond within the statutory period, its silence is also a documentable administrative act with legal consequences.

Step 3: Standardized questionnaire for the cantons

To ensure that criticism remains verifiable, every inquiry is structured identically and publicly documented. This makes silence measurable and allows for comparison between cantons.

A. Legal Basis and Objective
What specific legal basis supports the decision – with references to articles from the JSG and JSV? What objective does the measure pursue and how is its success measured?

B. Proportionality and Animal Suffering:
How is animal suffering taken into account in the balancing of interests? Which non-lethal alternatives were examined and for what specific reasons were they rejected?

C. Data Basis and Control
What monitoring data, damage reports, or estimates are used as the basis? Who collected them? How are misfires, searches, and wounded animals recorded and published?

D. Training and Decision-Making Competence
How many hours of the cantonal hunting training are devoted to weapons handling and shooting practice – and how many to wildlife ecology, animal behavior and animal welfare aspects? How is decision-making competence assessed?

E. Transparency and legal protection
Where is the full justification published? Which body is responsible for objections? From what date does the appeal period begin?

Step 4: Publication based on the principle of "We asked"

Every request is publicly documented – with date and recipient, subject of the decision, deadline status, list of questions, response status, and next step. This makes it clear which cantons operate transparently and which evade accountability. Systematic silence is politically exploitable: it demonstrates that oversight is ineffective – and justifies public comment.

Ready-to-copy template for NGO inquiries

Subject: Transparency Request Regarding Hunting Decision: Legal Basis,
 Data Sources, Proportionality, Oversight

 Dear Sir/Madam,

 We request information and access to the files regarding the following
 hunting decision: [Title, Date, Publication, Link].

 Please confirm the applicable deadlines, in particular
 the date from which the appeal period begins.

 We have the following questions and request answers with
 references to the relevant legal and data sources, and where
 possible, with references to specific files or documents:

 [Insert list of questions A to E]

 Please send us your response by [Date] to
 allow for a proper review within the given timeframes.

 Sincerely
 , [Organization, Contact]

More information: Independent hunting supervision: External control instead of self-regulation (model initiative) and Transparent hunting statistics (model initiative)

What would need to change

Publication requirement for training weighting: Cantons publish annually how many training hours are allocated to weapons handling, shooting practice, wildlife ecology, animal behavior, and animal welfare. Without this data, an independent evaluation of hunting training is impossible.
Formal disclosure requirement for all shooting orders: Every order that mandates or authorizes the shooting of wild animals must be formally disclosed and made publicly available, including full justification, data basis, and information on legal remedies. Model initiative: Transparent hunting statistics
Animal welfare as a mandatory subject in hunting training: Animal suffering, behavioral biology, and decision-making skills (when a shot is ethically unacceptable) will be included as a separate subject in the cantonal hunting examination, with a separate passing grade. Model proposal: Ethics as a mandatory component of the hunting examination
Independent hunting supervision: The monitoring of hunting practices is carried out by a body that is not organizationally linked to hunting associations or cantonal hunting authorities. Model proposal: Independent hunting supervision: External control instead of self-regulation
Standardized response obligation to transparency requests: Cantons are obligated to fully respond to transparency requests from organizations with party status within a defined period (e.g., 30 days). Failure to respond is documented as a violation of the duty to provide information and is subject to appeal.
Public hunting register at federal level: The federal government will create a digital, publicly accessible register of all cantonal shooting orders, exemption permits and regulatory decisions, including legal basis, data basis and result.

Argumentation

"Hunting management is technically inaccessible to outsiders." This is the system's purpose, not its inherent characteristic. Administrative law, deadlines, and the right to inspect files are publicly accessible and clearly regulated in Switzerland. Organizations with party status have a legally enshrined right to access these documents. Technical complexity is no excuse for a lack of transparency—it is an argument for the need for independent support.

"Hunting training is already rigorous and comprehensive." In the canton of Zurich, the application form for the hunting exam precisely lists the examination fee – CHF 250. However, the number of hours dedicated to animal welfare and animal suffering is not apparent in any public document. Rigor is not the same as transparency. As long as the weighting of training components remains unpublished, no independent evaluation can take place.

"Objections slow down necessary wildlife management measures." Suspensive effect and objections are rights that the legislature deliberately introduced – especially in cases of irreversible interventions. If authorities deem measures so urgent that they refuse to allow legal recourse, that in itself is a legal problem. Proportionality and animal welfare are not obstacles to wildlife management; they are its legal prerequisites.

“Organizations are abusing procedures for political purposes.” Legal remedies and transparency requests are not manipulation – they are democracy. Anyone who implements official decisions with public funds must be subject to public scrutiny. This applies to all administrative activities. Hobby hunting is no exception.

Quick links

Posts on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

External sources:

Our claim

Recreational hunting doesn't begin in the woods. It begins at the desk: with regulations, registration deadlines, examination fees, and decrees that organize the killing of wild animals as an administrative routine. Anyone who wants to control this system must start before the shooting, not after. This dossier provides the operational tools for doing so: legal foundations, deadlines, a standardized questionnaire, and a reproducible template for transparency requests.

IG Wild beim Wild documents not only what happens in the forest, but also what decisions are made in government offices, so that the public can assess whether hunting management serves animal welfare or merely manages it. This dossier is updated annually as required by new hunting regulations, cantonal rules, or court rulings.

Call to Action: Have you submitted a transparency request to a cantonal hunting authority and received a response or a telling silence? Share both with us: wildbeimwild.com/kontakt

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