Valais wolf statistics: Figures of a massacre

The canton of Valais calls it "proactive regulation." What the official statistics from September 1, 2025, to January 31, 2026, document is something else entirely: the planned destruction of wolf packs, the systematic killing of young animals, and a state-organized hunting machine that turns hobby hunters into a support force for government-mandated culling programs. Twenty-four wolves were killed during this period—including seven young wolves from three packs, culled as part of a so-called "basic regulation" program that explicitly permits the removal of two-thirds of the young wolves born in a given year.

Behind these figures lie shattered family units, killed individuals within complex social structures, and a legal framework that is increasingly working against Switzerland: In October 2024, the Bern Convention explicitly classified preventive culling without concrete damage as illegal. In December 2024, the Council of Europe's Standing Committee unanimously opened an investigation against Switzerland. Meanwhile, Valais continues to expand its bureaucratic culling apparatus. This dossier reveals the significance of these figures, who makes the decisions, which legal questions remain unresolved, and what a credible wolf policy in the Alpine region would need to achieve instead.

What awaits you here

What the 2025/2026 balance sheet really shows: The concrete figures, packs, shooting perimeter and the goal of reducing the wolf population from eleven to three packs – and what that means biologically and ethically.
Young animals as a preferred target: Ethics turned upside down: Why the "basic regulation" of young wolves is not only contrary to animal welfare, but also biologically counterproductive.
Hobby hunters as a state support force: How the canton of Valais systematically merges hobby hunting and official shooting mandates.
The bureaucratic costs of the massacre: What 13,390 working hours and several full-time positions in Valais wolf management actually cost – and for what.
Darbellay and the Wolf War: How a state councillor with a hobby hunting background is pushing forward the shooting policy while suppressing minimum scientific and legal standards.
Fabio Regazzi and the Swiss model as political fiction: Why the Swedish model, touted as a role model, fails in court – and why Regazzi isn't bothered by it.
Bern Convention: What the investigation procedure means: Legal classification of the European proceedings against Switzerland and what preventive shootings have to do with international law.
What true coexistence in the Alpine region would mean: The political and structural measures that would be necessary – but are consistently avoided.
Argumentation: Answers to the most common justifications for the shooting policy.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and dossiers.

What the 2025/2026 balance sheet really shows

The canton of Valais applied to the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) for permission to completely remove the Simplon and Chablais wolf packs for the period 2025/2026 – and received approval. Additionally, a "basic cull" was authorized for three further packs (Réchy-Anniviers, Nendaz-Isérables, Posette-Trient), allowing the canton to kill two-thirds of the pups born that year. From September 1, 2025, to January 31, 2026, 24 wolves were actually killed: 3 by individual cull permit, 14 as part of the complete pack removal, and 7 pups under the basic cull.

In parallel, 318 farm animals were killed by wolves in the canton in 2025: 191 in Upper Valais (in 48 attacks) and 127 in Lower Valais (in 33 attacks). The political objective that Darbellay has publicly stated is clear: the number of packs in Valais is to be reduced from eleven to three – to the legal minimum for the region. This is not "management" in the scientific sense. It is a political decision for the maximum reduction of a population – made by a member of the cantonal government who is himself an amateur hunter, and implemented with amateur hunters as the culling team.

For comparison: In the canton of Graubünden, 35 wolves were killed in 2025. CHWOLF has documented the results of the second regulation period nationally: 92 dead wolves – including the entire national park pack. The official designation of these interventions as "proactive regulation" obscures what they actually are: the preventive elimination of wolf packs before concrete, serious, and repeated damage has occurred – and it is precisely this practice that the Bern Convention has classified as illegal.

More on this topic: Wolf: Ecological function and political reality and Problem politicians instead of problem wolves: Switzerland is hunting the wrong animal

Young animals as preferred targets: Ethics turned upside down

The "basic regulation" – the removal of up to two-thirds of wolf pups in certain packs – is the most ethically problematic aspect of Valais' wolf policy. Young animals are not killed as isolated cases of proven damage, but rather as a planned quota: 2 pups in the Réchy-Anniviers pack, 3 in the Nendaz-Isérables pack, and 2 in the Posette-Trient pack – with the result that the basic regulation has been "fully implemented".

This is not only contrary to animal welfare – it is biologically counterproductive. Young wolves learn in their first years of life by observing the pack structure, learning how territorial behavior, prey selection, and the avoidance of human infrastructure work. Experienced alpha wolves impart this knowledge. Killing young wolves before they have learned how their pack interacts with livestock farming and the cultivated landscape eliminates precisely those learning processes that could reduce conflict in the long term. Packs with a disrupted age structure and a lack of experienced leaders are demonstrably more prone to conflict – not less so.

A truly ethical system would define young animals as a red line. The Valais system reverses this principle: young animals become the preferred target because they are easier to kill and statistically deliver quick "success." Anyone who calls this "regulation" is obscuring the fact that the foundation of all moral responsibility—the protection of the most vulnerable—is being deliberately ignored.

More on this topic: Hunting and animal welfare: What the practice does to wild animals and wild animals, fear of death and lack of stunning

Hobby hunters as a state support force

The canton of Valais has explicitly integrated recreational hunting into the state wolf management system. During the 2025/2026 management period, recreational hunters with a valid permit are allowed to kill wolves within the defined culling perimeters – in the case of complete pack removal, in addition to professional game wardens. Specific training for wolf management is conducted annually for all registered recreational hunters. Specialized recreational hunters are integrated into a "Hunting Support Group (UGJ)" under the responsibility of the cantonal Office for Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife (DJFW).

This is an institutional fusion of recreational hunting interests and a sovereign mandate, unparalleled in its consistency in Switzerland. The canton delegates state-sanctioned killing tasks to recreational hunters – thereby granting a leisure activity state legitimacy it neither justifies nor deserves. Simultaneously, it creates an infrastructure whose logic is solely geared towards killing: specially trained recreational hunters, generously sized hunting perimeters, and a politically mandated reduction target. Anyone who works within this system will no longer question whether killing is necessary – but only how many are possible.

Environmentalists have precisely pointed out this mechanism: By deliberately establishing large culling perimeters, Valais has the opportunity to kill a maximum number of wolves. This is not an interpretation. This is the documented functioning of a system that aims for maximum killing and uses minimal protection as a fig leaf.

More on this topic: Hunters: Role, power, training and criticism , and the psychology of hunting in the canton of Valais

The bureaucratic costs of the massacre

According to official figures, 13,390 working hours were invested in wolf management and wolf population control in Valais in 2025 – compared to 16,400 hours in 2024. In parallel, 3.2 full-time positions were created to support the agency under the federal government's 2025–2028 program agreement. Assuming conservative total costs of 60 to 80 Swiss francs per hour, this amounts to between 800,000 and just over one million Swiss francs in taxpayer money for 2025 – solely for wolf population control in Valais. According to available estimates, shooting a single wolf costs Swiss taxpayers around 35,000 Swiss francs.

The administrative apparatus is growing, and regulation is becoming more professionalized. The crucial question is where these resources are flowing. The official report provides a clear answer: the focus is on files, permit procedures, and culling. Consistent livestock protection, structural agricultural consulting, and long-term conflict prevention—these tasks appear in the report as rhetorical additions, not as operational priorities. "Coexistence" is the word that is filled with new culling figures every year.

The canton does not disclose these total costs transparently in its financial statements. This is not surprising in a canton that has been under fire for years for accusations of cronyism, nepotism, and a lack of transparency – from shoddy construction work and flood protection failures to political mismanagement scandals. The wolf issue is being dealt with by force, while fundamental questions about cost-efficiency and effectiveness are ignored.

More on this topic: Hunting laws and control: Why self-regulation is not enough and Hunting in Switzerland: Figures, systems and the end of a narrative

Darbellay and the Wolf War

Since taking office as head of the department responsible for hunting, Christophe Darbellay has become the driving force behind Valais' wolf policy. A keen hunter himself, he actively participates in hunts. Since assuming his position, he has made culling decision after culling decision – with the publicly stated goal of reducing the number of wolf packs from eleven to three. Environmentalists describe his approach as "unscientific and counterproductive" and compare his rhetoric to a "wolf war," in which he portrays himself as a defender of the mountain population, while facts about livestock protection, biology, and the legal situation "hinder rather than guide.".

Darbellay presents himself as a Christian-influenced centrist politician. In practice, his department functions like an executioner's office for wolf populations: 27 dead wolves in the 2025/2026 regulation period, including seven pups, complete pack dissolutions, and amateur hunters serving as state-trained culling teams. This stands in stark contrast to the values he publicly invokes, such as the protection of life and the preservation of creation. The discrepancy between his political self-portrayal and his actual actions is documented and proven – and can best be explained by the conflict of interest that arises when an amateur hunter heads the hunting authority.

What Darbellay is staging in the public sphere is a culturally charged antagonism: wolf versus mountain farmer, conservationists versus "realistic" politics, Brussels versus Switzerland. This emotionalization serves a political function: it creates a climate in which radical culling programs can appear as the "sensible middle ground," even though they are neither objectively necessary nor proportionate—and increasingly, they are also illegal. Our article, "Christophe Darbellay's Wolf War: Polemic Against the Facts," documents these patterns in detail.

More on this: Christophe Darbellay's wolf war: Polemic against the facts and the hunter lobby in Switzerland: How influence works

Fabio Regazzi and the Swedish model as political fiction

Fabio Regazzi, a member of the Swiss Council of States from Ticino, has been promoting the Swedish wolf model for years as a blueprint for Switzerland: licensed hunts, politically fixed population targets, and rapid, predictable reduction. The problem: the Swedish model has failed in court or been severely restricted – because Swedish and European courts have ruled that licensed hunts of strictly protected species violate fundamental principles of the rule of law and species protection laws.

Regazzi promises quick fixes and promotes a policy of knee-jerk reactions that marginalizes wildlife protection and the rule of law. The reality of the model he cites as a blueprint doesn't fit his narrative – so he doesn't mention it. This is symptomatic of a wolf policy that relies on emotional manipulation because the facts contradict it. Both Darbellay and Regazzi come from a party that publicly invokes Christian values – and yet they practice a wolf policy in which "preservation of creation" is relegated to Sunday sermons at best.

From the perspective of IG Wild beim Wild, both are exemplary figures of a politically orchestrated wolf-baiting campaign: They shift the discourse away from fact-based solutions towards an emotionally charged culture war in which the wolf is made a projection screen for completely different conflicts – mountain farming against nature conservation, cantonal sovereignty against international agreements, tradition against science.

More on this topic: Wolf in Europe: Protection status, conflicts and political pressure and Hunting crisis in Europe: FACE fights for shooting rights, Switzerland remains in the shadows

Bern Convention: What the investigation procedure means

The legal situation is clear – and Switzerland is ignoring it. In October 2024, the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention ruled that preventive culls – that is, killings without concrete, repeated, and significant damage – are not covered by the Convention and are therefore illegal. In December 2024, the Standing Committee unanimously opened an investigation into Switzerland after complaints from CH-Wolf and the Wolf Switzerland group were upheld. Switzerland had to submit another report at the meeting in spring 2025. The presentation by the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) met with considerable skepticism from the participating countries.

What does this mean in concrete terms? With the revised Hunting Ordinance (JSV), which came into force on February 1, 2025, Switzerland has explicitly legalized the preventive culling of entire wolf packs under certain conditions – including pups and young wolves as part of these packs. According to the Bern Convention, this legal basis is not in accordance with the international treaty that Switzerland ratified in 1979. The canton of Valais is consistently implementing this legal basis in the 2025/2026 management period – in an ongoing investigation that calls its legality into question. This contradiction is not a mere bureaucratic detail. It demonstrates how far Swiss wolf policy is from meeting minimum standards of the rule of law.

With its culling program, Valais is also creating de facto conditions that make political reversals difficult: those who break up packs cannot restore their structure. Those who kill young wolves destroy the population's learning capital. The irreversible consequences of this policy will only become apparent when the investigation leads to concrete measures – and then structures that are being systematically destroyed today will have to be rebuilt.

More on this topic: Illegal wolf hunting in Switzerland and how hunting associations influence politics and the public.

What would need to change

A political approach that takes coexistence seriously would look radically different from the Valais model.

Livestock protection as a structural priority, not as a mandatory exercise: Consistent investments in livestock guardian dogs, night enclosures, fences and agricultural consulting – not as one-off subsidies, but as a permanent system component with binding standards.
Rethinking mountain farming policy: The question of which forms of animal husbandry are compatible with predators in steep mountain areas must be addressed politically – with direct payments that promote adaptation rather than prevent it.
Protecting pack structures as a conflict prevention measure: Experienced alpha wolves and intact social structures demonstrably reduce conflicts. Protecting them is not romantic notions – it is biologically based conflict prevention.
Shooting bans for young wolves: Defining young wolves as a target group is contrary to animal welfare, biologically counterproductive, and legally problematic under the Bern Convention. An immediate ban is the minimum.
Independent wolf population monitoring without conflicts of interest: Monitoring and population estimates must be carried out by independent scientific institutions – without the involvement of hunting authorities or hobby hunting structures.
Ensuring legal compliance with the Bern Convention: Preventive culling of entire packs must be removed from the Swiss legal basis – regardless of the outcome of the investigation.
Sample proposals: Sample texts for proposals critical of hunting and sample letter: Appeal for change in Switzerland

More on this topic: Livestock protection in Switzerland and alternatives to hunting: What really helps without killing animals

Argumentation

“318 farm animals killed is unacceptable – the wolf population must be controlled.” 318 farm animals killed is a real problem. But the response to it will determine whether coexistence is possible or not. Anyone who immediately demands culling after every attack, without asking whether the herd protection was adequate, whether grazing practices can be adjusted, and whether direct payments create perverse incentives, is not solving the problem. They are merely postponing it – at the expense of the wolves and at the expense of the taxpayers who finance the culls.

"Proactive regulation prevents damage before it occurs." This is precisely what the Bern Convention states is illegal. Preventive killings of wild animals without concrete, significant, and repeated damage are not covered by international conservation agreements to which Switzerland is a party. What is marketed as "proactive" is legally "non-compliant"—and the unanimously adopted investigation by the Council of Europe is the consequence.

"Hobby hunters are merely supporting the authorities – that's not hunting." Hobby hunters receive specific training for wolf culling, are integrated into state culling structures, and kill wolves within state-defined perimeters. This is not support for an administrative task – it's the privatization of killing contracts to an interest group whose primary interest is the culling itself.

"The wolf threatens the mountain population and mountain agriculture." The wolf kills livestock. It does not threaten humans – statistically, there are zero attacks on people in Switzerland. Mountain agriculture faces structural challenges related to direct payment systems, farm sizes, and market conditions – challenges that cannot be solved by shooting wolves. Those who blame the wolf for structural problems it did not cause are engaging in politics with the wrong scapegoat.

"This is the legal implementation of the revised hunting regulations." Yes – and precisely these revised hunting regulations are the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Council of Europe for non-compliance with the Bern Convention. Being legal under Swiss law and being compliant with international nature conservation agreements are two different standards. According to the Council of Europe, Switzerland is currently violating the latter.

Quick links

Posts on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

External sources:

Our claim

The Valais wolf management report for 2025/2026 documents a system that systematically disregards animal welfare, wildlife biology, and international legal standards – in favor of a culling logic driven by recreational hunting interests and the livestock lobby. What the report calls "full implementation" is the planned destruction of wolf packs. What it calls "basic regulation" is the killing of seven young wolves.

IG Wild beim Wild documents this policy with figures, sources, and legal classification – because a society that invokes animal welfare and biodiversity must know what is happening in its name in the Valais mountains. Anyone who knows more or has information about further cases should write to us. Good information is the basis of any effective criticism.

Due to the wolf policy of Federal Councillor Albert Rösti (SVP) and the cantonal shooting programs, request a waiver of federal and cantonal taxes from your municipality: You can download the sample letter here .

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