What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland: The bill that nobody presents

Recreational hunters like to claim they finance themselves: license fees, wildlife damage contributions and voluntary engagement would cost the state nothing. This narrative does not withstand scrutiny. The external costs of militia hunting, wildlife accidents, administrative burden, hunting accidents, biodiversity losses due to hunting pressure, forest damage through displacement of animals, police operations and court costs, are never fully accounted for. The canton of Geneva has shown since 1974 how to do it differently: Professional wildlife management through trained wildlife wardens, three full-time positions, costs: around one million francs per year including wildlife damage. This corresponds to one cup of coffee per resident. This dossier exposes the hidden costs of recreational hunting and compares them to the Geneva model.

Wildlife accidents: 20,000 per year, 76 million francs in insurance costs

In Switzerland, approximately 20,000 wildlife accidents occur annually (Swiss Animal Protection). On average, one deer dies under the wheels of a car every hour. In around 100 cases per year there are injuries. Hunting pressure increases the flight distance and movement activity of wild animals, particularly during hunting season. Startled animals cross roads more frequently and unpredictably. The causal relationship between hunting pressure and wildlife accident frequency is scientifically documented.

The bill for the general public

According to insurer Axa, a wildlife accident damage case costs on average around 3,800 francs, 800 francs more than ten years ago (SRF, October 2025). With 20,000 wildlife accidents per year, this results in estimated insurance costs of around 76 million francs annually. These costs are borne by drivers through their comprehensive insurance premiums. Partial comprehensive insurance covers direct collision, full comprehensive also covers evasive maneuvers. In addition come police operations, carcass disposal, road cleaning and tracking by wildlife management, all costs that are imposed on the general public.

These 76 million francs do not appear in any hunting balance sheet. They are never attributed to the hunting system, even though hunting pressure demonstrably exacerbates wildlife accidents: Startled animals flee uncontrollably across roads. In Geneva, where no recreational hunting has taken place since 1974, wild animals behave more calmly and predictably.

The numbers: 585,000 hectares of protective forest

According to the SilvaProtect-CH project by the FOEN, approximately 585,000 hectares or 49 percent of all Swiss forests meet the criteria for protective forest. They protect settlements, roads and railway lines from avalanches, rockfall, landslides and floods. The economic value of this protective effect is estimated at around 4 billion francs per year.

The federal government, cantons and beneficiaries (municipalities, railway operators) invest approximately 150 million francs annually in protective forest management: around 60 million from the federal government, around 90 million from cantons and beneficiaries (Waldwissen.net/FOEN). Protective forest management is approximately ten times cheaper than technical barriers (avalanche barriers, rockfall nets). For the programme period 2025 to 2028, the Federal Council has requested 451 million francs for the forest sector (Message on Programme Agreements 2025-2028).

Protective forest by canton

Canton	Protective forest (ha)	Share of forest	Estimated maintenance needs/year
Grisons	122’334	61%	~61 million Fr.
Ticino	114’596	90%	~57 million Fr.
Bern	88’890	50%	~44 million Fr.
Valais	82’162	87%	~41 million Fr.
St. Gallen	37’347	64%	~19 million Fr.
Vaud	24’169	26%	~12 million Fr.
Fribourg	17’588	41%	~9 million Fr.
Schwyz	16’346	62%	~8 million Fr.
Uri	11’583	68%	~6 million Fr.
Jura	10’756	30%	~5 million Fr.
Glarus	10’130	55%	~5 million Fr.
Obwalden	10’021	51%	~5 million Fr.
Lucerne	7’978	19%	~4 million Fr.
Switzerland total	585’000	49%	~150 million Fr.

Source: FOEN SilvaProtect-CH. Maintenance needs calculated based on 12,500 Fr./ha with minimal maintenance cycle of 25 years (Canton Obwalden/FOEN).

Browsing situation: Deterioration despite recreational hunting

The Forest Report 2025 (FOEN/WSL) documented: The proportion of protective forest area with very little regeneration (under 5 percent regeneration coverage) has risen to 30 percent. The southern Alpine region (Ticino) is most severely affected at 41 percent, followed by the Alps at 34 percent. According to the Swiss Forestry Association, the proportion of protective forest with tolerable wildlife impact has fallen from more than two-thirds in 2015 to less than half. White fir and deciduous trees are particularly affected.

Recreational hunting has not prevented this deterioration, despite tens of thousands of roe deer, red deer and chamois being shot annually. In Ticino, around 3,000 red deer and chamois are shot each year, almost half of all ungulates in the canton. Yet the browsing situation continues to worsen. The explanation: recreational hunting produces more births through compensatory reproduction than it removes animals, and hunting pressure drives the animals into the protective forest where they cause more damage (cf. Protective forest analysis on wildbeimwild.com).

Valais: 82,000 hectares, 87 percent protective forest

The canton of Valais has 82,162 hectares of protective forest, representing 87 percent of the total forest area, the second-highest proportion of all cantons after Ticino (90 percent). At average net costs of 12,500 francs per hectare (minimum management cycle every 25 years, according to FOEN), this results in a theoretical annual management requirement of around 41 million francs. Over a four-year program period, that amounts to over 160 million francs. These costs are borne by the general public. At the same time, the canton of Valais spends hundreds of thousands annually on wolf culls (estimated 0.8 to 1 million francs in winter 2024/25), even though the wolf as a natural regulator demonstrably reduces browsing pressure in protective forests (cf. Wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The hidden subsidy: Who pays for browsing damage?

The 150 million francs annually for protective forest management is a necessary investment in natural hazard protection. But a significant portion of these costs goes to measures directly related to browsing pressure: young forest management, browsing protection (fences, individual protection), reforestation and forest conversion. These costs are never attributed to the hunting system, even though hunting pressure demonstrably worsens browsing. The cantons finance the consequences of recreational hunting with tax money and declare it natural hazard protection. A full cost accounting would need to attribute these costs to the militia hunting system.

Hunting accidents and safety costs

Hunting accidents occur regularly in Switzerland, some of them fatal. The costs for rescue operations, hospital stays, investigations and court proceedings are borne by the general public. Added to this are property damage from stray bullets and restrictions on recreational use of forests and fields during hunting season, an aspect that is never evaluated economically.

Protective forest and browsing: 150 million francs per year

Recreational hunting claims to prevent wildlife damage in forests. Numerous studies disprove this: hunting pressure drives roe deer and red deer into the forest and into the night, which increases rather than reduces browsing on young trees. Red deer were originally animals of open landscapes. The fact that they now occur massively in mountain forests is not natural, but the result of hunting pressure (cf. Protective forest: recreational hunting creates problems it claims to solve). Where predators such as lynx and wolf are present, browsing decreases because wildlife naturally distributes itself and changes its behavior (Landscape of Fear).

According to the SilvaProtect-CH project by FOEN, around 585,000 hectares or 49 percent of all Swiss forests meet the criteria for protective forest. The economic value of this protective function is estimated at around 4 billion francs per year. The federal government, cantons and beneficiaries invest around 150 million francs annually in protective forest management (Waldwissen.net/FOEN). These costs are never attributed to the hunting system, even though hunting pressure demonstrably worsens browsing.

The Forest Report 2025 (FOEN/WSL) documents: 30 percent of protective forest area has very little regeneration. The southern Alpine region (Ticino) is most severely affected at 41 percent. In the canton of Valais, 82,162 hectares of protective forest (87 percent of forest area) account for estimated management costs of around 41 million francs per year (cf. Protective forest analysis).

Hunting accidents: 300 per year, 3.6 million francs SUVA costs

The BFU statistics document since 2000 over 75 fatalities from hunting accidents through 2019. Statistically, a hunting accident happens every 29 hours, and approximately every three and a half months someone dies.

SUVA data: What the insured pay

An analysis of SUVA data for 2006 to 2015 shows around 300 recognized accidents annually in recreational hunting activities, with about 2 deaths per year, around 2 new disability pensions per year and annual costs of around 3.6 million francs. More recent analyses for 2016 to 2020 confirm the picture: still around 300 accidents per year. These costs flow directly into non-occupational accident premiums (NBU), which all employees through their payroll deductions. Recreational hunting is thus a leisure risk that is co-financed by the entire working population.

What the SUVA statistics do not capture is decisive: The data refer exclusively to workers with mandatory accident insurance. Retired hobby hunters, the largest age group (from the age of 45, the accident rate rises dramatically), are completely missing. The same applies to children, walkers, riders and mountain bikers who are harmed by stray bullets or mistaken identity. The actual costs are significantly higher than the 3.6 million (see Statistics on fatal hunting accidents).

Premium burden for the general public

SUVA operates on the principle of reciprocity: Premiums cover the costs of accidents. Hunting accidents are classified as non-occupational accidents (NBU). The NBU premium is split between employer and employee. This means: Every employee in Switzerland co-finances hunting accidents of hobby hunters through their NBU premium. The 3.6 million francs annually (SUVA data) are only the lower limit, because the largest risk group (retirees) is not recorded at all. In addition, there are rescue operations (helicopter, ambulance), hospital stays, investigations and court proceedings, which are also borne by the general public.

Added to this are property damage from stray bullets and restrictions on recreational use of forests and fields during hunting season, an economic aspect that is never evaluated. In the canton of Graubünden, around 3,836 animals were merely wounded in just five years, resulting in regulatory fines of over 700,000 francs (see Hunting Accidents Dossier).

Wolf regulation: Millions in costs for an alibi

In winter 2024/25, wolf regulation in Valais cost an estimated 0.8 to 1 million francs in tax money, around 35,000 francs per wolf killed. This regulation is not paid for by hobby hunters, but by the general public. At the same time, the figures show that the number of wolf kills is declining while the population is simultaneously increasing, and 80 percent of kills occur in unprotected herds. The costs would be significantly lower through consistent herd protection.

Engadin National Park: 100 years of proof without recreational hunting

The Swiss National Park in the Engadin has been hunting-free since 1914, for over 100 years. The results refute every argument of the hobby hunting lobby: The chamois population has been constant at around 1,350 animals since 1920. Foxes are not hunted, there is no extinction of prey animals. Biodiversity has doubled. The National Park proves that natural self-regulation also works in the Swiss high mountains, for over a century, without a single hobby hunter (Fact check Zurich Government Council).

Fox hunting: 18 studies, one result

At least 18 wildlife studies over a period of more than 30 years come to the same conclusion: Fox hunting does not regulate and is not suitable for disease control. In the canton of Zurich, around 2,000 healthy foxes are shot annually, around 200 per month. At the same time, the fox population does not decrease because hunting increases the reproduction rate. A fox captures around 11 roe deer fawns between May and July in the Bernese Mittelland, so it is a natural regulator. The systematic killing of foxes by hobby hunters destabilizes this natural balance and promotes the spread of diseases like Lyme disease (6,000 to 12,000 cases per year according to FOPH) and TBE (100 to 250 cases per year) (see Facts instead of hunters' tales and Studies on wildbeimwild.com).

Canton Zurich: The deficit-ridden hunting administration

The hunting administration of the canton of Zurich operates at a loss: Annual expenditure around 1.6 million francs, income from lease fees and hunting licenses only around 1.0 million francs. The deficit of 600,000 francs is borne by taxpayers. In addition, there is the renovation of hunting shooting ranges, which can cost tens of millions. In the canton of Zurich, around 1,500 hobby hunters hunt in 172 districts, supervised by only a single gamekeeper with a federal certificate of competency (as of 2017). The claim that a professional gamekeeper model would cost '20 to 30 million francs' was never proven by the Government Council. The figure comes from the hobby hunting lobby and was refuted in the fact check. For comparison: Vaud is almost twice as large as Zurich (3,212 km² vs 1,729 km²), but has over 50 percent fewer hobby hunters and comparable wildlife damage.

Graubünden: Over 1,000 charges per year

In the canton of Graubünden, which has the largest hobby hunting community in Switzerland, over 1,000 charges and fines were issued against hobby hunters annually between 2012 and 2016 (2016: 1,201, 2015: 1,298, 2014: 1,102). In 2015 alone, gamekeepers had to conduct 1,232 follow-up searches because hobby hunters had only wounded animals. The success rate was 57 percent, meaning: 43 percent of the wounded animals were never found and died agonizing deaths. In five years, around 3,836 animals were merely wounded in Graubünden, resulting in regulatory fines of over 700,000 francs. These figures are never communicated by the hobby hunting lobby (see Hunting Accidents Dossier and Initiative Gamekeepers instead of Hunters).

Political costs: How the hobby hunting lobby blocks nature conservation

The costs of recreational hunting are not only financial in nature. The hobby hunting lobby, led by JagdSchweiz and the cantonal hobby hunting associations, has systematically fought nature conservation concerns at all political levels for decades. Hobby hunters in politics vote predominantly against biodiversity, against national parks and against the protection of endangered species. The political costs of this blocking policy are enormous, but they do not appear in any accounting.

Electoral defeats by the hobby hunting lobby

Hunting Law 2020: 51.9 percent No. On 27 September 2020, the Swiss electorate rejected the revision of the federal Hunting Act with 51.9 percent (SRF). The proposal would have relaxed wolf protection and allowed cantons to preventively shoot protected species. The hobby hunting lobby had significantly shaped the law, but the electorate shot it down. The narrow no was a defeat for the Federal Council and the bourgeois parties, which are closely intertwined with the hobby hunting lobby (UVEK).

Biodiversity Initiative 2024: 63 percent no. On 22 September 2024, the Biodiversity Initiative was rejected with 63 percent no (SBV). The hobby hunting lobby, together with the farmers' association and the FDP, actively opposed the initiative (SRF). The result: Switzerland still lacks an adequate constitutional basis for protecting biological diversity.

Parc Adula National Park 2016: Torpedoed by recreational hunters. At the end of November 2016, Switzerland's second national park, Parc Adula around the Rheinwaldhorn, failed in the municipalities of the cantons of Graubünden and Ticino. The Ticino Hunting Association FCTI led an aggressive campaign with fear-mongering and false propaganda against the park (SRF). The hobby hunters feared for their hunting grounds. The result: After more than 100 years, Switzerland still has only one national park, one of Europe's smallest.

Ticino Hunting Association FCTI: 30 years against nature

The Ticino Hunting Association FCTI is a prime example of the hobby hunting lobby's political obstructionism. Over the past 30 years, the FCTI has systematically opposed nature conservation concerns: In 2018, the FCTI opposed the creation of a second national park. In 2021, the FCTI unsuccessfully opposed the protection of endangered ptarmigan in Ticino. The FCTI opposed the Biodiversity Initiative. In the legislative period from 2015 to 2019, the former hunting president of the FCTI and other hobby hunters in the Swiss Parliament voted predominantly against the environment. In 2023, a motion by National Councillor Martina Munz for a ban on lead ammunition was rejected by 99 to 94 votes, under active resistance from the former FCTI hunting president. In 2025, the same ex-hunting president's motion for wolf-free zones was rejected by Parliament (wildbeimwild.com).

JagdSchweiz: Legally failed

JagdSchweiz, the umbrella organization of Swiss recreational hunters, has also tried to silence critical voices through legal channels. On 17 July 2020, the Criminal Court of Canton Ticino in Bellinzona acquitted wildbeimwild.com on all counts. The cited statements about JagdSchweiz, such as promoting animal cruelty and a culture of violence, were not defamation. David Clavadetscher (JagdSchweiz/Sandona GmbH) could not provide any relevant evidence. Civil proceedings in Locarno were stayed. JagdSchweiz lost across the board (wildbeimwild.com).

What the blockade costs

The economic costs of this decades-long obstructionism cannot be quantified, but they are real: no adequate constitutional basis for biodiversity, no second national park, delayed species protection, weakened wolf protection, delayed lead ammunition ban. Every lost vote, every delayed protection law means biodiversity losses that cannot be made good. The hobby hunting lobby does not protect nature. It protects a hobby at nature's expense.

What an honest assessment would show

No Swiss authority has ever presented a full cost accounting of militia hunting. Such an assessment would have to include at least the following items: Direct cantonal administrative costs for the hunting system. Wildlife accident costs during and after hunting season. Forest damage costs due to hunting-induced displacement effects. Costs for police, rescue and justice system in hunting accidents. Costs for tracking wounded animals. Costs for wolf and predator regulation. Biodiversity losses through hunting of endangered species (brown hares, woodcock, alpine ptarmigan). Economic restrictions on recreational use during hunting season. Political costs of obstructionism against biodiversity, national parks and species protection. These costs would have to be compared against actual revenues from licenses and leases. The result would be devastating for the hobby hunting lobby.

What would need to change

Full cost accounting of militia hunting: Every canton should be required to present a transparent overall balance of the hunting system, including all external costs. Only in this way can a fact-based debate about alternatives be conducted.
Geneva model as reference: The Geneva model proves that professional wildlife management without recreational hunters not only works, but is also affordable. One cup of coffee per inhabitant. Other cantons must be measured against this.
Polluter pays principle for hunting damage: Costs arising from hunting pressure (wildlife accidents, forest damage through displacement, tracking) must be attributed to the hunting system, not to the general public.
Professionalization instead of militia: The Swiss militia hunting system is an anachronism. Professional game wardens are better trained, work year-round, act according to scientific criteria and are accountable to the public.
Herd protection instead of wolf culling: The millions in costs for wolf regulation could be invested in herd protection, which is demonstrably more effective and cheaper in the long term.

Arguments

'Recreational hunters finance themselves.' License fees cover only a fraction of total costs. External costs - wildlife accidents, forest damage, administration, police, justice, biodiversity losses - are never accounted for and are borne entirely by the general public. A full cost accounting would show that militia hunting costs taxpayers significantly more than professional wildlife management.

'The Geneva model is too expensive.' One million francs per year, one cup of coffee per inhabitant. For comparison: Wolf regulation in Valais alone cost a similar amount in 2024/25. Wildlife damage in Geneva is comparable to that in cantons of similar size where hobby hunting is permitted. The Geneva model is not too expensive. It is more transparent than militia hunting.

'The Geneva model only works in an urban canton.' Geneva has vineyards, farmland and rural areas like other cantons. Geneva has an international airport that requires additional flight safety measures. If the model works there, there is no structural argument against it working equally well elsewhere. During hunting season, incidentally, many wild animals from surrounding cantons and France seek refuge in Geneva. Living proof that wildlife avoids hunting areas.

'Without hobby hunting, wildlife damage explodes.' 50 years of Geneva prove the opposite: stable wildlife populations, controlled wildlife damage, higher biodiversity. Hobby hunting often provokes wildlife damage because hunting pressure drives animals into forests and increases browsing. Where predators are present, browsing decreases.

'Recreational hunters provide community service for the general public.' This narrative assumes recreational hunters act selflessly. In reality, it is a hobby based on killing animals. The social costs of this hobby, from hunting accidents to animal welfare problems to biodiversity losses, are borne by the general public. Professional game wardens actually provide a service to the public; hobby hunters provide a service to their hobby.

Quick links

Articles on Wild beim Wild

Related dossiers

Efficiency: 8 hours and 2 cartridges instead of 80 hours and 15 cartridges

The efficiency of the Geneva model is evident in direct comparison: A professional game warden in Geneva needs for a sanitary culling of a wild boar on average 8 hours and maximum 2 cartridges. A hobby hunter in the Canton of Zurich needs for the same culling 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 cartridges (Fact check Canton Zurich Government Council). This is not an efficiency improvement, this is a system change: professionals instead of recreational shooters.

Brown hare: The living proof

The brown hare is the living proof of the superiority of the Geneva model. In the Canton of Geneva, where no recreational hunting has taken place since 1974, the brown hare density is 17.7 animals per 100 hectares (2016), the highest in all of Switzerland. In the Canton of Zurich, where annually around 2,000 foxes and numerous other animals are killed by hobby hunters, the brown hare density is 1.0 per 100 hectares. The brown hare is listed as 'vulnerable' on the Red List in Zurich. In Geneva it thrives. Geneva also hosts one of the last partridge populations in Switzerland (cf. Facts instead of hunters' tales).

Source references

SUVA: Accident statistics UVG, 300 hunting accidents/year, 3.6 million Fr. costs (suva.ch)
BFU: Over 75 fatalities from hunting accidents 2000-2019
SRF/Axa: Wildlife accident costs average 3,800 Fr. per damage case (srf.ch, October 2025)
Swiss Animal Protection: 20,000 wildlife accidents per year in Switzerland
BAFU SilvaProtect-CH: Protection forest area per canton, 585,000 ha protection forest (bafu.admin.ch)
Waldwissen.net/BAFU: 150 million Fr. annually for protection forest management (waldwissen.net)
Federal Council: Message commitment credits environment 2025-2028, 451 million Fr. forest (admin.ch)
BAFU/WSL: Forest report 2025, 30% protection forest with very little regeneration
Canton of Obwalden: Net costs protection forest management 12,500 Fr./ha (ow.ch)
Canton of Geneva, Wildlife inspector Gottlieb Dandliker: Costs and functionality of Geneva wildlife management
IG Wild beim Wild: Hunting statistics 2022, comparison Geneva vs. Schaffhausen
IG Wild beim Wild: Switzerland hunts, but why actually still? (2025)
Animal Party Switzerland: Protection of wild animals, external costs of militia hunting
IG Wild beim Wild: Arguments for professional game wardens
Bernese hunting regulations: license fees, wildlife damage surcharges, conservation contributions
Fondation Franz Weber: Geneva Model, JSG 2020 referendum
BAFU: Wildlife accident statistics Switzerland
Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds (JSG, SR 922.0)
Canton Valais: Wolf regulation 2024/25, cost estimate 0.8–1 million CHF
SRF: Hunting law rejected, 27.9.2020, 51.9% No (srf.ch)
UVEK: Hunting law vote 2020 (uvek.admin.ch)
SBV: Biodiversity initiative rejected, 22.9.2024, 63% No (sbv-usp.ch)
SRF: Parc Adula, skepticism in Bleniotal, 2016 (srf.ch)
wildbeimwild.com: Ticino hunters' association FCTI celebrates 30 years of mischief (wildbeimwild.com)
wildbeimwild.com: Success – JagdSchweiz loses, acquittal at Bellinzona criminal court 17.7.2020 (wildbeimwild.com)

Our Standards

Recreational hunters claim they cost the state nothing. This is a lie by omission: external costs are never assessed, never accounted for, and never made public. The Geneva Model shows that things can be done differently: transparently, professionally, and affordably. A cup of coffee per resident for a system that demonstrably works, promotes biodiversity, and needs no recreational hunters. This dossier demands what is long overdue: an honest accounting. Those who conceal costs have something to hide. This dossier is continuously updated.

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