What hobby hunting really costs Switzerland: The bill nobody presents

Hobby hunters like to claim that they fund themselves: licence fees, wildlife damage contributions and voluntary commitment supposedly cost the state nothing. This narrative does not withstand scrutiny. The external costs of militia hunting — wildlife accidents, administrative expenditure, hunting accidents, biodiversity losses due to hunting pressure, forest damage through the displacement of animals, police operations and court costs — are never fully accounted for. The canton of Geneva has shown since 1974 how it can be done differently: professional wildlife management by trained game wardens, three full-time positions, cost: around one million francs per year including wildlife damage. That amounts to a cup of coffee per inhabitant. This dossier exposes the hidden costs of hobby hunting and contrasts them with the Geneva model.

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

In Switzerland, around 20’000 wildlife accidents occur every year (Swiss Animal Welfare). On average, one roe 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 the movement activity of wild animals, particularly during the hunting season. Startled animals cross roads more frequently and more unpredictably. The causal link between hunting pressure and the frequency of wildlife accidents is scientifically documented.

The bill for the general public

According to the Axa insurance company, a wildlife accident claim 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 the direct collision, full comprehensive insurance also covers evasive manoeuvres. Added to this are police operations, carcass disposal, road cleaning and follow-up searches by the wildlife wardens — 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 aggravates wildlife accidents: startled animals flee uncontrolled across roads. In Geneva, where no hobby hunting has taken place since 1974, wild animals behave more calmly and more predictably.

The figures: 585’000 hectares of protection forest

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

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

Protection forest per canton

Canton	Protection forest (ha)	Share of forest	Estimated management 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. Management needs calculated on the basis of 12,500 fr./ha at a minimum management cycle of 25 years (Canton of Obwalden/FOEN).

Browsing situation: deterioration despite hobby hunting

The Forest Report 2025 (FOEN/WSL) documents: the share of protection forest area with very little regeneration (under 5 per cent regeneration coverage) has risen to 30 per cent. The southern side of the Alps (Ticino) is the most affected, at 41 per cent, followed by the Alps at 34 per cent. According to the Swiss Forestry Society, the share of protection forest with tolerable wildlife impact has fallen from more than two thirds in 2015 to less than half. Silver fir and broadleaf trees are particularly affected.

Hobby hunting has not prevented this deterioration, even though tens of thousands of roe deer, red deer and chamois are killed every year. In Ticino, around 3,000 red deer and chamois are shot annually, almost half of all ungulates in the canton. Nevertheless, the browsing situation is worsening. The explanation: through compensatory reproduction, hobby hunting produces more births than it removes animals, and the hunting pressure drives the animals into the protection forest, where they cause more damage (cf. protection forest analysis on wildbeimwild.com).

Valais: 82,000 hectares, 87 per cent protection forest

The canton of Valais has 82,162 hectares of protection forest, which is 87 per cent of the total forest area, the second-highest proportion of all cantons after Ticino (90 per cent). At average net costs of 12,500 francs per hectare (minimum maintenance cycle every 25 years, according to the FOEN), this results in a theoretical annual maintenance requirement of around 41 million francs. Over a four-year programme 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 each year on wolf kills (estimated at 0.8 to 1 million francs in the winter of 2024/25), even though the wolf, as a natural regulator, demonstrably reduces browsing pressure in the protection forest (cf. wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The hidden subsidy: who pays for the browsing damage?

The 150 million francs a year for protection forest maintenance is a necessary investment in natural hazard protection. But a considerable proportion of these costs is attributable to measures directly linked to browsing pressure: young forest maintenance, browsing protection (fences, individual protection), reforestation and stand conversion. These costs are never attributed to the hunting system, even though hunting pressure demonstrably worsens browsing damage. The cantons finance the consequences of hobby hunting with taxpayers' money and declare it as natural hazard protection. A full-cost accounting would have to attribute these costs to the militia hunting system.

Hunting accidents and safety costs

In Switzerland, hunting accidents occur regularly, some of them fatal. The costs for rescue operations, hospital stays, investigations and court proceedings are borne by the general public. Added to this is property damage caused by ricochets and restrictions on recreational use of forests and fields during the hunting season, an aspect that is never assessed in economic terms.

Protection forest and browsing damage: 150 million francs a year

Hobby hunting claims that it prevents game damage in the forest. Numerous studies refute 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. The red deer was originally an animal of the open landscape. That it now occurs in large numbers in mountain forests is not nature, but the result of hunting pressure (cf. Protection forest: hobby hunting creates the problems it claims to solve). Where predators such as lynx and wolf are present, browsing damage decreases because the wild animals distribute themselves naturally and change their behaviour (Landscape of Fear).

According to the SilvaProtect-CH project of the FOEN, around 585’000 hectares or 49 percent of all Swiss forests meet the criteria for a protection 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 the maintenance of protection forests (Waldwissen.net/FOEN). These costs are never attributed to the hunting system, although hunting pressure demonstrably worsens browsing damage.

The Forest Report 2025 (FOEN/WSL) documents: 30 percent of the protection forest area have very little regeneration. The southern side of the Alps (Ticino) is the most severely affected at 41 percent. In the canton of Valais, an estimated maintenance cost of around 41 million francs per year is attributable to 82’162 hectares of protection forest (87 percent of the forest area) (cf. Protection forest analysis).

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

The BFU statistics document over 75 fatalities from hunting accidents since 2000 up to 2019. In purely arithmetical terms, a hunting accident happens every 29 hours, and roughly every three and a half months a person loses their life.

SUVA data: what the insured pay

An analysis of the SUVA data for 2006 to 2015 shows around 300 recognised accidents per year in the activity of hobby hunting, with about 2 fatalities 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 the non-occupational accident premiums (NBU), which all employees pay through their wage deductions. Hobby 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 relate exclusively to gainfully employed persons who are compulsorily insured against accidents. Retired hobby hunters, the largest age group (from the age of 45 the accident rate rises dramatically), are entirely missing. So too are children, walkers, horse riders and mountain bikers who come to harm through ricochets or mistaken identity. The actual costs are considerably higher than the 3.6 million (cf. Statistics on fatal hunting accidents).

Premium burden on the general public

The SUVA operates on the principle of mutuality: premiums cover the costs of accidents. Hunting accidents are classified as non-occupational accidents (NOA). The NOA premium is split between employer and employee. This means: Every employee in Switzerland helps finance the hunting accidents of hobby hunters through their NOA premium. The 3.6 million francs per year (SUVA data) is only the lower limit, because the largest risk group (pensioners) is not recorded at all. Added to this are rescue operations (helicopter, ambulance), hospital stays, investigations and court proceedings, which are also borne by the general public.

On top of this come property damage caused by ricochets and restrictions on recreational use in forest and field during the hunting season, an economic aspect that is never assessed. In the canton of Grisons, in just five years around 3’836 animals were merely wounded by shots, which resulted in fines of over 700’000 francs (cf. Dossier on hunting accidents).

Wolf regulation: costs in the millions for an alibi

In the winter of 2024/25, wolf regulation in Valais cost an estimated 0.8 to 1 million francs in taxpayers' money, around 35’000 francs per wolf killed. This regulation is not paid for by the hobby hunters, but by the general public. At the same time, the figures show that the number of wolf kills is declining even as the population grows, and that 80 per cent of kills occur in unprotected herds. The costs would be considerably lower with consistent herd protection.

Engadin National Park: 100 years of proof without hobby 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. The fox is not hunted, there is no eradication 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 by the Zurich Government Council).

Fox hunting: 18 studies, one result

At least 18 wildlife biology studies over a period of more than 30 years reach the same conclusion: Fox hunting does not regulate and is unsuitable for combating disease. In the canton of Zurich around 2,000 healthy foxes are shot each year, roughly 200 per month. At the same time the fox population does not decrease, because hunting increases the reproduction rate. In the Bernese Mittelland a fox catches around 11 roe deer fawns between May and July, and is therefore a natural regulator. The systematic killing of foxes by hobby hunters destabilises this natural balance and encourages the spread of diseases such as Lyme disease (6,000 to 12,000 cases per year according to the FOPH) and tick-borne encephalitis (100 to 250 cases per year) (cf. Facts instead of hunters' tales and Studies on wildbeimwild.com).

Canton of Zurich: The loss-making hunting administration

The hunting administration of the canton of Zurich is in the red: annual expenditure around 1.6 million francs, revenue from lease fees and hunting passes only around 1.0 million francs. The deficit of 600,000 francs is borne by the taxpayer. On top of this comes the refurbishment of hunting shooting ranges, which can cost tens of millions. In the canton of Zurich around 1,500 hobby hunters hunt in 172 hunting grounds, supervised by only a single game warden with a federal certificate of competence (as of 2017). The claim that a professional game warden model would cost «20 to 30 million francs» was never substantiated by the cantonal government. The figure comes from the hobby hunting lobby and was refuted in the fact check. By way of comparison: Vaud, at 3,212 km², is almost twice as large as Zurich (1,729 km²), but has over 50 per cent fewer hobby hunters and comparable game damage.

Grisons: Over 1,000 charges per year

In the canton of Grisons, home to the largest body of hobby hunters in Switzerland, between 2012 and 2016 over 1,000 charges and fines were issued each year against hobby hunters (2016: 1,201, 2015: 1,298, 2014: 1,102). In 2015 alone the game wardens had to carry out 1,232 follow-up searches, because hobby hunters had only wounded animals. The success rate was 57 per cent, which means: 43 per cent of the wounded animals were never found and died in agony. Over five years in Grisons around 3,836 animals were merely wounded, which resulted in fines of over 700,000 francs. These figures are never communicated by the hobby hunting lobby (cf. Hunting accidents dossier and Game wardens instead of hunters initiative).

Political costs: How the hobby hunting lobby blocks nature conservation

The costs of hobby hunting are not only of a financial nature. The hobby hunting lobby, led by JagdSchweiz and the cantonal hobby hunting associations, has systematically opposed conservation concerns at all political levels for decades. Hobby hunters in politics vote for the most part against biodiversity, against national parks and against the protection of endangered species. The political costs of this obstructionist policy are enormous, but they appear in no ledger.

Ballot defeats caused by the hobby hunting lobby

Hunting Act 2020: 51.9 per cent No. On 27 September 2020 the Swiss electorate rejected the revision of the federal hunting act by 51.9 per cent (SRF). The bill would have loosened wolf protection and allowed the cantons to pre-emptively shoot protected animal species. The hobby hunting lobby had played a decisive role in shaping the law; the electorate shot it down. The narrow No was a defeat for the Federal Council and the centre-right parties, which are closely intertwined with the hobby hunting lobby (UVEK).

Biodiversity Initiative 2024: 63 per cent No. On 22 September 2024 the Biodiversity Initiative was rejected by 63 per cent No (SBV). The hobby hunting lobby, together with the Farmers' Association and the FDP, actively opposed the initiative (SRF). The result: Switzerland still has no adequate constitutional basis for the protection of biological diversity.

Parc Adula National Park 2016: Torpedoed by hobby hunters. At the end of November 2016 the second Swiss national park, the Parc Adula around the Rheinwaldhorn, failed in the municipalities of the cantons of Grisons and Ticino. The Ticino hunting association FCTI ran an aggressive campaign of fear-mongering and lie-based propaganda against the park (SRF). The hobby hunters feared for their hunting grounds. The result: after more than 100 years, Switzerland still has only a single national park, one of the smallest in Europe.

Ticino hunting association FCTI: 30 years against nature

The Ticino hunting association FCTI is a prime example of the political obstruction policy of the hobby hunting lobby. Over the past 30 years, the FCTI has systematically fought conservation concerns: in 2018 the FCTI opposed the creation of a second national park. In 2021 the FCTI unsuccessfully opposed the protection of the endangered ptarmigan in the canton of Ticino. The FCTI opposed the biodiversity initiative. During the 2015 to 2019 legislative period, the former hunting president of the FCTI and other hobby hunters in the Swiss Parliament mostly politicised against the environment. In 2023, a motion by National Councillor Martina Munz for a ban on lead-based ammunition was rejected by 99 votes to 94, amid active resistance from the former FCTI hunting president. In 2025, the same ex-hunting president was rebuffed in Parliament with his motion for wolf-free zones (wildbeimwild.com).

JagdSchweiz: Failed in court

JagdSchweiz, the umbrella organisation of Swiss hobby hunters, also tried to silence critical voices through the courts. On 17 July 2020, the criminal court of the canton of Ticino in Bellinzona acquitted wildbeimwild.com on all counts. The quoted statements about JagdSchweiz, such as those concerning the promotion of animal cruelty and a culture of violence, did not constitute defamation. David Clavadetscher (JagdSchweiz/Sandona GmbH) was unable to provide any pertinent evidence. Civil proceedings in Locarno were suspended. JagdSchweiz lost across the board (wildbeimwild.com).

What the obstruction costs

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

What an honest assessment would show

No Swiss authority has ever presented a full-cost accounting of militia hunting. Such a balance sheet would have to include at least the following items: Direct cantonal administrative costs for the hunting system. Wildlife accident costs during and after the hunting season. Forest damage costs caused by the hunting-induced displacement effect. Costs for police, rescue and the judiciary in the event of hunting accidents. Costs for follow-up searches of wounded animals. Costs for wolf and predator regulation. Biodiversity losses through the hunting of endangered species (brown hares, woodcocks, rock ptarmigans). Economic restrictions on recreational use during the hunting season. Political costs of the obstructionist policy against biodiversity, national parks and species protection. These costs would have to be set against the actual revenue from licences and leases. The result would be devastating for the hobby hunting lobby.

What would have to change

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

Line of argument

«Hobby hunters finance themselves.» Licence fees cover only a fraction of the total costs. The 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 calculation would show that militia hunting costs the taxpayer considerably more than professional wildlife management.

«The Geneva model is too expensive.» One million francs per year—a cup of coffee per inhabitant. For comparison: wolf regulation in Valais alone cost a similar amount in 2024/25. The wildlife damage in Geneva is comparable to that in cantons of the same 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, arable land and rural areas just like other cantons. Geneva has an international airport that requires additional measures for flight safety. If the model works there, there is no structural argument against it working equally well elsewhere. Incidentally, during the hunting season many wild animals from the surrounding cantons and France seek refuge in Geneva. Living proof that wild animals avoid 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 frequently provokes wildlife damage, because hunting pressure drives the animals into the forest and increases browsing damage. Where predators are present, browsing damage decreases.

«Hobby hunters provide unpaid service for the general public.» This narrative implies that hobby hunters act selflessly. In reality it is a hobby based on the killing of 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 genuinely provide a service to the public; hobby hunters provide a service to their hobby.

Quicklinks

Articles on Wild beim Wild

Related dossiers

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

The efficiency of the Geneva model becomes evident in a direct comparison: a professional game warden in Geneva needs on average 8 hours and a maximum of 2 rounds to sanitarily cull a wild boar. A hobby hunter in the canton of Zurich needs, for the same kill, 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 rounds (Fact check of the Zurich cantonal government). That is not an efficiency gain, it is a system change: professionals instead of leisure 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 hobby 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 around 2,000 foxes and numerous other animals are killed each year by hobby hunters, the brown hare density stands at 1.0 per 100 hectares. In Zurich the brown hare is classified as “vulnerable” on the Red List. In Geneva it thrives. Geneva is also home to one of the last grey partridge populations in Switzerland (cf. Facts instead of hunters' tall tales).

Sources

SUVA: accident statistics UVG, 300 hunting accidents/year, CHF 3.6 million in costs (suva.ch)
BFU: more than 75 fatalities from hunting accidents 2000-2019
SRF/Axa: wildlife collision costs averaging CHF 3,800 per claim (srf.ch, October 2025)
Swiss Animal Protection: 20,000 wildlife collisions per year in Switzerland
FOEN SilvaProtect-CH: protection forest area per canton, 585,000 ha of protection forest (bafu.admin.ch)
Waldwissen.net/FOEN: CHF 150 million annually for protection forest management (waldwissen.net)
Federal Council: Dispatch on environmental commitment credits 2025-2028, CHF 451 million for forest (admin.ch)
FOEN/WSL: Forest Report 2025, 30% of protection forest with very little regeneration
Canton of Obwalden: net costs of protection forest management CHF 12,500/ha (ow.ch)
Canton of Geneva, fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker: costs and functioning of Geneva's 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: argumentation for professional game wardens
Bern hunting regulations: licence fees, wildlife damage surcharges, conservation contributions
Fondation Franz Weber: Geneva model, JSG referendum 2020
FOEN: Wildlife accident statistics Switzerland
Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds (JSG, SR 922.0)
Canton of Valais: Wolf regulation 2024/25, cost estimate 0.8–1 million francs
SRF: Hunting act rejected, 27.9.2020, 51.9% No (srf.ch)
DETEC: Vote on hunting act 2020 (uvek.admin.ch)
SBV: Biodiversity initiative rejected, 22.9.2024, 63% No (sbv-usp.ch)
SRF: Parc Adula, scepticism in the Blenio valley, 2016 (srf.ch)
wildbeimwild.com: Ticino hunting association FCTI celebrates 30 years of nonsense (wildbeimwild.com)
wildbeimwild.com: Success – JagdSchweiz loses, acquittal at the Bellinzona criminal court 17.7.2020 (wildbeimwild.com)

Our aspiration

The hobby hunters claim that they cost the state nothing. This is a lie by omission: the external costs are never recorded, never accounted for and never made public. The Geneva model shows that it can be done differently: transparent, professional and affordable. One cup of coffee per inhabitant for a system that demonstrably works, promotes biodiversity and needs no hobby hunters. This dossier demands what is long overdue: an honest reckoning. Those who conceal costs have something to hide. This dossier is continuously updated.

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