What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland: the bill nobody presents

Recreational hunters like to claim that they are self-financing: licence fees, contributions towards wildlife damage and voluntary work, they say, cost the state nothing. This narrative does not stand up to scrutiny. The external costs of the militia hunting system – wildlife accidents, administrative effort, hunting accidents, biodiversity losses caused by hunting pressure, forest damage from the displacement of animals, police operations and court costs – are never fully accounted for. The canton of Geneva has shown since 1974 that there is another way: professional wildlife management by around a dozen trained environmental wardens who share just under three full-time posts, at a cost of roughly 1.2 million francs a year including wildlife damage (Geneva and the hunting ban). That equates to one cup of coffee per inhabitant. This dossier exposes the hidden costs of recreational hunting and sets them against the Geneva model.

Wildlife collisions: 20,000 a year, CHF 76 million in insurance costs

In Switzerland, around 20,000 wildlife collisions occur every year (Swiss Animal Protection). On average, one roe deer dies under the wheels of a car every hour. In around 100 cases a year, people are injured. Hunting pressure increases the flight distance and movement activity of wild animals, especially during the hunting season. Startled animals cross roads more often and more unpredictably. The causal link between hunting pressure and the frequency of wildlife-vehicle collisions is scientifically documented.

The bill for the general public

According to the insurer Axa, a wildlife-vehicle collision claim costs on average around CHF 3,800, 800 francs more than ten years ago (SRF, October 2025). With 20,000 wildlife collisions a year, this gives estimated insurance costs of around CHF 76 million annually. These costs are borne by motorists through their comprehensive insurance premiums. Partial comprehensive insurance covers the direct collision, while fully comprehensive insurance also covers evasive manoeuvres. In addition, there are police call-outs, carcass disposal, road cleaning and follow-up searches by the wildlife wardens — all costs that are passed on to the general public.

These 76 million francs appear in no hunting balance sheet. They are never attributed to the hunting system, even though hunting pressure demonstrably exacerbates wildlife collisions: startled animals flee uncontrollably across roads. In Geneva, where there has been no recreational hunting since 1974, wild animals behave more calmly and predictably.

The figures: 585,000 hectares of protection forest

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

The Confederation, cantons and beneficiaries (municipalities, railway operators) invest around 150 million francs annually in protective forest maintenance: around 60 million from the Confederation, around 90 million from cantons and beneficiaries (Waldwissen.net/FOEN). Protective forest maintenance 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 forestry sector (Dispatch on Programme Agreements 2025-2028).

Protective forest by canton

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

Source: FOEN SilvaProtect-CH. Maintenance requirement calculated on the basis of CHF 12,500 per hectare with a minimum maintenance cycle of 25 years (Canton of Obwalden/FOEN).

Browsing damage situation: deterioration despite recreational hunting

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

Recreational hunting has not prevented this deterioration, even though tens of thousands of roe deer, red deer and chamois are shot every year. In Ticino, around 3,000 red deer and chamois are shot annually (2025: 2,651 red deer and 463 chamois against an estimated population of 7,300 red deer and 8,200 chamois, Federal Hunting Statistics 2025). Even so, the browsing damage situation is getting worse. The explanation: through compensatory reproduction, recreational hunting produces more births than the animals it removes, and hunting pressure drives the animals into the protection forest, where they do 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 its total forest area, the second-highest share of any canton after Ticino (90 per cent). At average net costs of CHF 12,500 per hectare (minimum maintenance cycle every 25 years, according to the FOEN), this gives a theoretical annual maintenance requirement of around CHF 41 million. Over a four-year programme period, that comes to more than CHF 160 million. These costs are borne by the general public. At the same time, the canton of Valais spends hundreds of thousands of francs every year on wolf kills (2025: 13,390 working hours for wolf management and regulation, which Wild beim Wild estimates at CHF 0.8 to just over 1 million), even though the wolf, as a natural regulator, demonstrably reduces browsing pressure in the protection forest (cf. Valais wolf report and Wolf in Switzerland).

The hidden subsidy: who pays for browsing damage?

The 150 million francs spent annually on protection forest maintenance are a necessary investment in protection against natural hazards. But a considerable part of these costs relates to measures that are 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 recreational hunting with taxpayer money and declare it as protection against natural hazards. 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 of rescue operations, hospital stays, investigations and court proceedings are borne by the general public. In addition, there is property damage caused by ricochets and restrictions on recreational use of forests and fields during the hunting season – an aspect that is never factored into any economic assessment.

Protective forest and browsing damage: 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 nocturnal activity, which increases rather than reduces browsing damage to young trees. The red deer was originally an animal of open landscapes. The fact that it now occurs massively in mountain forests is not natural but a result of hunting pressure (cf. Protective forest: recreational hunting creates the problems it claims to solve). Where predators such as lynx and wolf are present, browsing damage decreases because wild animals distribute themselves naturally and change their behaviour (Landscape of Fear).

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

The Forest Report 2025 (FOEN/WSL) documents: 30 percent of the protective forest area have very little regeneration. The southern side of the Alps (Ticino) is the most heavily affected at 41 per cent. In the canton of Valais, 82,162 hectares of protection forest (87 per cent of the forest area) incur estimated maintenance costs of around CHF 41 million per year (cf. Protective Forest Analysis).

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

The BFU statistics document over 75 deaths due to hunting accidents from 2000 to 2019. Mathematically speaking, a hunting accident occurs every 29 hours, and a person is killed roughly every three and a half months.

SUVA data: what the insured pay

An analysis of SUVA data for 2006 to 2015 shows around 300 recognised accidents per year in the activity of recreational hunting, 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 the non-occupational accident insurance (NBU) premiums, which all employees pay through their wage deductions. Recreational hunting is thus a leisure risk that is co-financed by the entire working population.

What the SUVA statistics fail to capture is crucial: the data refer exclusively to compulsorily insured working people. Retired recreational hunters, the largest age group (the accident rate rises dramatically from the age of 45), are entirely missing. The same applies to children, walkers, horse riders and mountain bikers who are injured by ricochets or cases of mistaken identity. The actual costs are significantly higher than the 3.6 million (cf. statistics on fatal hunting accidents).

Premium burden on the general public

SUVA operates according to the principle of mutuality: premiums cover the cost 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 helps finance the hunting accidents of the recreational hunting community through their NBU premium. The 3.6 million francs annually (SUVA data) is only the lower limit, because the largest risk group (retirees) is not even recorded. In addition, there are rescue operations (helicopter, ambulance), hospital stays, investigations and court proceedings, which are likewise borne by the general public.

Added to this are material damage caused by ricochets and restrictions on recreational use of forest and fields during the hunting season, an economic aspect that is never assessed. In the canton of Grisons, around 3,836 animals were merely wounded by gunshot in just five years, resulting in fixed penalty fines of over CHF 700,000 (cf. Hunting accidents dossier).

Wolf regulation: millions in costs for an alibi

In 2025, according to the cantonal balance sheet, the Valais hunting administration spent 13,390 working hours on wolf management and regulation; by Wild beim Wild's estimate, that equates to CHF 0.8 to just over 1 million in taxpayers' money, around CHF 35,000 per wolf killed (27 in the 2025/26 regulation period). Compensation for livestock kills amounted to just over CHF 170,000 in the same year. This regulation is not paid for by recreational hunters but by the general public. At the same time, the figures show that wolf kills are declining as the population grows (Valais 2023: 401, 2024: 341, 2025: 318) and that a large proportion of kills occur in unprotected herds. Costs would be considerably lower with consistent herd protection. Across Switzerland, 77 wolves were killed as part of regulation in the 2025/26 period (wolf counter).

More on this: Valais wolf balance sheet: figures of a massacre and Herd protection in Switzerland

Swiss National Park Engadin: 100 years of proof without recreational hunting

The Swiss National Park in the Engadin has been free of hunting since 1914, for over 100 years. The results refute every argument of the recreational hunting lobby: the Chamois population has remained constant at around 1,350 animals since 1920. The fox is not hunted, and there is no extermination of prey animals. The 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 recreational hunter (fact check by the Zurich Cantonal Council).

Fox hunting: decades of research, one conclusion

More than 30 years of wildlife biology research arrive at the same conclusion: Fox hunting does not regulate populations and is unsuitable for controlling disease (Baker and Harris 2006, Rushton et al. 2006, Kämmerle et al. 2019; overview on the campaign page End fox hunting). In the canton of Zurich, 1,400 to 1,700 healthy foxes have recently been shot every year (2023: 1,402, 2025: 1,743 according to the Federal Hunting Statistics), and 19,208 across Switzerland in 2025. At the same time, the fox population is not declining, because hunting raises the reproduction rate. In the Bernese Mittelland, a fox takes around 11 roe deer fawns between May and July, making it a natural regulator. The systematic killing of foxes by recreational hunters destabilises this natural balance and promotes the spread of diseases such as Lyme disease (6,000 to 12,000 cases per year according to the FOPH) and tick-borne encephalitis (several hundred cases per year) (cf. Facts instead of hunters' tales and Hunting Fact Check).

The carcass mountain: thousands of animals disposed of unused

A report by the Federal Council states that numerous wild animals killed by hunters are never put to any use. For 2015 it cites around 27,000 fur-bearing animals killed by trapping or shooting: around 22,000 red foxes, 3,500 badgers, 1,050 stone martens and 140 pine martens. According to an extrapolation published in the report, only around 9,500 pelts went into fur production, 38 per cent in the case of the red fox. The kill figures come from the Federal Hunting Statistics, while the figures on pelt use come from the fur trade association SwissFur. The Federal Council concludes that around 17,500 fur-bearing animals killed by hunters are "disposed of unused" (Report on the fur declaration requirement, 23 May 2018). At the time, a raw pelt fetched around eight francs.

These animals are disposed of via the animal carcass collection points that municipalities are required to operate. In many places, delivery is free of charge for those bringing in carcasses. The municipalities bear the cost of building and running the collection points (example: Sarmenstorf), while the disposal costs are in some cases borne by the cantonal animal disease fund, for instance in the canton of Lucerne (example: Sempach). Whether and in what form the share of these costs attributable to recreational hunting is recorded separately is not publicly documented.

Criticism of the mountain of carcasses has existed for decades. Shortly after the peak of 1995, when more than 43,000 foxes were shot every year, the fox researcher Felix Labhardt criticised in the Beobachter that the foxes killed were being burned at the taxpayers' expense. The then Bernese hunting inspector Peter Juesy considered fox hunting to make no sense in terms of wildlife biology, because the population cannot be regulated this way, and named the passion of recreational hunters as the main reason. According to Juesy, a general ban would trigger "a civil war".

Even JagdSchweiz now concedes that fox hunting does not regulate the population: current hunting has hardly any noticeable limiting effect on the overall population (position paper of 20 November 2025). Shooting nevertheless continues (cf. campaign "Stop Fox Hunting").

Canton of Zurich: the loss-making hunting administration

The hunting administration of the canton of Zurich is running a deficit: annual expenditure of around 1.6 million francs, while revenue from lease fees and hunting licences amounts to only around 1.0 million francs. The deficit of 600,000 francs is borne by the taxpayer. On top of that comes the renovation of hunting shooting ranges, which can cost tens of millions. In the canton of Zurich, around 1,500 recreational hunters hunt in 172 hunting grounds, supervised by just 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 recreational hunting lobby and was refuted in the fact check. For comparison: Vaud, at 3,212 km², is almost twice the size of Zurich (1,729 km²), but has over 50 per cent fewer recreational hunters and comparable wildlife damage.

Grisons: Over 1,000 reports per year (2012 to 2020)

In the canton of Grisons, home to Switzerland's largest community of recreational hunters, between 2012 and 2020 over 1,000 reports and fines were issued against recreational hunters every year (2014: 1,102, 2015: 1,298, 2016: 1,201, averaging just under 1,200). Since 2021 the canton has no longer published these figures (Hunting offences and rulings: Grisons statistics). In 2021, according to their annual report, the Grisons tracking dog handlers were called out for 1,018 follow-up searches because animals had fled wounded after being shot. Only 57 per cent were successful, meaning that in 43 per cent of cases the animal could not be found, and many of these die an agonising death. Over five years in Grisons, around 3,836 animals were merely wounded by shots, resulting in fixed penalty fines of over 700,000 francs. These figures are never communicated by the recreational hunting lobby (cf. Hunting accidents dossier and Initiative Game Wardens Instead of Hunters).

Political costs: how the recreational hunting lobby blocks nature conservation

The costs of recreational hunting are not only financial in nature. The recreational hunting lobby, led by JagdSchweiz and the cantonal recreational hunting associations, has systematically fought nature conservation concerns at all political levels for decades. Recreational hunters in politics mostly vote 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 balance sheet.

Referendum defeats caused by the recreational 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 with 51.9 per cent (SRF). The bill would have relaxed wolf protection and allowed the cantons to preventively kill protected species. The recreational hunting lobby had played a decisive role in shaping the law, and the electorate shot it down. The narrow No was a defeat for the Federal Council and the centre-right parties, who are closely entangled with the recreational hunting lobby (DETEC).

Biodiversity Initiative 2024: 63 per cent No. On 22 September 2024, the biodiversity initiative was rejected with 63 per cent No (SBV). The recreational hunting lobby, together with the farmers’ association and the FDP, actively fought 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 recreational hunters. At the end of November 2016, Switzerland’s second national park, the Parc Adula around the Rheinwaldhorn, failed in the municipalities of the cantons of Grisons and Ticino. The Ticino hunters' association FCTI ran an aggressive campaign of fear-mongering and lies against the park (SRF). The recreational 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 recreational hunting lobby's policy of political obstruction. Over the past 30 years, the FCTI has systematically fought nature 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 rock 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 recreational hunters in the Swiss Parliament politicised mostly 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, with active opposition from the former FCTI hunting president. In 2025, the same former hunting president's motion for wolf-free zones was rejected by Parliament (wildbeimwild.com).

JagdSchweiz: Legally Defeated

JagdSchweiz, the umbrella organisation of the Swiss recreational hunting community, also attempted to silence critical voices through legal action. On 17 July 2020, the Criminal Court of the Canton of Ticino in Bellinzona acquitted wildbeimwild.com on all counts. The cited statements about JagdSchweiz, for instance regarding the promotion of animal cruelty and a culture of violence, were ruled not to constitute defamation. David Clavadetscher (JagdSchweiz/Sandona GmbH) was unable to provide any pertinent evidence. A civil case in Locarno was suspended. JagdSchweiz lost on all fronts (wildbeimwild.com).

The Cost of This Obstruction

The economic costs of this decades-long policy of obstruction cannot be quantified, but they are real: an insufficient 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 can never be undone. The recreational hunting lobby does not protect nature. It protects a hobby at nature's expense.

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

The efficiency of the Geneva model becomes clear in a direct comparison: a professional game warden in Geneva needs on average 8 hours and a maximum of 2 cartridges. A recreational hunter in the canton of Zurich needs for the same kill 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 cartridges (fact check by the Zurich Cantonal Council). That is not an increase in efficiency, it is a system change: professionals instead of recreational shooters.

European hare: the living proof

The European 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 hare density is 17.7 animals per 100 hectares (2016), the highest in the whole of Switzerland. In the canton of Zurich, where well over 1,000 foxes and numerous other animals are killed by recreational hunters every year, the brown hare density is 1.0 per 100 hectares. The European hare is listed as “vulnerable” on the Red List in Zurich. In Geneva, it thrives. Geneva is also home to one of the last remaining grey partridge populations in Switzerland (see Facts instead of hunters' tales).

What an Honest Assessment Would Show

No Swiss authority has ever presented a full-cost accounting of the militia hunting system. Such a balance sheet would have to include at least the following items: direct cantonal administrative costs for the hunting system. Wildlife-vehicle collision costs during and after the hunting season. Forest damage costs caused by displacement effects from hunting. Costs for police, rescue services and the justice system in the event of hunting accidents. Costs of follow-up searches for wounded animals. Costs of collecting, transporting and disposing of unused hunted animals. Costs of regulating wolves and other predators. Biodiversity losses caused by hunting threatened species (brown hares, woodcock, rock ptarmigan). Economic restrictions on recreational use of the countryside during the hunting season. Political costs of the obstructionist policy against biodiversity, national parks and species protection. These costs would then have to be set against the actual revenue from licences and leases. The result would be devastating for the recreational hunting lobby.

What needs to change

Full-cost accounting of recreational hunting: Every canton should be required to present a transparent overall balance sheet of the hunting system, including all external costs. Only then can a fact-based debate on alternatives be conducted.
Geneva model as a reference: The Geneva model proves that professional wildlife management without a recreational hunting community not only works, but is also affordable. A cup of coffee per resident. Other cantons must be measured against this standard.
Polluter-pays principle for hunting damage: Costs arising from hunting pressure (wildlife accidents, forest damage due to displacement, follow-up searches) must be attributed to the hunting system, not to the general public.
Professionalisation instead of a militia system: 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 killing: The millions spent on wolf regulation could instead be invested in herd protection, which is demonstrably more effective and, in the long run, cheaper.

Talking points

«Recreational hunting finances itself.» Licence fees cover only a fraction of the total costs. The external costs, wildlife-vehicle collisions, forest damage, administration, police, justice, biodiversity losses, are never accounted for and fall entirely on the general public. A full cost accounting would show that militia hunting costs taxpayers considerably more than professional wildlife management.

«The Geneva model is too expensive.» Around 1.2 million francs a year, one cup of coffee per inhabitant. By comparison: by our estimate, wolf regulation in Valais alone cost almost as much in 2025. Wildlife damage in Geneva is comparable to that in cantons of the same size where recreational hunting is permitted. The Geneva model is not too expensive. It is more transparent than the militia hunting system.

«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, which requires additional flight safety measures. If the model works there, there is no structural argument against it working elsewhere as well. During the hunting season, incidentally, many wild animals from neighbouring cantons and France seek refuge in Geneva. Living proof that wild animals avoid hunting grounds.

«Without recreational hunting, wildlife damage will explode.» More than 50 years of Geneva prove the opposite: stable wildlife populations, controlled wildlife damage, greater biodiversity. Recreational hunting frequently provokes wildlife damage, because hunting pressure drives animals into the forest and increases browsing damage. Where predators are present, browsing damage decreases.

«Recreational hunters perform a public service for the community.» This narrative implies that recreational hunters act selflessly. In fact, 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 genuinely provide a service to the public; recreational hunters provide a service to their hobby.

Quick links

Articles on Wild beim Wild

Related dossiers

sources

SUVA: accident statistics UVG, 300 hunting accidents per year, CHF 3.6 million in costs (suva.ch)
BFU: over 75 deaths from hunting accidents 2000-2019
SRF/Axa: wildlife collision costs average 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 by canton, 585,000 ha of protection forest (bafu.admin.ch)
Waldwissen.net/FOEN: CHF 150 million annually for protective forest maintenance (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 protective forest with very little regeneration
Canton of Obwalden: net costs of protection forest management CHF 12,500/ha (ow.ch)
Canton of Geneva, wildlife inspector Gottlieb Dandliker: costs and functioning of Geneva's wildlife management
IG Wild beim Wild: hunting statistics 2022 and 2025, comparison of Geneva vs. Schaffhausen
IG Wild beim Wild: Switzerland hunts, but why still? (2025)
Tierpartei Schweiz: protection of wild animals, external costs of militia hunting
IG Wild beim Wild: arguments for professional game wardens
Bernese hunting regulations: licence fees, wildlife damage surcharges, conservation contributions
Fondation Franz Weber: Geneva model, JSG referendum 2020
FOEN: Swiss wildlife collision statistics
Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds (JSG, SR 922.0)
Canton of Valais, Service for Hunting, Fisheries and Wildlife: 2025/2026 review of wolf presence and regulation (13,390 working hours, compensation payments CHF 170,000); cost estimate of CHF 0.8–1 million by IG Wild beim Wild
SRF: Hunting Act rejected, 27.9.2020, 51.9% No (srf.ch)
DETEC: Hunting Act vote 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 by the Criminal Court of Bellinzona, 17 July 2020 (wildbeimwild.com)
Federal Council: report 'Fur Declaration Requirement', 23 May 2018, chapter 3.3, pp. 8–9: around 17,500 fur-bearing animals killed by hunters disposed of unused; 2015 kill figures from the Federal Hunting Statistics, fur utilisation according to SwissFur (admin.ch)
Beobachter: «Nature conservationists mobilise for Reynard the Fox», statements by Felix Labhardt and Peter Juesy (beobachter.ch)
JagdSchweiz: Position on fox hunting, 20 November 2025 (jagd.ch)
Municipality of Sarmenstorf: Regulation on the financing of the disposal of animal by-products; Municipality of Sempach: animal carcass collection point, costs covered by the cantonal animal disease fund of Lucerne

Our Standard

The recreational hunting lobby claims it costs the state nothing. That is a lie by omission: the external costs are never recorded, 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 reckoning. Whoever conceals costs has something to hide. This dossier is continuously updated.

More on the topic of recreational hunting: in our Dossier on hunting in Switzerland we bring together fact checks, analyses and background reports.