Wild animals, fear of death, tranquilization: Dossier Switzerland

In Swiss slaughterhouses, it is clearly regulated that no animal may bleed out without prior stunning. Even crustaceans and fish have been protected since 2022. Different rules apply to recreational hunting: wild animals regularly die without stunning, in mortal fear, in pain, and often after long periods of flight. This dossier uses legal foundations, studies, and figures to show how little protection wild animals currently have and what needs to change so that their deaths no longer remain a blind spot in legislation.

What awaits you here

Legal framework: How Swiss animal welfare law mandates stunning while simultaneously exempting recreational hunting. Why wild animals are legally less protected than animals destined for slaughter.
The dying process: What actually happens during hobby hunting, from the chase to the glancing shot to the failed search, and why fear of death is not a slip-up, but part of the system.
Figures and studies: What the STS report, the federal hunting statistics and research data reveal about missed shots, flight distances and tracking rates.
Dignity in dying: Why the dying process during hobby hunting is incompatible with any standard that we consider appropriate in palliative medicine, veterinary medicine or ethics.
Argumentation: Answers to the most common objections of the hobby hunting lobby.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and sources at a glance.

Mandatory sedation: Who is protected and who is not

Switzerland takes the protection of animals during slaughter seriously, at least on paper. Article 21, paragraph 1 of the Animal Welfare Act (TSchG) stipulates that animals for slaughter must be stunned before being bled. Article 178, paragraph 1 of the Animal Welfare Ordinance (TSchV) extends this obligation to all vertebrates: they may only be killed under stunning, unless there is an emergency. Since the revision of the Ordinance on Animal Welfare during Slaughter (VTSchS) on January 1, 2022, explicit regulations also apply to fish and crustaceans. Anyone who violates the stunning requirement commits the criminal offense of improper slaughter (Articles 177 et seq. TSchV in conjunction with Article 28, paragraph 1, letters f and g of the Animal Welfare Act). Incorrect stunning is generally considered animal cruelty.

But it is precisely here that the legislator creates an exception that has enormous consequences in everyday life. Article 178a, paragraph 1, letter a of the Animal Welfare Ordinance exempts recreational hunting from the requirement to use tranquilizers. A shot from a distance replaces the need for stunning, at least in theory. The Foundation for Animal Law (TIR) states it unequivocally: Hunting is exempt from the requirement to use tranquilizers, even if the method of killing used does not immediately render the animal insensible and unconscious.

In practice, this exception means that wild animals are legally less protected than domestic cattle, chickens, or lobsters in a cooking pot. What would be considered animal cruelty and a criminal offense in a slaughterhouse—namely, letting an animal bleed to death while fully conscious—is permitted in a hunting area. This unequal treatment reveals a hierarchy of compassion: animals we see in barns receive minimal standards. Animals living "outside" lose their rights as soon as a recreational hunter loads their rifle. Anyone who takes animal welfare seriously must openly acknowledge this disparity.

More on this topic: Hunting and animal welfare: What the reality is like for wild animals

The fear of death is part of the system

Romanticized notions of hunting often revolve around "quick, clean shots" that supposedly kill the animal "on the spot." Reality begins earlier, the moment the animal realizes it is being pursued. , driven hunts are organized panic: flight over long distances, overexertion, disorientation, and the feeling that its familiar surroundings have suddenly become life-threatening. The fear of death is not an isolated incident, but an integral part of the process.

Even in stand hunting , where the hobby hunter wants to shoot "by surprise," a structural problem remains: no shot is perfect, no animal a static target on the shooting board. Small deviations in distance, wind, movement, or rest are enough for the hit to be not fatal, but "only" wounded. For the affected animal, this makes the difference between an instant death and hours or days of suffering.

The dying process, rarely discussed publicly, looks like this in concrete terms: deer with shattered legs fleeing into the woods; stags with abdominal gunshot wounds bleeding to death internally; foxes with shattered jaws unable to eat or hunt. These are not theoretical extreme cases, but the downside of any recreational activity involving firearms. Furthermore, animals fleeing in panic release large amounts of stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol. Their metabolism collapses, and their muscles become acidic. This results in tough, watery meat of reduced quality—a stark contradiction to the narrative that recreational hunting produces "high-quality, healthy" game.

More on this topic: Psychology of hunting and driven hunts in Switzerland

Grazing shots and searches: What the numbers say

Official hunting statistics sound orderly: In the 2023 hunting season, around 30,000 recreational hunters in Switzerland killed approximately 76,000 ungulates (roe deer, red deer, chamois, wild boar) and nearly 22,000 predators (red fox, badger, pine marten, stone marten). In total, almost 100,000 animals were shot. Switzerland is estimated to have 135,000 roe deer, 40,000 red deer, and 86,000 chamois.

Those animals that are hit but never retrieved remain invisible. The Swiss Animal Protection Association (STS) systematically investigated this problem in its report "Grazing Shots and Searches in Swiss Hunting".

Key findings of the STS report

The success rate of searches for wounded game varies from canton to canton, ranging from only 35 to 65 percent. Around half of the animals shot during recreational hunting can never be put out of their misery despite the search. According to federal hunting statistics, a total of 334 dead wild animals with gunshot wounds were found in 2014, including 30 red deer, 191 roe deer, and 15 chamois. The Swiss Animal Protection Association (STS) calls these findings "the tip of the iceberg.".

A projection based on data from the canton of Graubünden (where approximately 6 percent of shot animals are reported annually as wounded but not killed) suggests that between 3,000 and 4,000 wounded animals flee across Switzerland each year. Despite being invoked by the Freedom of Information Act, nine of the 26 cantons refused to provide the Swiss Animal Protection Association (STS) with any information. Some cantons have neither a reporting requirement for searches for wounded animals nor data on their success rate.

International comparative data

A Danish study (Elmeros et al., 2012, European Journal of Wildlife Research) showed that around 25 percent of foxes killed and found dead there carried traces of previous gunshot wounds in their bodies: individual pellets that had survived encapsulated. Comparable systematic data for Switzerland do not exist.

The German Veterinary Association for Animal Welfare (TVT) states in its position paper on "Animal Welfare and Driven Hunts" that, depending on the analysis, up to approximately 70 percent of animals shot during driven hunts are not killed instantly but flee wounded. A large German study (research team led by Anja Martin, analyzing over 2,000 culls of roe deer and wild boar) found that, depending on the species and type of ammunition, 30 to 40 percent of the animals fled considerably further than ten meters after being hit. For roe deer shot in the head or thorax, the flight distances during driven hunts were significantly longer than during stand hunting or stalking.

What happens to a wounded animal

Grazing shots and subsequent tracking appear only in a rudimentary way in the statistics of many cantons. What happens to a grazed animal that is never found? It flees as long as it has the strength, hides, and suffers. Open fractures, internal bleeding, shattered organs, or jaws rarely lead to a quick death. Often, these animals succumb over days or weeks to infections, hypothermia, or starvation because they can no longer eat. The mandatory tracking, i.e., the subsequent search for wounded animals with dogs, is often presented as proof of responsible hunting practices. But every tracking is an admission of a previous mistake. And it, too, often fails: tracks disappear, terrain is complex, the weather changes, and animals cross hunting boundaries.

All those who can no longer be found disappear from the moral horizon, even though they represent precisely the fear of death and suffering that animal protection law is actually supposed to prevent.

More on this topic: Unscrupulous Swiss hunting authorities and hunting and animal cruelty

"Relieve" or kill? The language of recreational hunting

In terms of language, recreational hunting often presents a softer image. Animals are "put down," "removed," "brought down," as if it were a routine procedure. Recreational hunters rarely say simply, "I killed this animal." This choice of words is not accidental, but rather a psychological shield. Those who regularly kill without being existentially dependent on the meat must first and foremost explain to themselves why this is acceptable.

From an animal ethics perspective, the core conflict is clear: If someone hunts and kills animals in their free time, even though they could easily subsist on plants or other available resources, it's not about necessity, but about pleasure, tradition, and identity. The concept of "redeeming" serves as a moral softener. One doesn't take the animal's life, but supposedly only its suffering. The fact that this suffering often arises from the hobby hunt itself, from the chasing, shooting, and injuries, is ignored.

Psychologically, motives such as power over life and death, dealing with one's own mortality, group affiliation, and differentiation from a "softened" urban society can be observed. While recreational hunting may be subjectively experienced as "primal instinct," objectively it remains a decision: Do I go into the woods today with my rifle to consciously end the life of another living being, or not? Anyone who justifies this decision with "fun," "passion," or "connection to nature" should ask themselves why these feelings apparently require a death to be expressed.

More on this topic: Dossier “Psychology of Hunting” and The Hobby Hunter in the 21st Century

The dying process: a comparison of palliative medicine, veterinary medicine, and recreational hunting

In human medicine, the final stage of life is considered a particularly precious phase worthy of protection. Palliative medicine and ethics speak of "dying with dignity": pain should be alleviated, anxiety reduced, and people should not be left alone. No one would seriously consider hunting a dying person in the woods, shooting them, and then leaving them to die.

Veterinary recommendations regarding euthanasia also emphasize calm, low-pain or painless procedures, a familiar environment, avoiding panic, and being accompanied by familiar people. Even pet owner guides state that animals should die as peacefully as possible, without struggle or stress.

When this understanding is contrasted with the dying process in recreational hunting, two worlds collide. Here, death is regularly the result of a sudden shot from a distance, without warning, without any possibility of preparation, without any form of companionship. Not infrequently, the animals first experience being chased, driven hunts, or having their familiar surroundings searched by armed people and dogs. What follows is not a "peaceful final phase," but an explosion of mortal fear: flight, disorientation, pain if the shot wounds instead of kills, and often a lonely death somewhere in the thicket.

The asymmetry of interests is crucial: In palliative medicine, the focus is on the well-being of the dying person, while in veterinary medicine, it is on the animal's welfare. In recreational hunting, however, the interests of the recreational hunter dominate—in kill counts, trophies, rituals, and identity. The animal is the object of a leisure activity, not the subject of a dying process that needs protection. If we were to seriously apply the same standards formulated in palliative medicine and animal ethics to wild animals, most of today's recreational hunting would simply be untenable.

Professional gamekeepers instead of hobby shooters: The Geneva model

There are situations in which intervention in wildlife populations seems unavoidable: traffic and safety risks, severely injured animals after collisions, individual animals with documented, concrete injuries. The question is who carries out such interventions and under what mandate.

A hobby hunter who also represents the interests of their community inevitably faces conflicts of interest. A professional game warden, on the other hand, operates within a clear legal mandate, with training, oversight, and reporting requirements. The Canton of Geneva, which has managed without volunteer hunting since 1974 and relies on professional game wardens, demonstrates that the death of wild animals does not necessarily have to be outsourced to private recreational users.

Where game wardens are responsible, the line between "the joy of hunting" and necessary danger prevention is not as blurred. This doesn't mean that every shot is automatically compliant with animal welfare regulations, but it does reduce the influence of a lobby that portrays itself as indispensable. Anyone who seriously argues that animals must be "euthanized" should insist that this be done by professionals with demonstrable competence and strict oversight, not by people who, on weekends, shoot anything that fits the bill, driven by colleagues, trophy pressure, and group dynamics.

The STS report documents the problem of oversight: In the hunting districts, game management is not the responsibility of state-employed game wardens, but rather of a supervisor appointed by the respective hunting districts themselves. From the STS's perspective, this raises the question of potential bias.

More on this topic: Canton of Geneva: Wildlife management without recreational hunting and alternatives to hunting: What really helps without killing animals

What would need to change

If the principle that animals should not die in mortal fear and avoidable suffering is taken seriously, then the current hunting practices in Switzerland are indefensible. Six concrete points of departure.

Review the hunting exemption : The exemption for recreational hunting from the mandatory stunning requirement (Art. 178a para. 1 lit. a Animal Welfare Ordinance) is at the heart of the problem. Of course, a classic slaughter stunning method cannot be replicated in the forest, but the principle must be clear: No recreational hunting system may structurally produce more suffering than is technically avoidable. This would require short shooting distances, strict regulations regarding weapons and ammunition, comprehensive documentation requirements, and harsh penalties for missed shots, and would call into question many currently common hunting practices.
Transparency regarding stray shots : Honest statistics would need to be recorded nationwide and uniformly on how many animals are injured, how many are euthanized through tracking, and how many are never found. The Swiss Animal Protection Association (STS) demands an explicit obligation to track wounded animals, enshrined in the federal hunting law, a reporting requirement, and public transparency regarding success rates. The fact that nine cantons refused to provide the STS with any information, despite the freedom of information law, demonstrates how far removed current practice is from this ideal.
Separate recreational hunting from professional wildlife management : What is truly necessary belongs in the hands of an independent game warden. Everything else is dispensable leisure activity at the expense of the vulnerable. The Geneva model proves that this works.
Restrict driven hunts : The data is clear: Driven hunts systematically produce more missed shots, longer escape distances, and more animal suffering than other forms of hunting. A ban on shotgun shooting at roe deer and wild boar, as demanded by the STS (Swiss Animal Protection Association), would be a minimum step.
Independent hunting supervision : Hunting supervision must be organized by the state, be independent and accountable, not by chairmen appointed by the hunting associations themselves.
Establishing true costs : Society needs to know what recreational hunting costs, not only in francs for gamekeeping and administration, but also in animal suffering, missed shots, and lost ecosystem services.
Sample proposals : Sample texts for proposals critical of hunting and zero tolerance for alcohol and drugs in recreational hunting

Argumentation

"A clean bullet does not violate animal welfare." A technically perfect, instantly lethal bullet would theoretically be less problematic. In practice, however, it is not the norm, but the exception. The Martin study shows that 30 to 40 percent of hit animals still manage to flee more than ten meters. The TVT (German Animal Welfare Association) reports that up to 70 percent of shots during driven hunts are not instantly fatal. Animal welfare law must be measured against the norm, not the idealized image of the recreational hunting lobby.

"Hunting is necessary to regulate populations." This claim is controversial. Ecosystems with healthy predator populations, natural selection, and adapted land use can function without widespread recreational hunting. Where intervention is necessary, professional game wardens can step in without requiring 30,000 recreational hunters with trophy interests. The Geneva model has been working for over 50 years.

"Do wild animals suffer more during hunts than in slaughterhouses?" The situations cannot be directly compared, but one thing is clear: Slaughterhouses have mandatory stunning and controlled procedures. In recreational hunting, pursuit, the fear of death, and a significant risk of non-lethal shots are part of the process. The tracking rate of 35 to 65 percent means that up to half of all wounded animals are never euthanized.

"Hunting can be regulated so that animals hardly suffer." While suffering can be reduced, it cannot be brought down to a minimum comparable to stunning in a slaughterhouse. As long as fleeing or unpredictably reacting animals are shot at from a distance with firearms, mortal fear, misfires, and failed searches will remain part of the system.

"Isn't it hypocritical to eat meat and reject recreational hunting?" It's particularly hypocritical to demand strict animal welfare standards for farm animals and then suddenly accept exceptions for wild animals. This clearly demonstrates how arbitrary it is to protect wild animals less effectively than farm animals. The most consistent answer remains: less or no meat, and no leisure activities that make death and suffering entertainment.

"Does the fear of death affect the quality of game meat?" Yes. Animals fleeing in panic release large amounts of stress hormones. Their metabolism malfunctions, and their muscles become acidic. The result is lower-quality meat, a contradiction to the marketing narrative of "premium game."

"Hunting is deeply rooted in our culture." Tradition is no argument for continuing practices that are untenable according to today's ethical and scientific standards. Bear fights, cockfights, and fox hunting were also culturally ingrained before societies recognized that animal suffering is not a cultural asset.

Quick links

Posts on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

External sources:

Our claim

Wild animals deserve the same protection from suffering and the fear of death that we grant farm animals in slaughterhouses. This dossier documents how Swiss animal welfare law ends at the edge of the forest, why recreational hunting structurally produces more suffering than could be technically avoided, and why professional game management is the only way to remain compatible with honest animal welfare legislation. The dossier is continuously updated as new data, studies, or political developments necessitate it.

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