Federal Supreme Court confirms suspension of Zurich recreational hunter and reveals supervisory model at bird reserve

The Federal Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of a Zurich recreational hunter in full.

The man leased a hunting ground in the Zurich Oberland, where he also acted as a hunting warden. He is now excluded for one year from leasing a hunting ground, holding a hunting licence, and carrying out hunting supervision. He must bear the court costs of CHF 2,000 himself. Ruling 2C_703/2025 is dated 19 August 2026.

Two penalty orders as the starting point

It began with two legally binding penalty orders. In November 2021, the recreational hunter was fined 600 francs because he had repeatedly failed to take samples for trichinella testing from killed wild boars. He had also failed to keep the game register properly and had not sealed killed game as required. Trichinellae are threadworms that can cause serious illness when insufficiently inspected game meat is consumed. Numerous studies show what further risks game meat from recreational hunting poses.

In July 2023, a fine of 500 francs followed. The cantonal police had called on the man twice to put a wounded young crow out of its misery. He did not respond. In the end, the leaseholder of a neighbouring hunting ground took on the task. The recreational hunter initially objected to the penalty order but later withdrew his objection.

From the canton to Lausanne

On the basis of the two convictions, the Fisheries and Hunting Administration of the Office for Landscape and Nature (ALN) opened administrative proceedings. In January 2024, it excluded the recreational hunter from hunting-ground leases and hunting licences for three years and revoked his hunting supervisory role. In March 2025, the Building Directorate reduced all three measures to one year, and the Administrative Court upheld this decision in October 2025.

The Federal Supreme Court made no further changes to the duration. Contrary to how some media reports have presented it, the reduction to one year did not originate in Lausanne but from the cantonal appeal proceedings. Because the Federal Supreme Court had granted the appeal suspensive effect in January 2026, the ban had not yet been enforced by the time of the ruling.

The crow in the protected area

Before the Federal Supreme Court, the dispute centred mainly on the crow. The recreational hunter argued that the animal had been located in the Pfäffikersee waterfowl and migratory bird reserve, a protected area of national significance with an absolute hunting ban. Under federal law, cantonal reserve wardens are responsible there, not hunting licence holders. The involvement of hunting parties, he argued, had neither been ordered by the canton nor regulated by contract. The Fisheries and Hunting Administration was merely relying on an «informal understanding» with the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN).

The Federal Supreme Court does not follow this argument. Federal law allows cantons to call on additional specialists, besides reserve wardens, for hunting-police duties in reserves, and does not prescribe how this must be done. A general rule under cantonal law suffices. Section 15 of the Zurich Hunting Act obliges hunting wardens and hunting parties to recover, track down and, if necessary, kill injured or sick wild animals at all times. This obligation also applies in built-up areas, beyond the boundaries of the hunting ground, and within the protected perimeter of a reserve. Where exactly the crow was located is therefore irrelevant.

The court also notes that the man had already justified his failure to respond during the police interview by citing his lack of jurisdiction in the protected area.

No cantonal reserve warden at Pfäffikersee

The most revealing part of the ruling does not concern the individual case, but the system. The Ordinance on Waterfowl and Migratory Bird Reserves (WZVV) stipulates that the cantons must appoint one or more reserve wardens for each reserve. These belong to the cantonal staff and hold judicial police powers.

According to the findings of the lower court, a different model applies in the canton of Zurich. Rangers are responsible for visitor management and information. Supervision within the reserve lies with the hunting associations and hunting wardens of those hunting grounds that overlap with the protected area. Only the water surface of Lake Pfäffikon is monitored by staff of the Fisheries and Hunting Administration, since only they have boats at their disposal.

The Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU) did not object to this model during a spot check on 23 March 2023. The Federal Supreme Court describes the Zurich arrangement as one that does ensure hunting-police supervision, «but without deploying cantonal reserve wardens», and declares it compliant with federal law. In support of this, it points to the nine cantons with a territorial hunting system, including Zurich, Aargau, Lucerne and St. Gallen. There, hunting supervision is largely organised on a militia basis. If only cantonal reserve wardens were allowed to intervene, the swift performance of hunting-police duties would be considerably hampered or in some cases rendered impossible.

Context: A protected area under the supervision of recreational hunting

Legally, the ruling is comprehensible; politically, it is revealing. A protected area of national significance, in which recreational hunting is explicitly prohibited, is in everyday practice largely supervised by hunting associations and hunting wardens — that is, by precisely the group that is not permitted to hunt there. The canton does not deploy its own reserve wardens, and the Federal Supreme Court justifies the admissibility of this model by referring to the militia system of the territorial-hunting cantons. In doing so, it relies chiefly on the possibility of calling in additional specialists. How a model without appointed cantonal reserve wardens can be reconciled with the federal requirement under the WZVV to designate one or more persons responsible for supervision of each reserve is not examined in depth by the ruling.

From the perspective of Wild beim Wild, this raises the question of whether a national bird reserve is supervised with sufficient independence when central tasks lie with private hunting structures. The present case lends weight to this question: the game warden involved had already been fined previously for failing to take trichinella samples and for not correctly maintaining the game record book. The close interlinking of hunting administration and hunting associations further aggravates the problem of insufficient distance.

That things can be done differently is shown by the canton of Geneva. There, private recreational hunting has been banned since 1974, and injured wild animals are cared for by state-employed professionals. More on this in the article about the Geneva hunting ban.

Parallels to the grey heron case

The case shows clear parallels to a proceeding heard before the Pfäffikon district court in early 2026. There, a recreational hunter was acquitted in the case of an injured grey heron. Even then, there was mention of a further pending case before the Federal Supreme Court concerning a crow in a protected area. Whether it involves the same person cannot be conclusively established from the anonymised rulings. In the crow case, at any rate, the appellant justified his refusal, according to the Federal Supreme Court, by citing his lack of jurisdiction within the protected area.

Source: Federal Supreme Court, ruling 2C_703/2025 of 19 August 2026