Spreitenbach files charges against animal protection platform
The municipality of Spreitenbach has filed charges against an animal protection platform.
The occasion is remarkable and raises fundamental questions about how authorities handle civil society engagement.
The trigger for the charges is not false factual claims, no defamation and no calls to violence, but a high number of protest emails from the public.
The starting point was, among other things, an investigation by Swiss Animal Protection STS into tens of thousands of documented, presumably animal welfare-violating reptile keeping operations in Switzerland.
Among other things, as a direct result of this investigation, wildbeimwild.com launched the petition «End animal cruelty at Umwelt Arena Spreitenbach». The petition is related to a planned hunting fair at the Umwelt Arena Spreitenbach. As far as can be seen from programs, exhibitor lists and usual trade fair formats, hunting fairs regularly focus on hunting-related products and practices, including weapons and equipment. From wildbeimwild.com's perspective, this is not identical to nature conservation projects such as biotope management, wildlife corridors, pesticide reduction or mountain forest programs. We consider it problematic when nature conservation terms are used to frame an event whose core concerns recreational hunting and killing animals as a leisure activity.
Instead of focusing on the documented abuses, the municipality is now taking action against the platform that made these abuses public.
Following the publication of the petition, hundreds of citizens contacted the municipality of Spreitenbach by email. They expressed their incomprehension about animal cruelty, about official inaction and about the role of the Umwelt Arena as a venue for hunting fairs, animal exchanges and similar events. These reactions were voluntary, individual and an expression of democratic opinion.
What is legally striking is that the complaint does not relate to inaccurate content. Essentially, it concerns the volume of correspondence that ended up in the warm administrative office as a result of civil society engagement.
From wildbeimwild.com's perspective, this raises a fundamental question. When authorities file complaints because citizens exercise their right to freedom of expression, the focus shifts from animal welfare to deterring criticism.
The central factual questions remain unanswered. Why is engagement being problematized instead of consistently remedying abuses?
wildbeimwild.com states clearly: There was no call for spam. No emails were sent without the knowledge or consent of real people. Every person had to actively consent. Every message represents a real person and a conscious decision.
This corresponds to common forms of political opinion formation. Online petitions, parliamentary petition platforms or actions by organizations function according to the same principle. What matters is not the technical form, but the voluntary expression of will. An action would only be problematic if messages were sent without consent or if targeted overload was intended. Neither applies here.
Neither the municipality of Spreitenbach nor the Umwelt Arena has complained to us or sought dialogue.
Technically, it is easily possible for any administration to filter or disable emails by sender, domain, provider or other criteria. A larger number of similar communications therefore does not constitute an unsolvable interference with administrative operations, but is part of the usual handling of digital citizen communication today.
Against this background, we consider it disproportionate to treat legitimate and voluntary expressions of opinion from the population as criminally relevant.
The Spreitenbach case thus goes far beyond a single municipality. It touches on the question of how authorities deal with uncomfortable animal protection criticism and where the attempt begins to criminalize civil society engagement.
When not animal suffering, but the number of legitimate citizen reactions is treated as a problem, a dangerous logic emerges. Responsibility is shifted. Criticism is declared a disturbance. This has a deterrent effect on engagement and freedom of expression.
Particularly in the context of hunting fairs, a structural pattern becomes apparent. Recreational hunting is marketed as tradition or recreational activity, while violence and animal suffering are obscured or downplayed. Critical voices are seen as disruptive, rather than as a necessary part of democratic oversight. Foundations for assessment can be found in the Dossier on recreational hunting at wildbeimwild.com.
The Spreitenbach case is therefore more than a local conflict. It exemplifies how institutions can react when animal protection criticism becomes public. And it poses the crucial question: Who is being protected? The animals or the structures that enable their suffering.
Take action now and demand accountability
The planned hunting fair from March 7-8, 2026 at the Umwelt Arena Spreitenbach symbolically represents a recreational and killing culture that is incompatible with modern animal and nature protection. Equally problematic is that the Umwelt Arena repeatedly provides a platform or spaces for animal markets where animal suffering is trivialized or commercialized. Only freedom is species-appropriate.
According to Swiss Animal Protection, around 60,000 reptile owners keep their animals incorrectly and in ways that constitute animal cruelty. This violation of animal protection regulations is illegal and punishable. One of the central hubs of this system is precisely this Umwelt Arena in Spreitenbach.
This is why clear reactions from the population are needed now.
Write to the municipality and demand together with us:
No approval of the hunting fair in the Umwelt Arena Spreitenbach. No future rental of spaces for hunting events, trophy culture or animal markets. A clear signal from the municipality of Spreitenbach for ethics, wildlife protection and responsibility.
But writing alone is not enough.
Also pick up the phone. Personal feedback has impact.
Contact the Spreitenbach municipal administration as well as the Umwelt Arena Spreitenbach directly and tell them calmly, factually and firmly what you think. For example like this:
I find it unacceptable that a hunting fair is taking place in the Umwelt Arena that presents the killing of animals as recreational entertainment. I call on you not to host this event and in future not to rent out spaces for hunting events or animal markets like the Terra Expo. Exotic animals do not belong in boxes on sales tables, but in their natural habitat.
Stay friendly in tone, but clear on the matter. Ask for a clear decision. Request a statement. Make it clear that these events do not fit the responsibility of a municipality and an environmental center.
Nature needs protected spaces, not staging of recreational hunting. Animal welfare is not a matter for negotiation. Spreitenbach can and should take a stance here.
Now is the moment to take action.
Further information:
Support our work
With your donation you help protect animals and give their voices a hearing.
Donate now →
