Marmot on the Menu: Violence on the Plate

The recent case of a restaurant in Nendaz that offered marmot meat (“Marmotte à la royale”) and was subsequently overwhelmed by critical online reactions is more than a local anecdote.

It is a symptom. A symptom of a society in which wild animals are still treated as resources despite the biodiversity crisis, climate change and the ongoing extinction of species — as commodities, as decoration on menus, as hunting trophies.

From the perspective of ethical consideration, the debate about “false reviews,” “shitstorms,” or “reputational damage” is a sideshow. The core moral question is: Why is marmot meat still being served in 2025 at all?

The normalisation of violence — a familiar pattern

Hunting associations, restaurateurs and parts of the political establishment have been repeating the same narrative for years: game meat is “natural,” “regional,” “sustainable.” Hunting is “population management.” And the consumption of wild animals is “tradition.” But tradition does not legitimise violence. And “population management” is a euphemism for the routine killing of sentient beings whose habitats have been thrown out of balance in the first place by human intervention.

The marmot — an animal that builds up winter fat reserves, lives socially, communicates and emits warning calls for its group — is reduced in public discourse to two roles:

1. agricultural “pest”
2. culinary curiosity

Both roles serve the same purpose: to justify the killing.

From Alpine idyll to the gunshot — the reality behind the plate

Behind every game dish stands:

• an animal that had no chance to flee
• a shot that is frequently not lethal (wounding rates of up to 50% are documented)
• a living being that suffers in panicked fear
• an ecosystem that is disrupted (parents are killed, young animals starve in their burrows)

The fact that a restaurant then markets this as a “regional delicacy” by chef Adrien Lopez and expects guests to applaud for it is an expression of a fundamental ethical imbalance.

The digital backlash

Many negative reviews — whether justified or not — arose because people simply cannot bear the image of a marmot in a cooking pot.

And it must be stated clearly: this discomfort is healthy. It is a moral reflex. It shows that more and more people understand that “wild game dining” is nothing romantic, but an act of violence.

Recreational hunters supply the goods. The restaurant industry provides the disrepute. Together they normalise a system that instrumentalises wild animals.

The fact that a restaurant is now complaining about being criticized online reveals above all one thing:

Society’s tolerance for the exploitation of animals is declining — and that is a good thing.

1. Wild animals are not products
   No matter how “regional” or “traditional” — an animal’s life is not a menu item.
2. Hunting is not nature conservation, but violence
   The ecological damage far exceeds the alleged benefits.
3. The public is becoming more sensitive
   More and more people see marmots, roe deer, or red deer not as “game meat”, but as sentient individuals.
4. The restaurant industry must take responsibility
   Anyone who puts wild animals on the menu should expect criticism — and not only because of Google reviews, but because of fundamental ethical questions.

The marmot affair is a wake-up call. Not because a restaurant has an image problem. But because we must ask ourselves why animals are still being killed to end up as a “speciality” in an era of plant-based alternatives.

The outrage is not the scandal. The scandal is that marmots are still being shot. And that is precisely what should be at the center of any serious debate.