Hunting Act: FOEN sides against Parliament

On 29 September, the Hunting Act will be put to a vote.

Parliament loosened wolf protection more than the Federal Council had proposed. Now the FOEN is siding against Parliament.

The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) takes the position that certain conditions for culls must be met, even though Parliament expressly rejected enshrining these in law. The issue concerns the conditions for regulating the wolf population. Under the revised Hunting Act, authorities would be able to authorise the shooting of animals before any damage has occurred.

Reasonable protective measures

The Federal Council had also proposed this. However, it wanted to attach several conditions to it. Such culls should only be permissible if they do not endanger the population and are necessary for «the prevention of major damage or a concrete threat to people that cannot be achieved through reasonable protective measuresthe prevention of major damage or a concrete threat to people that cannot be achieved through reasonable protective measures».

The Council of States initially approved this condition. However, the National Council weakened it, and the Council of States followed suit. The condition in question, as now enshrined in law, reads: «Such regulations must not endanger the population and must be necessary for the prevention of damage or a concrete threat to people.Such regulations must not endanger the population and must be necessary for the prevention of damage or a concrete threat to people.»

Condition removed

It is therefore sufficient that mere “damage” is threatened, rather than “major damage” specifically. Parliament removed entirely the subordinate clause stipulating that population regulation would only be permitted if the damage cannot be prevented through reasonable protective measures.

The public will be able to decide whether protection of the wolf should be relaxed. Conservation organisations have submitted 65’000 certified signatures for a referendum to the Federal Chancellery.

From the federal government's perspective, however, this does not mean that wolves may be shot without at least attempting to prevent damage through protective measures first. This applies, according to the general principle that state action must always be proportionate, said Reinhard Schnidrig, head of the Wildlife Section at FOEN.

To be specified in the ordinance

According to this principle of proportionality, the law stipulates that regulation must be “necessary.” The cantons would accordingly have to inform all livestock owners in areas with wolves about the possible herd protection measures available. Culling would only be an option if herd protection measures alone could not prevent damage, said Schnidrig. He indicated that this would be specified accordingly in the implementing ordinance.

Explicit waiver

Whether protective measures as a condition for population regulation reflect the will of parliament is, however, questionable. This becomes clear from a look at the parliamentary debate. Those in favour of the version that was ultimately adopted wanted to enable culling without protective measures. The then committee spokesperson in the National Council, Daniel Fässler (CVP/AI), stated: “Ultimately, the committee decided to waive the requirement for reasonable protective measures.” Franz Ruppen (SVP/VS) noted that the conditions in the Federal Council’s draft would make regulation difficult in practice. Regulation should also be possible without reasonable protective measures.

Reproduction as the sole condition

The motion from the committee majority, which was adopted, would ensure “that the regulation of the wolf population depends solely on the reproduction of a wolf pack”, said Ruppen. “As soon as reproduction is detected in a pack, regulation must be carried out on the young animals.»

Herd protection measures entailed a disproportionate financial and personnel burden for the affected shepherds, he argued. Furthermore, herd protection had a negative impact on tourism.

“Culling is only an option when herd protection measures alone cannot prevent damage.”

Reinhard Schnidrig, Head of the Wildlife Section, FOEN

Looking at trees askew

For the opponents, it was equally clear what the removal of the protective measures requirement would mean: that animals could be approved for culling in advance, “without demonstrable failure of other protective measures», as Irène Kälin (Greens/AG) put it. Martin Bäumle (GLP/ZH) warned that in future, any wolf that looks at a tree the wrong way could be cleared for shooting.

Environment Minister Simonetta Sommaruga argued, with reference to the Bern Convention for the Federal Council's version with protective measures as a condition: the point was that «this regulation can only be provided for once reasonable measures have failed to bear fruit», she said. «To me, that seems quite self-evident.»

Sommaruga also dismissed concerns that it would be unclear what was meant by 'reasonable measures'. «I can assure you: we will not simply leave you in the lurch on this — we will define it. In the spirit of proportionality, a fundamental principle of our legislation, reasonable protective measures can indeed be defined.» Evidently, the federal administration now intends to do so, even though Parliament has removed the requirement for reasonable protective measures from the law.