Chevalley: No to Shooting at Will

The revision of the Hunting Act «goes too far» because it simply allows the shooting of several wildlife species «at will», when in fact biodiversity should be protected.

That is what National Councillor Isabelle Chevalley says. The Vaud Green Liberal explains why she is calling for a No vote in the referendum on 27 September.

We are receiving alarming signals from scientists about the loss of our biodiversity. All studies show that our species are disappearing. And at a rapid pace, the National Councillor explains to swissinfo.ch.

Switzerland has a Red List of Endangered Species. We should do everything in our power to preserve these species. Yet many of them can be hunted. For example, the woodcock, which would not be protected under this new law, even though it is on the Red List.

The questions one might ask are: Why is this bird still being killed? Does it cause damage to agriculture? No. Does it harm human infrastructure? No. Is it killed to feed families? No. Does the sale of this bird generate significant financial profit that is vital to part of the population? No.

Why, then? For pure pleasure. This fact could almost make you laugh, if it were not so absurd.We criticize people in Africa for killing elephants, but in truth we are not really doing any better.

Shot without having caused any harm

According to the revised Hunting Act, a species can be shot even if it has not yet caused any damage.This is an absolute novelty, because until now a proven damage was required for a shooting permit — and specifically, significant damage. That is no longer supposed to be the case.

Furthermore, the Federal Council should be able to expand the list of affected animal species without having to obtain parliamentary approval. This is a significant rejection of democracy.

If you are wondering which animal species could be affected, the parliamentary debates give you some indication. Among others, the lynx, the swan, and the beaver are concerned. Why do these animals bother us?

Of course, the lynx preys on wild animals that hunters can therefore no longer shoot. But it is above all a great ally of foresters. By keeping the population of roe deer and red deer in check — species that feed on fresh shoots — it makes a significant contribution to the health of the forest.

The swan, which sometimes deposits droppings in fields near lakes, causes only minimal problems for agriculture. The beaver, finally, can build dams and locally alter a riverbed. Through its shaping of the environment, its presence is generally accompanied by an increase in biodiversity within its territory.

Once again: in times of biodiversity loss, it is at least strange to approve the culling of these animals — which contribute to an overall balance — on account of minor damage. And let us remember that they can be killed before they have even caused any harm at all.

Isabelle Chevalley: The overall perspective is lost

Finally, the decision on culling is to rest in the hands of the cantons and no longer with the federal government. This raises the problem of losing the overall perspective. Animals do not know the cantonal borders of our small country: an animal could be protected in one canton during the night and shot in the neighboring canton the next morning, explains Isabelle Chevalley,

On the other hand, it will be easier for interest groups to exert pressure on authorities within their canton in order to bring about such culling decisions. It is obvious that the federal government takes a more comprehensive approach, because it takes into account the interests of all parties involved.

We do not question that we must, for example, adjust the number of wolves when certain conditions are met.But we should not have a law that sends the signal: shoot at will!

We must learn to live with wildlife. Humans cannot eliminate everything that bothers them. Humans are part of biodiversity, and if that biodiversity is not respected, it will ultimately endanger human survival itself.

This revision of the hunting law goes too far — we must protect our biodiversity.No to a law from a bygone era!

Source: swissinfo.ch