Four fallow deer shot at Königsfelden animal park: why no rehoming?

On the Königsfelden site in Windisch, the main location of the Aargau Psychiatric Services (PDAG), there is a deer park that has existed for around ninety years.

The fallow deer herd is an attraction of the publicly accessible park grounds, which are used as a local recreation area and regularly visited. According to several people, four male animals were shot in the enclosure on Tuesday morning. When asked, the PDAG confirmed that young bucks had been killed. The exact number and the precise timing still rest on the accounts of those affected.

The case was first made public by the Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), which spread the messages from those affected on its Facebook page. The post met with a broad response. The VgT itself pointed out that the image used was a stock picture from another animal park. The VgT therefore also had no visual material of this specific incident; the report is based on the same messages.

The PDAG explains in general terms that regulating the population is «from time to time unavoidable» and is carried out in compliance with the legal requirements by trained specialist staff. All wards would be informed in advance. The clinic regretted «if the announcement of the operation caused uncertainty among patients».

The earlier rehoming practice raises questions

Christian Egloff, head of the nursery at the PDAG site and responsible for the deer park, explained to the «Aargauer Zeitung» some years ago that male animals were placed once a year with other animal parks or private breeders. He cited the pronounced hierarchy within the herd as the reason: without separation, fights over the females could break out between young males and the lead animal.

The park also demonstrated that placement is fundamentally possible in the case of the semi-albino fallow deer «Fridolin». The animal, well known for years, was not killed but handed over to a private deer breeder in the canton of Bern. The interested party visited Fridolin beforehand in Königsfelden. In turn, Egloff inspected the Bern enclosure to check whether it met the requirements. For the rare white deer, a kill was «clearly» out of the question, Egloff explained at the time.

This raises the obvious question: if placement with parks and breeders was used in the past and carefully prepared in Fridolin's case, why could no accommodation be found for the young stags that have now been killed?

Predictable offspring, predictable population question

The surplus of males is not a surprising development but a foreseeable consequence of keeping a reproductively capable herd. Fallow deer regularly produce offspring. Some of the young animals are male, and according to the operator these stags regularly create a space problem within the existing herd.

The population question is therefore structural in nature. Anyone who keeps a reproductively capable herd in a publicly accessible park takes on responsibility for the foreseeable consequences: for female and male young animals, for the social composition of the herd, as well as for the long-term planning of space, placement and reproduction management.

In our view, killing animals is not an acceptable form of population control. Anyone keeping a reproductively capable herd bears the responsibility to plan and implement animal-friendly and non-violent solutions in good time. This includes, in particular, forward-looking reproduction control, timely placement in suitable and monitored facilities, as well as a transparent concept for the long-term development of the population. The PDAG must disclose which of these options were examined in the case of Königsfelden, why they were not implemented where applicable, and why young bucks were nevertheless killed.

The question of reproduction control

In the public debate, the question is regularly raised as to why reproduction in an enclosed pen is not controlled through castration or other measures, rather than regularly producing surplus animals. This question is legitimate and belongs on the table.

At the same time, reproduction control in fallow deer kept in herds is not technically trivial. Interventions can affect the antler cycle and the social behaviour of the bucks. This does not, however, release the operator from the duty of transparent consideration. In the case of fallow deer husbandry that has existed for decades, one would expect that options are systematically examined and that the reasons for or against individual measures are recorded in a comprehensible manner.

The following therefore remains open: Which reproduction-control options did the PDAG examine? Was a temporary or permanent separation of animals considered? What consequences would the castration of individual bucks have for animal welfare and group dynamics? And why were possible alternatives discarded, if applicable?

A place of tranquillity where shots are fired

The kills took place on the grounds of a psychiatric clinic. This is no trivial matter. The Königsfelden grounds are open to the public and are used by residents, families, walkers, as well as patients. The deer park has been part of the character of this place for decades.

Rifle shots at animals in a publicly accessible clinic and recreational area therefore raise particularly serious questions about reasonableness, communication and the protection of patients and visitors. That wards had been informed in advance is relevant. However, it does not answer whether the occasion, the form and the consequences of such an action were sufficiently taken into account for particularly vulnerable people.

For people receiving inpatient treatment, the surroundings outside the buildings can have special significance. Animals and the park can be part of a structured daily routine, a walk or a personal place of retreat. When an operator deliberately integrates an animal enclosure into such a setting, it bears heightened responsibility: for the protection of the animals, for sensitive communication and for a careful weighing of alternatives.

A controversial picture of opinion

The reactions on social media show the full range of the debate. Many people expressed sadness and incomprehension that no places had apparently been found for the bucks. They criticised that a kill in the enclosure was possibly the most practical, but not necessarily the only solution.

Others pointed to the reality of keeping animals in enclosures. In a closed herd the population has to be regulated. A kill on site could mean less stress for the animals than transporting them away. Moreover, it was contradictory to argue against the killing of enclosure animals while at the same time consuming meat.

Still others focused above all on the location. They criticised that psychologically vulnerable people in a clinic area could be confronted with such an action.

These differing reactions show: the case is not a simple matter for outrage. It touches on the fundamental question of whether and how wild animals should be kept in enclosures, and who bears responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of this practice.

No EU regulation explains the kill

In the discussion of the case it was repeatedly claimed that a new EU regulation classified the kept deer as invasive and prohibited keeping them. The killing had therefore been unavoidable. This account is based on a confusion.

The European Union has the sika deer (Cervus nippon) added to the Union list of invasive alien species on 7 August 2025. As a result, restrictions on keeping, breeding, import, sale and release apply in principle across the EU member states. For animals already being kept, special transitional and exemption arrangements may be relevant.

In Königsfelden, however, no sika deer are kept, but fallow deer (Dama dama). Fallow deer are not on the Union list of invasive species. There is therefore no corresponding EU keeping ban for fallow deer. Moreover, Switzerland is not a member of the European Union; its regulations do not apply directly here.

The EU debate thus provides no explanation for the killing of the fallow deer in Königsfelden. What remains decisive is the operator's specific decision: was rehoming attempted in good time and comprehensively, and were all reasonable alternatives considered?

Around 13,000 deer live in Swiss agricultural enclosures, predominantly fallow deer

In Switzerland, around 13,000 deer are kept on 325 agricultural holdings. With 10,487 animals, fallow deer make up just under four-fifths of this population. Deer keeping serves predominantly meat production and direct marketing.

Public statistics show mainly population figures, not the annual additions and losses of individual animal species. This leaves it unclear how many fallow deer die each year in agricultural enclosures, animal parks or other holdings through kills or slaughter. Individual farms kill the animals directly in the pasture; the subsequent sale often takes place via butchers, restaurants or directly from the farm.

The PDAG's response

On enquiry, the PDAG responded. The statement is brief. The animals had «already been professionally removed». These were young bucks «for which no other accommodation or rehoming could be found». The deer park has long been operated with great care and in compliance with all statutory animal welfare and regulatory requirements. The kill had been carried out in coordination with the responsible veterinary service.

With this, the PDAG officially confirms that young male animals were killed and that, according to its account, no rehoming was possible. What remains unclear, however, is which wildlife parks, breeders or other suitable institutions were specifically approached, over what period a search for places took place, and why the previously documented rehoming practice was unsuccessful this time.

It also remains unclear which options for reproductive control were examined, why individual options were rejected, and on what specific technical basis the killing was deemed necessary.

The killing of enclosure-kept game may be legally permissible under certain conditions. According to the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office, fallow deer are in principle suitable for keeping in enclosures; a kill is also subject to clear requirements. Legal permissibility does not, however, answer the ethical and organisational question of whether rehoming and long-term population management were sufficiently exhausted in this specific case.

The PDAG has stated that no alternative accommodation was found. It has so far not explained why the existing rehoming channels did not work. This transparency is necessary — towards the public, the people on the clinic grounds, and the animals whose lives depend on such decisions.