Lucerne shakes up hunting traditions, but recreational hunters draw the line

The canton of Lucerne is questioning its own hunting practice.

In future, there is to be tighter control over where, how and which animals are killed. Roe deer, red deer and chamois are to be regulated so that enough young trees can grow back in the forest. This is based on the recently presented cantonal strategy «Forest-Wildlife-Habitat». What is remarkable here is not so much the announcement itself as the admission it contains: after decades of organised recreational hunting, for which the hunting parties pay the canton almost one million francs in lease fees annually, the regeneration problem remains unsolved.

Not more intensive, but more targeted

Project manager Michiel Fehr from the Office for Agriculture and Forestry does not speak of more hunting, but of more targeted hunting. There is not a need for action everywhere: on almost half of Lucerne's forest area, young trees grow back unhindered despite the presence of wildlife. It is different in large parts of the Prealps as well as around Pilatus, Rigi and Napf, where individual tree species are failing due to browsing damage.

What matters, it is said, is not only how many animals are killed, but which ones. To reduce a population in the long term, sufficient numbers of female and young animals are needed. This is precisely where the canton puts its finger on the wound of hunting culture. Department head Christian Hüsler admits that among recreational hunters it is ‘still partly frowned upon’ to kill female or young animals. On top of this come unwritten ‘rules of decency’, such as not shooting more than one roe deer per day. Such traditions make effective regulation more difficult. In doing so, the authority confirms what critics have long maintained: recreational hunting follows a leisure and trophy logic, not an ecological mandate. More on this in the dossier Forest-Wildlife Conflict: What the Browsing-Damage Narrative Conceals.

Bonus Yes, Punishment No

The most talked-about proposal is a bonus-malus system under review for hunting associations. The idea is that hunting grounds achieving their targets should be rewarded, similar to the approach in forestry. What this would look like in practice remains open. The Lucerne Territorial Hunting Association broadly supports the direction but draws a clear line: it has nothing against incentives, but a financial penalty is ‘not acceptable’. President Fabian Stadelmann, who sits in the cantonal parliament for the SVP, points to weather conditions, recreational pressure and the migratory movements of wildlife—factors that a hunting association cannot control.

The objection is not wrong, but it exposes the underlying attitude. Reward is claimed, yet accountability is rejected. Anyone who pays nearly a million francs for an exclusive right of use and publicly presents themselves as a conservationist can hardly escape measurable responsibility. Just how slim the actual ecological balance sheet of recreational hunting really is, is shown by the analysis What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland.

The Excluded Forest Helper

As honestly as the canton names the weaknesses of hunting traditions, the strategy just as consistently blanks out the most effective and cheapest factor: predators. Wolves and lynx reduce browsing pressure not only by killing animals, but simply through their presence, which makes game more alert and mobile. This very effect is missing as a lever of its own in Lucerne's approach. The concurrent resistance in the neighbouring canton is telling, where recreational hunters do not want «stinking red deer», thereby explicitly rejecting the natural deterrent effect of predators. What an intact predator system achieves for the forest is documented in the article No forest without the wolf: What predators mean for Switzerland.

On top of this comes the overlaying pressure of climate change. The canton justifies the urgency with drought and heat, yet the more the forest is under climate stress, the more conveniently browsing damage becomes a scapegoat for structural shortcomings in forest management. This mechanism is shown in the article Browsing damage becomes a convenient scapegoat.

Still, Hüsler and Fehr themselves emphasise that recreational hunters alone are not responsible for the young forest; the strategy also addresses forest management, habitats and disturbances caused by humans. This is the right insight. It would be complete if Lucerne had the courage to think of predators not as a problem, but as part of the solution.

Source: Susanne Balli, «Bote der Urschweiz», 22 September 2026.