Bern's Forest-Wildlife Strategy: A Free Pass for Hobby Hunters

The Canton of Bern is tightening the screws: Under the title «Strategy Forest–Wildlife–Habitat 2040», the government aims to restore what it claims is a disrupted balance between forest and wildlife.

Editorial Team Wild beim Wild — 22 November 2025

At the center are a newly organized hunting planning process, increased culling – explicitly including female animals – as well as additional measures for the prevention of wildlife damage.

In other words: the recreational hunters operating under the current system have evidently failed to meet their own stated objectives to this day.

At first glance, this sounds like responsible forest policy. On closer inspection, however, a familiar pattern emerges: wildlife is cast as the primary culprit, while the hunting system, misguided forestry practices, and the intensive use of the landscape largely escape scrutiny.

What Bern is specifically planning

According to the canton's press release the new strategy encompasses four central areas of action:

Newly organized hunting planning
The populations of roe deer, chamois, and red deer are to be regulated «in a targeted manner». The canton identifies as decisive the need to cull a greater proportion of female animals and to consistently meet culling targets.
Incentives for forest owners
Forest management is to be carried out in a «close-to-nature» manner with a stronger focus on natural regeneration. Forest owners are to receive advisory support and financial assistance to this end.
Expansion of wildlife damage prevention
Trees in heavily affected areas are to be better protected, for instance through individual tree guards. At the same time, forest edges are to be enhanced, connectivity elements created in open land, and wildlife sanctuary zones expanded.
Regular monitoring of outcomes
Every two years, the canton intends to use the so-called wildlife impact assessment to evaluate whether the measures are proving effective.

Representatives from hunting, forest ownership, agriculture, and nature conservation sat at the table. Notably absent, however, were animal welfare and wildlife protection organizations in any official capacity — despite the strategy intervening deeply in the lives of thousands of wild animals.

How serious is the problem really?

The cantonal reports paint a dramatic picture. According to the Association of Bernese Forest Owners, the 2023 wildlife impact assessment shows a further deterioration of a situation already described as “drastic” for years. Accordingly, climate-resilient tree species can barely or not at all establish themselves on around half of Berne's forest area, because young trees are being browsed by ungulates.

These figures are confirmed by the government. The canton's brief communiqué states that the newly applied methodology, which places greater emphasis on climate-resilient species, increases the pressure to act even further.

A closer look at Switzerland as a whole, however, reveals a more nuanced picture:

An analysis of cantonal data for the years 2020 to 2024 concludes that while wildlife impact is massive in certain regions, approximately half of Switzerland's total forest area is affected to varying degrees — not the country as a whole.
An earlier review study had already found that in around two thirds of the assessed forest area, regeneration is not significantly impaired by roe deer, chamois, and red deer.

In other words: there are genuine hotspots with serious problems. Politically, however, these are readily used to construct a general narrative of a “forest crisis caused by too much wildlife.” It is precisely this spin that the Bernese strategy also adopts.

What gets lost in the debate: forest policy, the timber market, and human disturbance

The Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU) states clearly in its implementation guide “Forest and Wildlife” that forest-wildlife conflicts are not solely a matter of animal numbers. Equally decisive are:

the quality and diversity of habitat
forest management and timber use
pressure from recreational use, tourism, and forestry roads
the distribution of wildlife, which is heavily influenced by disturbance

When forests are permanently disturbed by hobby hunters, roe deer and red deer are driven out of cover into quieter areas. Browsing then becomes concentrated in small patches. The forest damage becomes visible, while the underlying cause — human-induced stress in the habitat — largely remains a taboo subject.

Forestry management practices also play a role: one-sided spruce or beech stands, lack of structure, insufficient deadwood, and natural regeneration neglected over decades make forests vulnerable. At the same time, forests are expected to supply timber, ward off natural hazards, provide recreation, and protect biodiversity. These conflicting objectives are regularly pushed to the background in public debate as soon as “wildlife” stands ready as a convenient scapegoat.

Recreational hunting as part of the problem

The Canton of Bern's strategy is built on the assumption that more hunting automatically leads to better forests. Yet research on the forest-wildlife situation paints a more complex picture:

Successful forest regeneration does not depend solely on low wildlife populations. In an analysis of positive examples, experts found that communication and cooperation between forestry and hunting, sufficient light in the forest, and targeted silvicultural measures are decisive.
The FOEN points out that culling must be embedded within an integrated management approach covering habitat, disturbance, and wildlife populations.

Nevertheless, the Canton of Bern is now placing strong emphasis on increasing kill numbers, particularly for female animals. This raises fundamental questions from an animal welfare perspective:

Higher numbers of red deer hinds and roe deer does being shot affects pregnant or nursing animals and can leave calves and fawns behind as orphans.
Driven hunts and stalking drives cause massive stress that extends far beyond the animals killed. Flight, injuries, and severe energy loss in the middle of winter are barely compatible with a modern understanding of animal welfare.
A social structure heavily shaped by hunting can lead to unnatural age and sex ratios and distort population dynamics.

The fact that it is precisely the hunting inspectorate that has played a leading role in formulating this strategy makes a self-critical analysis of these effects unlikely. The institution that depends on the recreational hunting system is simultaneously expected to manage its problem-solving. A classic conflict of interest.

Predators: unwelcome allies of the forest

An uncomfortable truth for the hunting lobby is this: in a largely intact ecosystem, predators such as the lynx and wolf take on part of the role of regulating red deer and roe deer populations.

The enforcement guidelines of federal authorities and specialist literature note:

Lynx and wolf can have a significant regional impact on roe deer, chamois, and red deer populations and must be taken into account in hunting planning.
Nature conservation platforms point out that the return of lynx, bear, and wolf can contribute to regulating populations of roe deer and red deer that are far too high.

In practice, however, this natural regulatory effect is undermined by political shooting permits, the hunting of predators, and pressure from agricultural circles. Instead of seizing the opportunity for a more ecological balance, the logic of human “population management” with the rifle is defended.

In the political debate surrounding forest and wildlife, predators such as wolf and lynx have so far played only a minor role. The new Bernese strategy, at any rate, does not place them at the center of its proposed solutions. A serious debate about how wolf and lynx could be accepted and protected in the long term as allies of the forest remains absent.

Science warns, politics narrows

Researchers at the Federal Research Institute WSL have been pointing out for years that too few young trees are regenerating in many Swiss protection forests, and that roe deer, chamois, and red deer preferentially feed on precisely those tree species that would be most important for the climate-resilient forest of the future.

At the same time, the more recent national assessment of wildlife impact shows that the situation varies greatly from region to region. It suggests that targeted measures in hotspot areas are more effective than broad-based shooting offensives.

This is precisely where the Bernese strategy narrows the perspective:

Instead of integrated solutions that also incorporate recreational pressure, forest structure, predators, and forestry practices, the focus shifts primarily to hobby hunters.
Instead of structurally incorporating independent animal welfare voices, a body dominated by strong vested interests prevails: timber, hunting, agriculture.
Instead of asking how much hobby hunting can be reconciled with contemporary animal welfare standards, hunting is posited as a largely natural regulatory instrument.

What a truly contemporary forest-wildlife policy would need to achieve

A modern, scientifically grounded, and ethically responsible forest policy would need to go further than the current Bernese strategy. At a minimum, the following would be required:

Consistent integration of animal welfare
Animal welfare and wildlife protection organizations should have equal weight at the table as hunters and forest owners when decisions are made about far-reaching interventions in wildlife populations.
Clear upper limits on hunting cruelty
Driven hunts with large groups, the shooting of nursing mother animals, and hunting during sensitive periods such as winter and the breeding season should be massively restricted or prohibited.
Priority for habitat over the bullet
Wherever possible, forest conversion, structural diversity, light management within stands, quiet zones, and restrictions on recreational use must take precedence over hunting interventions.
Taking the ecological role of large carnivores seriously
Wolf and lynx are not merely sources of conflict. They are central actors in a functioning forest ecosystem and must be protected accordingly and incorporated into planning.
Transparent data basis
Wildlife impact assessments, culling statistics, and monitoring data should be openly accessible, easy to understand, and independently evaluated, rather than primarily serving the arguments of individual lobbying groups.

The canton of Bern is marketing its new forest-wildlife strategy as a balanced compromise. In reality, it is primarily one thing: a further step toward intensified hobby hunter policy, legitimized by real but one-sidedly interpreted forest problems.

Anyone who seriously wants to restore the balance between forest and wildlife must first question the power imbalance between wild animals and those structures that profit from their use, regulation, and death. As long as recreational hunters are themselves part of the problem, they will hardly be the entire solution.

Further articles