Motion Jositsch: The life of animals should be included in the Animal Welfare Act

Switzerland protects the dignity of the animal, but not its life.

Zurich Council of States member Daniel Jositsch wants to remedy this contradiction. On 15 September 2026, he submitted Motion 26.4117 «Explicit anchoring of the protection of life in the Animal Welfare Act». The Federal Council is to be instructed to explicitly state in the law that the life of animals falls within its scope of protection. The Foundation for the Animal in the Law (TIR) says it provided expert support for the motion.

The gap in the purpose clause

Art. 1 of the Animal Welfare Act (TSchG) names the protection of the dignity and wellbeing of the animal as its purpose. Life is missing. In practice, authorities therefore mainly examine how an animal is kept and how it is killed. Whether it may be killed at all usually remains unexamined. Jositsch counters that life is the basis of the protection of dignity. A killing, like any other interference with animal dignity, should therefore only be permissible where overriding interests exist. Because the purpose clause does not mention life, healthy animals are regularly killed without a higher-ranking justification.

Ramiswil as the trigger

The reasoning refers to the Ramiswil case. In early November 2025, the Solothurn veterinary service had 122 dogs put down during the clearance of the Bodenhof. The Swiss Animal Protection organisation STS assumes, in its criminal and supervisory complaint, that 124 dogs were killed. The decision was made on the very day of the inspection. The external investigation report published on 3 July 2026 classifies the killing of 99 animals identified as livestock guardian dogs as justifiable, on the grounds that there were no realistic placement or deployment options. For the remaining 23 dogs, however, no sufficiently differentiated triage was carried out. According to the report, only two of them had to be put down because of their state of health. At least 21 dogs are thus said to have died without compelling reason. The STS also criticises the fact that belonging to a particular breed must not replace an individual case assessment. Wild beim Wild has put the case into context: Ramiswil: When 124 dogs count and 86 million animals don't. The fact that politicians had to launch an external investigation following the public outcry is, in Jositsch's view, evidence that explicit protection of life enjoys broad societal support.

What the motion does not want

Anyone who sees the beginning of the end of animal use in this motion is reading more into it than is actually there. The motion explicitly does not understand itself as a tightening of the law. It is intended to ensure that existing standards are correctly applied, not to restrict the need to use animals. The explanatory report itself cites meat production as an example of a higher-ranking interest. For the more than 86 million “farm animals” slaughtered each year, little will change for the time being. What comes under pressure to be justified are killings without genuine cause: healthy “surplus” animals, blanket decisions by authorities as in Ramiswil, and killings carried out for the sake of convenience.

Wild animals: protection ends at the forest edge

For wild animals, the decisive obstacle lies in Art. 2 para. 2 of the Animal Welfare Act (TSchG). This provision explicitly reserves the Hunting Act. As long as this reservation remains untouched, cantons and hunting associations can argue that hunting is regulated under hunting law and is therefore already justified. Even today, Art. 178a para. 1 lit. a of the Animal Welfare Ordinance (TSchV) explicitly exempts killings “in the course of hunting” from the stunning requirement that applies to every animal in slaughterhouses. The dossier Why animal welfare law ends at the forest edge shows just how systematically wild animals are placed at a legal disadvantage.

Nevertheless, the motion would be more than mere symbolism for wild animals. A purpose clause is an instruction for interpretation to authorities and courts. If life were enshrined in it, it would scarcely be possible to justify why leisure, tradition or trophies should warrant the killing of wild animals without any case-by-case assessment. In the 2025 hunting year alone, according to federal hunting statistics, 74,914 roe deer, red deer, chamois and wild boars were killed, along with 23,152 foxes, badgers and martens — a total of 98,066 animals. Ibex, hares, marmots and birds are not yet included in this figure. In the case of kill quotas, special kills and the fox hunting milder means would have to be seriously examined — something the Constitution, with its principle of the “dignity of creature” under Art. 120 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution, has in fact long required. What these alternatives could look like is shown by the dossier Alternatives to recreational hunting and the canton of Geneva, which has managed since 1974 without recreational hunting — the legal derivation can be found in the article Animal dignity and hunting: what the Swiss constitution says.

A step that only works with the second

It is remarkable that it is precisely Daniel Jositsch who is submitting this motion: the Council of States member himself learned to fish. A genuinely meant protection of life would also have to apply to fish. The motion has only just been submitted. Next, the Federal Council will issue its position, after which the Council of States will decide as the first chamber. IG Wild beim Wild welcomes the motion but considers a second step necessary. If protection of life is enshrined without clarifying the reservation in favour of the Hunting Act, the life of a roe deer would legally remain worth less than that of a dog. More on this in the category animal rights and in the dossier Hunting and Animal Welfare.