Disposal of animals killed by hunters: disclose the costs and examine polluter-pays financing

A large proportion of foxes and badgers killed by hunters are disposed of without any use of their meat or fur. The motion calls for transparency on quantities, costs and public funding, as well as an examination of whether those who hunt should bear the costs according to the polluter-pays principle.

Postulate

The Executive Council is instructed to examine and set out in a report

1. what data are available on the number and weight of animals killed by hunters that are disposed of via animal carcass collection points or other disposal routes without prior use as food or fur, and how these data can in future be collected and published annually by species;
2. what costs arise for collection, interim storage, transport and disposal, who bears them, and to what extent they are already covered by fees or other contributions from those who hunt;
3. how the costs hitherto borne by the public can be allocated, in line with the polluter-pays principle, to those who hunt or to hunting associations, what legal amendments are required for this, and what advantages and disadvantages individual fees or earmarked surcharges entail;
4. how, in data collection and cost allocation, regular kills by hunters can be distinguished from roadkill, other animals found dead, and kills ordered by the authorities.

The report should set out concrete options for action and the legal amendments required to implement them.

Rationale

According to a report of the Federal Council on “Fur labelling requirement” of 23 May 2018 published projection (section 3.3), of the roughly 27,000 fur-bearing animals killed in Switzerland in 2015 (around 22,000 red foxes, 3,500 badgers, 1,050 stone martens, 140 pine martens), only around 9,500 pelts were passed on to fur production – 38 per cent in the case of the red fox. The kill figures come from the Federal Hunting Statistics, the figures on pelt use from the fur trade association SwissFur. The Federal Council concluded at the time that around 17,500 fur-bearing animals killed by hunters are disposed of unused each year. At that time, a raw pelt fetched around eight francs.

How many of these animals are disposed of today via public collection points, and what costs this entails, cannot be gleaned from these figures. The construction and operation of animal carcass collection points are generally borne by the municipalities; depending on the canton, disposal costs are covered by the municipalities, the canton or the cantonal animal disease fund. In many places, delivery is free of charge for those bringing in carcasses. The parliamentary motion is intended to clarify whether, and in what form, the share of costs attributable to animals killed by hunters is already recorded, and what data are missing for it to be reported separately in public.

The hygienically safe disposal of animal carcasses is in the public interest. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the general public should bear the costs for animals killed in recreational hunting and disposed of without prior use as food or fur. This applies all the more as even JagdSchweiz concedes in its position paper of 20 November 2025 that fox hunting as practised today has hardly any noticeable limiting effect on the overall population. The guiding principle is the polluter-pays principle, as enshrined in Art. 74 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution for environmental protection. The cantonal government is asked to justify the existing distribution of costs and to outline options for financing that allocates costs according to who causes them.

Alternative: interpellation

1. How many animals killed by hunters were disposed of via animal carcass collection points in the canton over the past five years, broken down by species?
2. What costs were incurred as a result, and who bore them (canton, municipalities, animal disease fund)?
3. Do those who hunt pay a fee for handing in killed animals? If not, why not?
4. How many of the foxes, badgers and martens killed were used as food or fur, and how many were disposed of without such use?
5. What legal bases and public interests underpin any public funding, and why are the costs not charged, or only partly charged, to those who practise hunting?
6. If the requested information is not available: what data is already being collected, what is missing, and how much effort would it take to close this gap?

Notes on cantonal adaptation

• The relevant cantonal parliamentary law is decisive. The postulate calls for examination and a report; a binding fee requires a subsequent mandate for implementation (motion).
• Check who bears the disposal costs in your own canton (municipalities, canton, animal disease fund), and adapt the reasoning accordingly.
• In Licence hunting cantons, a surcharge on the licence fee is appropriate; in Territorial hunting cantons, a surcharge on the lease rent or a fee per hunting ground.
• Additionally: Template text “Ban on fox hunting” and Template text “Transparent hunting statistics”.
• Background and sources: Dossier “What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland”, section “The mountain of carcasses”.