Template text: Recreational hunting and criminality in the canton

The high number of charges, penalty orders and missed shots in the context of recreational hunting shows that these are not isolated incidents, but rather a structural problem. Those who carry weapons and shoot animals in the name of the state must be subject to stricter controls than an ordinary association.

1. Motion

The cantonal government is instructed to present to the Grand Council a proposal for amending the law on hunting and wildlife protection (………) as well as the hunting ordinance (…………) and, where applicable, other relevant legal foundations (including police law, implementing laws on criminal law). The aim is to record, make transparent and effectively sanction criminality and systematic legal violations in the context of recreational hunting.

The legislative revision must ensure in particular that:

that the canton maintains a central, annually published statistic on criminal proceedings, penalty orders and disciplinary measures in the context of hunting. This statistic contains at least:
- Number and type of proceedings and fines
- Areas of offenses (particularly hunting law, animal protection law, weapons law, road traffic, violent and property crimes)
- Amount of imposed fines and penalties
- Number of affected hunting licenses and hunting concession holders.
that upon acquisition and every renewal of a hunting license, a current, extended criminal record extract must be submitted. Persons with certain offenses in the area of:
- Violence against humans or animals
- Sexual offenses
- serious property crimes, organized crime or qualified drug crime
- repeated violations of animal protection, hunting or weapons law
  shall not receive a hunting license or shall mandatorily lose an existing license.
that the Office for Hunting and the competent security authorities regularly and systematically exchange data on pending or concluded criminal proceedings against hunting license holders in the relevant offense areas. Hunting law eligibility must be reviewed ex officio in such cases.
that in cases of repeated or particularly serious violations by individual hunters, especially in:
- shooting of non-target species and protected species
- repeated errant shots and unlawful shootings
- serious violations of safety obligations, alcohol prohibitions or animal welfare regulations
  temporary or permanent revocation of the hunting license is provided for.
that hunting associations, hunting clubs or hunting territories where above-average numbers of charges, fines and violations accumulate over years bear not only individual but also collective consequences, for example:
- temporary or permanent revocation of territory concession
- exclusion from committees with state mandate
- withdrawal of contributions or privileges associated with a special position of trust.
that the Government Council is obligated to regularly examine and present in a report:
- whether the scope and nature of registered offenses in the recreational hunting environment are still compatible with the image of normal club activities or
- whether the structures in individual cases exhibit characteristics that could be classified under criminal law as organized or criminal organizations. For this purpose, the Government Council shall consult the competent criminal prosecution authorities where appropriate.
that the public is informed in an appropriate manner about the results of these examinations, without disclosing personal data, but with a transparent presentation of the development of charges, fines and sanctions in the hunting sector.

The Government Council presents in its message:

what data on charges, fines and other proceedings in the hunting sector are already collected today and where gaps exist
how the proposed regulations specifically contribute to preventing and containing crime in the recreational hunting environment
what organizational and financial impacts can be expected for the canton, the municipalities and the affected circles.

2. Brief Justification

In public presentation, recreational hunting is often portrayed as tradition, custom or responsible use of wildlife. At the same time, available figures document a high density of charges, administrative fines and errant shots for years.

For the Canton of Grisons, it is documented that during hunting alone, well over a thousand charges and fines are issued annually. Publicly released evaluations also show that during high hunting season over years, up to around a thousand animals per season were considered errant shots and hunters paid high six-figure sums in administrative fines within just a few years. Extrapolated to Switzerland and in relation to the number of hunting license holders, this means:

These are not isolated misconduct cases, but a persistently high level of legal violations in the environment of a state-privileged leisure activity.
The range extends from hunting and animal welfare offenses to violations of safety regulations up to offenses where weapons may play a role.

In other areas, such a high density of fines and charges in a comparatively small, socially closely networked scene would lead to fierce political reactions. If in a sports association, youth club or religious organization, hundreds to thousands of charges and fines related to club activities would accumulate year after year, suspicion of structural problems would quickly arise, up to the question of whether the threshold to criminal organizational forms is reached.

Where people move through forests with firearms as part of a leisure activity, shoot wild animals and decide over life and death of animals in the name of the state, such a level of legal violations is particularly concerning. It concerns:

animal welfare and prevention of animal cruelty
safety of recreational users and residents
responsible handling of weapons
public trust in state hunting supervision and justice.

The existing controls regarding the suitability and safety of recreational hunters are insufficient. Annual medical-psychological assessments for recreational hunters following the Dutch model are needed, as well as a clear upper age limit. The largest age group among recreational hunters is 65+, those with age-, cognitive-, visual-, concentration- and reaction-related weaknesses as well as training and practice deficits. From the 45th year of life, the number of accidents for humans and animals increases dramatically. The shocking reports about hunting accidents and fatal crimes with hunting weapons show from this perspective: It is high time for the abolition of recreational hunting. Deadly firearms do not belong in the hands of recreational hunters who can use them completely uncontrolled into old age.

From a hunting-critical perspective, recreational hunting also represents a worldview that places human interests above the elementary life interests of other animals. Recreational hunters practice speciesism. Speciesism is comparable to racism and sexism, and this is not culture or tradition, but an ideology of inequality.

Particularly with recreational hunting, it is therefore essential to look very closely. Nowhere is there so much manipulation with falsehoods, trivializations and fake news. Violence and lies belong to the same coin. A scene that stands out above average with charges, fines, errant shots, gun trafficking and many other criminal activities, while simultaneously spreading a beautified image of itself, cannot be treated as an unproblematic recreational club.

The currently common practice of sanctioning violations but drawing hardly any structural consequences leads, in the motion sponsor's view, to a climate of de facto impunity or trivialization becoming entrenched. The scene obviously does not regulate itself, although it likes to claim exactly that.

Against this background, it is factually justified to treat recreational hunting legally differently than ordinary club activities:

Anyone who applies for or renews a hunting license must prove their personal and psychological suitability, as is already common in other areas such as police or military with high risks.
Anyone who repeatedly or seriously violates animal welfare, hunting law or safety regulations should not continue to be a state-legitimized person with a rifle in the forest.
Where above-average violations accumulate in individual hunting associations or territories, not only individual but also structural consequences are needed.

The proposed motion does not demand blanket criminal conviction of all hunters. Rather, it aims to make the actual scope of crime and legal violations in the hunting scene systematically visible for the first time, significantly tighten eligibility controls and give cantonal authorities the necessary instruments to act consistently in problem cases. This strengthens public safety, takes animal welfare seriously and corrects the widespread image of a de facto lawless zone of recreational hunting.