«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of an elaborated draft

Based on § 64 of the Constitution of Canton Aargau of June 25, 1980 and on the Law on Political Rights (GPR)

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Initiative text

The undersigned persons entitled to vote in Canton Aargau submit the following constitutional initiative:

The Constitution of Canton Aargau of June 25, 1980 shall be supplemented by the following paragraphs:

§ [new] Professional wildlife protection

1 The practice of hunting by private persons (territorial hunting, recreational hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of Canton Aargau. Existing hunting lease contracts will not be renewed.

2 The protection, care and, where necessary, regulation of wild animals shall be the exclusive responsibility of professionally trained wildlife managers in the service of the canton.

3 The shooting of wild animals is only permitted as a last resort when all other suitable measures for damage prevention or hazard prevention have been exhausted or are insufficient. It requires prior approval from the wildlife commission.

4 The canton shall establish an independent wildlife commission composed of representatives from animal and nature protection organizations, science, and relevant authorities. The commission supervises wildlife management and decides on regulatory measures.

5 The canton promotes the natural regulation of wildlife populations, the connectivity of habitats and the coexistence of humans and wildlife.

6 The canton adequately compensates affected municipalities for the loss of hunting lease revenues during a transitional period of five years.

7 The details are regulated by law.

§ [new] Protection of endangered and protected wildlife species

1 The canton refrains from applications for preventive population regulation of protected wildlife species under the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds, particularly wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden jackal, golden eagle, goosander and other species protected under federal law.

2 It focuses on promoting coexistence between humans and wildlife, passive damage prevention, ecological enhancement of habitats and scientific monitoring of wildlife presence.

3 Measures against individual wild animals that pose an immediate and significant danger to humans remain reserved. They must be limited to the minimum and carried out by the competent specialist authority of the canton.

4 The canton actively advocates for the protection and conservation of endangered wildlife species within the framework of intercantonal cooperation and vis-à-vis the federal government.

Transitional provision

1 The Cantonal Government issues the necessary implementing provisions within two years of adoption of this constitutional amendment.

2 Existing hunting lease contracts expire at the latest five years after the implementing legislation comes into force. Municipalities that lose hunting lease revenues are adequately compensated during the transitional period.

3 The Cantonal Government ensures continuity of wildlife management during the transitional phase.

Explanations

1. Initial situation

In Canton Aargau, the largest midland canton in Switzerland with around 700,000 inhabitants across 1,404 km² of area, today's recreational hunting is a system without democratic legitimation by the broader population. Recreational hunting serves neither species protection nor contemporary wildlife management. It is the practice of a bloody leisure pursuit at the expense of sentient beings, legitimized by outdated narratives that do not withstand scientific scrutiny. The claim that ecological balance would collapse without recreational hunting has been empirically refuted by the Geneva model for over 50 years (cf. the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban on wildbeimwild.com).

Aargau is a hunting district canton. Around 200 hunting districts are leased by municipalities to private hunting societies. The lessees pay a lease fee and hunt for their own account as a leisure activity. Contrary to widespread claims, the lessees do not assume district responsibility in an ecological sense, but act within the framework of cantonal culling plans that are primarily oriented toward the interests of forestry and agriculture. The system primarily serves the around 2,000 active hobby hunters (cf. the psychology of hunting in Canton Aargau as well as the critical analysis of hunting education on wildbeimwild.com).

In parallel, at the federal level, more and more protected wildlife species are coming under pressure. With the revision of the Hunting Act in December 2022, preventive regulation of wolves was introduced. Beavers may be shot upon cantonal application since February 2025. Political pressure on other species such as lynx, otters and goosanders is steadily increasing. Aargau is the most important beaver canton in Switzerland: the largest beaver population in the country lives along the Aare, Reuss, Limmat and their tributaries (cf. the analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com and the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The Canton of Aargau has the opportunity to set a clear signal here: not only for professional wildlife protection instead of hobby hunting, but also for the consistent protection of endangered wildlife species at the cantonal level.

2. The Model: Canton of Geneva

On 19 May 1974, around two-thirds of voters in the Canton of Geneva voted to abolish militia hobby hunting. Before the ban, large game in the canton was practically extinct: deer and wild boar had disappeared for decades, and only a few dozen roe deer remained. Around 300 hobby hunters massively released pheasants, partridges and hares for hobby hunting.

The experiences since the hobby hunting ban are unambiguous:

– Biodiversity has markedly increased. The number of overwintering waterfowl has multiplied from a few hundred to around 30,000. Geneva today hosts the largest brown hare population and one of the last partridge populations in Switzerland.

– The roe deer population has stabilized at a healthy level, with an annual specialized cull by professional game wardens of only 20 to 36 animals. The population maintains a density compatible with the forest area.

– In 2005, in a renewed referendum, 90 percent of Geneva's voting population spoke in favor of maintaining the hobby hunting ban. In 2009, a motion for reintroduction was rejected in the cantonal parliament by 70 to 7 votes.

– The total costs of professional wildlife management in Geneva amount to around 1.2 million francs annually, divided into around 600,000 francs for personnel (approximately three full-time positions, distributed among around a dozen environmental officers), 250,000 francs for prevention and 350,000 francs for damage compensation. This corresponds to around 2.40 francs per resident per year.

Wildlife in the Canton of Geneva shows significantly shorter flight distances from humans than in hunted areas. Geneva's fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker, responsible for wildlife management since 2001, describes the hobby hunting ban as the most financially favorable alternative for the canton. A detailed presentation can be found in the Dossier «Geneva and the Hunting Ban» on wildbeimwild.com.

The efficiency of the Geneva model is evident in direct comparison: A professional game warden in Geneva needs an average of 8 hours and maximum 2 cartridges for a sanitary cull of a wild boar. A hobby hunter in the Canton of Zurich needs 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 cartridges for the same task. The brown hare density in Geneva is 17.7 animals per 100 hectares (highest in Switzerland), in the Canton of Zurich only 1.0 per 100 hectares (cf. Fact Check Government Council Zurich).

3. The Concept: Professional Game Management Instead of Hobby Hunting

The initiative does not replace hobby hunting with a vacuum, but with professional wildlife management based on the game warden model. This model is based on the following principles:

Professional competence instead of recreational pleasure. Professional wildlife managers act on a scientific basis, with biological training and within the framework of a cantonal service mandate. Their goal is the preservation of healthy wildlife populations, not the maximization of kill numbers. In contrast, hobby hunting systemically pursues the interest of securing its own raison d'être through high populations of huntable species (cf. the critical analysis of hunting education on wildbeimwild.com).

Ultima ratio principle.A culling is only permissible when all non-lethal measures have been exhausted. These include electric fences, deterrence, habitat management, relocation, taste repellents and structural protective measures. In Geneva, fruit trees are protected with nets to prevent deer and hares from gnawing bark. For wild boar, the canton provides farmers with electric fences. This practice demonstrates: coexistence is a matter of will, not technical possibility.

Democratic control through a wildlife commission.The independent commission, composed of animal and nature protection organizations, science and authorities, prevents political pressure from individual interest groups from undermining wildlife management. The Basel initiative anchors this protective mechanism more consistently than current Geneva law by constitutionally enshrining the wildlife commission's approval requirement.

Natural self-regulation as guiding principle.Experience from Geneva, from national parks and from numerous scientific studies demonstrates: wildlife populations regulate themselves in most cases. Recreational hunting disrupts this natural process by destroying social structures, artificially increasing reproduction rates and altering migration patterns.

4. Why Aargau?

The canton of Aargau is particularly suitable for introducing professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

Largest Mittelland canton with the most favorable per capita costs.With 700,000 inhabitants across 1,404 km², Aargau has the best population-to-area ratio of all hunting lease cantons. Net additional costs are under one franc per inhabitant per year. This is less than half the Geneva level (2.40 francs) and renders the opposition's cost argument ineffective.

Switzerland's most important beaver canton.The largest beaver population in the country lives along the Aare, Reuss, Limmat and their tributaries. Since February 2025, beavers may be shot nationwide upon cantonal request. The second paragraph of the initiative protects beavers in Aargau and gives the canton a clear position in the national debate (cf. wildbeimwild.com on predators).

Mittelland topography.Aargau is predominantly flat to hilly (Mittelland and Jura foothills). It has no high alpine areas. The topography is directly comparable to Geneva. The argument that the Geneva model only works in an urban canton does not apply in Aargau: Aargau is rural and has the same landscape structure as Geneva.

3,000 signatures in 12 months.With 700,000 inhabitants, 3,000 signatures represent only 0.4 percent of the population. Collection can be efficient in Aarau, Baden, Brugg, Lenzburg, Wohlen, Rheinfelden and Zofingen (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in settlement areas).

Zurich agglomeration as urban base.Eastern Aargau (Baden, Wettingen, Spreitenbach) belongs to the Zurich agglomeration and is urban in character. Together with the cities of Aarau, Brugg and Rheinfelden, a significant portion of the cantonal population lives in agglomerations that are animal welfare-friendly.

Otter return expected.The return of otters to northwestern Switzerland is expected by experts. The Aare is a potential expansion area. The species protection paragraph of the initiative is forward-looking and also protects future returnees.

Signal effect as test case for hunting leases.Basel-Stadt has de facto hardly any recreational hunting. Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Zug are small cantons. Aargau would be the first large Mittelland canton to complete the system change. Success here would have a signal effect for all of German-speaking Switzerland.

5. On the first paragraph: Professional wildlife protection

Section 1 – Ban on recreational hunting and expiration of lease contracts

The ban on territorial hunting by private individuals is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model. Cantonal competence for this is undisputed: the federal Hunting Act (JSG) expressly leaves the organization of hunting operations to the cantons (Art. 3 Para. 1 JSG). The three hunting systems in Switzerland – patent hunting, territorial hunting and state or management hunting – are equivalent. The Canton of Geneva has practiced management hunting since 1974 in compliance with federal law. The addition 'Existing hunting lease contracts will not be renewed' is specific to territorial hunting cantons: It ensures that the system change proceeds in an orderly manner and that existing contractual obligations are respected.

Paragraph 2 – Professional Wildlife Management

Instead of hobby hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers in cantonal service take over all tasks of wildlife care and, where necessary, population regulation. These specialists have more comprehensive biological or wildlife ecological training and act on a scientific basis and in the public interest. This system has proven itself in Geneva for over 50 years.

Paragraph 3 – Culling as Ultima Ratio

The central innovation compared to the current system: Culling is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures take priority. In Geneva, wildlife rangers annually cull an average of around 250 wild boar (according to BAFU hunting statistics), mainly juveniles, with lead animals explicitly protected for ethical reasons and to preserve the social stability of the sounders.

Paragraph 4 – Wildlife Commission

The independent wildlife commission is modeled on the Geneva model of the constitutional fauna commission. It ensures that animal and nature protection associations have a voice in regulation decisions and prevents the government from independently approving exceptions under pressure from interest groups. The involvement of science ensures that decisions are evidence-based and not based on the hunting ideological myths with which the recreational hunting lobby has legitimized its practice for decades.

Paragraph 5 – Natural Regulation and Coexistence

This paragraph anchors the guiding principle of professional wildlife protection in the constitution: Nature regulates itself largely on its own when humans do not interfere with population dynamics through mass culling. The promotion of coexistence in Aargau includes in particular the securing and networking of wildlife corridors along the major watercourses (Aare, Reuss, Limmat), the ecological enhancement of riparian landscapes and public education about behavior toward wildlife (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in settlement areas).

Paragraph 6 – Compensation for Municipalities

This paragraph is specific to territorial hunting cantons. The approximately 200 Aargau municipalities that currently lease hunting territories receive lease income. The loss of this income will be appropriately compensated during a transition period of five years. The lease income per municipality is usually modest and typically amounts to several thousand francs annually. In relation to municipal budgets, the amount is marginal.

Transitional Provisions

The two-year deadline gives the Government Council sufficient time to develop implementing legislation, hire professional wildlife managers and constitute the wildlife commission. The five-year phaseout clause for existing hunting lease contracts is constitutionally required to preserve the property guarantee of municipalities and lessees. The existing Hunting and Fisheries Section of the Department of Construction, Transport and Environment can serve as an institutional basis.

6. On the second paragraph: Protection of endangered and protected wildlife species

The second paragraph is particularly relevant for Aargau. The canton is Switzerland's most important beaver canton. The largest beaver population in the country lives along the Aare, Reuss, Limmat and their tributaries. Since February 2025, beavers may be shot throughout Switzerland upon cantonal request. The species protection paragraph enshrines the renunciation of such requests in the constitution.

The "in particular" formulation is conceived as a dynamic reference to federal law. It ensures that cantonal protection automatically applies to species that the federal legislator places under protection or puts on a regulation list in the future, without requiring a constitutional amendment. The return of the otter to northwestern Switzerland is expected by experts; the initiative also protects future returnees (cf. the Analysis of wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

7. Cost implications: Concrete budget for Aargau

The Geneva reference budget

In Geneva, which at 282 km² is about five times smaller than Aargau and has around 500,000 inhabitants, the total costs of professional wildlife management amount to around 1.2 million francs annually: around 600,000 francs for personnel, around 250,000 francs for prevention and around 350,000 francs for damage compensation.

Projection for Aargau

For Aargau with 1,404 km² area and around 700,000 inhabitants, the following realistic cost estimate emerges:

Personnel costs: 600,000 to 840,000 francs annually. Required are 5 to 6 full-time positions for professional wildlife managers. A full-time position in cantonal service costs around 120,000 to 140,000 francs annually including social contributions and employer overhead costs. Aargau is five times larger than Geneva, but topographically simpler (Mittelland, no Alps), and the settlement structure is more compact.

Material costs: 120,000 to 180,000 francs annually. This includes equipment, vehicles, deterrent devices, monitoring infrastructure (camera traps, GPS transmitters), structural protective measures, electric fences and public relations work.

Damage compensation: 100,000 to 200,000 francs annually. Mainly wild boar damage in agriculture and beaver damage to waterways and infrastructure.

Total costs: 820,000 to 1,220,000 francs annually (gross). This corresponds to around 1.15 to 1.75 francs per inhabitant per year.

Savings

This is offset by considerable savings: The canton no longer needs to administer hunting lease contracts for around 200 districts, conduct hunting examinations, create shooting plans for 200 districts and organize hunting supervision. The resources currently assigned to these tasks within the Hunting and Fisheries section can be partially redirected.

Lost revenue

With the abolition of recreational hunting, the lease income from district hunting of an estimated 400,000 to 700,000 francs annually is eliminated. However, this is offset by the never-accounted external costs of militia hunting – wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in protective forests, administrative overhead, police and court interventions – which amount to a multiple of this revenue. In the canton of Geneva, this revenue has been eliminated since 1974 – without financial problems: Before the hunting ban, over 400 hobby hunters were active; today three full-time positions do the same work better. Sanitary and therapeutic culling by professional game wardens is not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters' folklore or misunderstood "nature experience" of hobby hunters. A full cost accounting shows: Militia hunting costs taxpayers significantly more than it brings in (cf. "What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland" on wildbeimwild.com).

Hobby hunters in politics vote against nature conservation. The recreational hunting lobby systematically opposes biodiversity and species protection initiatives. In 2024, they opposed the biodiversity initiative (63 percent No). In 2020, the hunting law they helped shape failed at the polls (51.9 percent No). In 2016, the Ticino hunting association torpedoed the Parc Adula National Park. During the legislative period 2015 to 2019, hobby hunters in parliament voted predominantly against environmental concerns. Anyone claiming that hobby hunters are conservationists ignores their voting record (cf. Ticino Hunting Association: 30 Years of Nonsense and Cost Dossier).

The net additional costs are likely to be 350,000 to 650,000 francs annually, which corresponds to approximately 0.50 to 0.95 francs per inhabitant. These are the lowest per-capita costs of all cantons in the series and less than half the Geneva level (cf. Hunting Myths Fact-Check on wildbeimwild.com).

8. Compatibility with superior law

First paragraph: Abolition of recreational hunting

The initiative is compliant with federal law. The federal hunting law (JSG) expressly leaves the regulation of hunting rights, hunting systems, hunting areas and hunting supervision to the cantons (Art. 3 Para. 1 JSG). The three hunting systems are equivalent. The Canton of Geneva has practiced state hunting since 1974 and has never experienced a federal legal objection in over 50 years. The five-year phase-out clause for hunting lease contracts preserves the property guarantee of municipalities and lessees.

Second paragraph: Protection of protected species

Art. 7a JSG enables cantons to implement preventive regulation, but does not oblige them to do so. Forgoing this possibility violates neither federal law nor the Bern Convention.

Unity of subject matter

The initiative maintains unity of subject matter, as all provisions of both paragraphs relate to cantonal wildlife management and the protection of wild animals.

9. Anticipating foreseeable objections

«Aargau is too large and too rural for the Geneva model»

The facts: Aargau is topographically directly comparable to Geneva: midlands, no Alps, moderate altitude differences. The area is larger, but so is the population. The per-capita costs are even lower than in Geneva (under one franc instead of 2.40 francs), because the 700,000 inhabitants distribute the costs across many shoulders. Aargau has no high Alps, no extreme topographies, no sparsely populated mountain valleys. The challenges are the same as in Geneva: wild boar in agriculture, deer in forests, beavers along rivers.

Communicative short formula: «Aargau has the same landscape as Geneva and less than half the per-capita costs. Where does it work, if not here?»

«Municipalities lose lease income»

The facts: Hunting lease income typically amounts to several thousand francs annually per municipality. In relation to municipal budgets, the amount is marginal. The initiative provides for a five-year transitional compensation. Beyond that, with the abolition of recreational hunting, municipal obligations in hunting administration also cease, leading to administrative savings (cf. the Psychology of Hunting in Canton Aargau).

Communicative short formula: «A few thousand francs of lease income per municipality. Compensated for five years. And administration becomes simpler.»

«Costs increase – the taxpayer pays in the end»

The facts: Under one franc per inhabitant per year. That's less than half the Geneva level. Geneva has been doing this for 50 years, with 2.40 francs per capita, and 90 percent of the population wants to keep it. In Zurich, alleged costs of 20 million francs were claimed, which were never substantiated. In Aargau, the concretely calculated figures are available.

Communicative short formula: «Under one franc per person per year. Less than half of Geneva. The Zurich specter of 20 million was an invention.»

10. Summary

This initiative gives the Aargau population the opportunity to support modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wildlife species. The first paragraph follows the Geneva model that has proven effective for over 50 years and replaces hobby hunting with professional wildlife protection – at the lowest per capita costs of all cantons in the series. The second paragraph specifically protects the beaver, the most important endangered species in Aargau, and ensures that the canton refrains from the preventive killing of protected species.

The result would be an Aargau where wildlife are neither targets for hobby hunters nor victims of a politically motivated culling policy, but are professionally protected as part of living nature – for the benefit of animals and the entire population.

Initiative Committee 'For Professional Wildlife Protection'

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members according to cantonal law, with residence in Canton Aargau)

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Supplementary Documentation

The following dossiers and sources support the argumentation of this initiative and are available as attachments:

Geneva Model in Detail: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/genf-und-das-jagdverbot – Comprehensive presentation of Geneva wildlife management since 1974 with costs, population numbers and biodiversity development.

Scientific Studies: wildbeimwild.com/studien-ueber-die-auswirkung-der-jagd-auf-wildtiere-und-jaeger – Collection of scientific studies on the self-regulation of wildlife populations and on the ecological impacts of hobby hunting.

Hunting in Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com/warum-die-hobby-jagd-in-der-schweiz-kein-naturschutz-ist – Continuously updated overview of Swiss hunting policy.

Psychology of Hunting in Canton Aargau: wildbeimwild.com – Psychologie der Jagd im Kanton AG – Canton-specific analysis of the psychology behind hobby hunting.

Psychology of Hobby Hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd – Comprehensive articles on the psychology of hobby hunting.

Wolf Dossier: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/wolf-in-der-schweiz-fakten-politik-und-die-grenzen-der-jagd – Current developments on wolf policy in Switzerland.

Wildlife and Predators: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere – Information on wildlife, predators and the coexistence of humans and wildlife.

Hunting Myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen – Fact-check of the most common claims by the hobby hunting lobby.

Cantonal Popular Initiative Basel-Stadt: Model text of the initiative in Canton Basel-Stadt – The template for the entire initiative series.

Note on Procedure

The initiative committee submits the initiative text to the State Chancellery of Canton Aargau for preliminary review before beginning signature collection. 3,000 valid signatures are required for the initiative to be successful. The collection period is 12 months from publication in the official gazette. The submission procedures are governed by the Law on Political Rights (GPR).

Strategic Briefing for Activists

Popular Initiative 'For Professional Wildlife Protection' – Canton Aargau Internal Working Document – Status March 2026

Summary

Aargau is the largest lowland canton in Switzerland and has the lowest per capita costs of all cantons in the initiative series: under one franc per inhabitant per year. The lowland topography is directly comparable to Geneva. Aargau is the most important beaver canton in Switzerland, which makes the species protection paragraph particularly relevant. 3,000 signatures in 12 months is achievable with 700,000 inhabitants. Eastern Aargau belongs to the Zurich agglomeration and is urban in character. A success in Aargau would be proof that the Geneva model works in a large lowland canton.

1. Why Aargau of all places?

Lowest per capita costs. Under one franc. Less than half of Geneva's cost. The cost argument that was fatal in Zurich is ineffective in Aargau.

Midland topography. No Alps, no high mountains. Directly comparable to Geneva. The argument 'Geneva is a city canton, that won't work for us' doesn't apply.

Beaver canton. The largest beaver population in Switzerland. Huntable since February 2025. The species protection clause mobilizes nature conservation organizations.

3,000 signatures among 700,000 inhabitants. That's 0.4 percent. 12-month collection period. Realistic.

Urban base in the east. Baden, Wettingen, Spreitenbach belong to the Zurich agglomeration.

2. Lessons from Zurich: What we're doing differently

Positive title. 'For professional wildlife protection' instead of 'Wildlife wardens instead of hunters'. Opponents must position themselves against 'professional wildlife protection'.

Concrete budget calculation. The Zurich government projected 20 million and the initiative supporters had no response. In Aargau, the concretely calculated figures are available: under one franc per capita.

Secure party support early. In Zurich, not a single vote in the cantonal council was in favor. In Aargau, SP, Greens and GLP must be involved early.

Species protection as coalition broadening. The beaver clause additionally mobilizes nature conservation organizations that cannot be reached with a pure anti-hunting message.

3. Opponent analysis and prepared responses

Counter-argument 1: 'Aargau is too large'

What opponents will say: Aargau has 1,404 km², Geneva only 282. The Geneva model is not transferable.

The facts: The area is larger, but so is the population. The per-capita costs are cheaper than in Geneva. The topography is identical: midlands. Not a single aspect of Aargau's terrain is more challenging than in Geneva.

Communicative short formula: 'Same landscape, less than half the costs. Where will it work if not in Aargau?'

Counter-argument 2: 'Municipalities lose revenue'

The facts: A few thousand francs per municipality. Compensated for five years. Marginal in relation to municipal budgets. Administration becomes simpler.

Communicative short formula: 'The lease revenues are a fraction of municipal budgets. And they are compensated for five years.'

Counter-argument 3: 'This costs taxpayers'

The facts: Under one franc per person per year. The Zurich specter of 20 million was never proven. Geneva has been doing it for 50 years.

Communicative short formula: 'Under one franc. Less than half of Geneva's cost. The Zurich 20 million was an invention.'

4. Communication strategy: The three core messages

'Geneva has been demonstrating it for 50 years.' More biodiversity, stable populations, minimal costs, 90 percent approval.

'Professional instead of hobby.' Specialists instead of recreational hunters. In the public interest instead of as a leisure activity.

'Under one franc per person per year.' The cheapest per-capita costs of all cantons.

5. Timeline and next steps

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & text pre-review	Engage lawyer; recruit committee members with AG residence according to cantonal law	Month 1–3
Submission for pre-review	Aargau State Chancellery	Month 3–4
Publication & collection start	12-month deadline; goal: 3,500+ signatures as buffer	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	SP, Greens, GLP; nature conservation organizations; beaver groups	Month 1–12
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official verification	Month 19–21
Grand Council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media work	Month 22–30
Campaign	Final mobilization, infographics, media presence	Month 30–36

6. Campaign material

• The Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as central argumentation.
• The Psychology of hunting in Canton Aargau as background material.
• Local media: Aargauer Zeitung, Badener Tagblatt, Lenzburger Bezirks-Anzeiger, Tele M1, Radio Argovia.
• Infographic: Beavers on Aare, Reuss and Limmat as visual guiding element. Cost comparison AG vs. GE.

7. Further Sources

• Geneva Hunting Ban in Detail
• Scientific Studies
• Hunting in Switzerland
• Psychology of Hunting in Canton Aargau
• Hunting Myths Fact-Check
• Wolf Politics
• Predators
• Federal Hunting Statistics (FOEN)
• Cantonal People's Initiative Basel-Stadt

This document is a template text by IG Wild beim Wild. It can be freely used by activists, organizations or initiative committees and adapted to the circumstances in Canton Aargau.

Fact-Check: The Claims of the Hobby Hunting Lobby

The brochure 'Hunting in Switzerland Protects and Benefits' by JagdSchweiz reads like an advertising leaflet – yet the central claims do not withstand a fact-check. Ten narratives under scrutiny, from 'state duty' through 'biodiversity' to '80% approval': Dossier: Fact-Check JagdSchweiz Brochure →