«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of an elaborated draft

Based on Art. 12 of the Constitution of the Canton of Graubünden of 18 May 2003 and on the Law on Political Rights in the Canton of Graubünden

Submitted by the initiative committee [Date of submission]

Initiative text

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

The Constitution of the Canton of Graubünden of 18 May 2003 is supplemented by the following articles:

Art. [new] Professional wildlife protection

1 The practice of hunting by private persons (trophy hunting, recreational hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Canton of Graubünden.

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

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

4 The canton establishes an independent wildlife commission composed of representatives from animal and nature protection associations, science, and the 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 details shall be regulated by law.

Art. [new] Protection of threatened and protected wildlife species

1 The canton refrains from submitting applications for preventive population regulation of protected wildlife species under the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds, particularly wolves, lynx, bears, beavers, otters, golden jackals, golden eagles, goosanders, 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 threat to humans remain reserved. They are to be limited to the minimum and carried out by the competent specialist office of the canton.

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

Transitional provision

1 The government shall enact the necessary implementing regulations within two years of the adoption of this constitutional amendment.

2 Existing hunting licenses shall expire with the entry into force of the implementing regulations. Already paid license fees for the current hunting season shall be refunded proportionally.

3 The government shall ensure continuity of wildlife management during the transitional phase.

Explanations

1. Current situation

In the Canton of Graubünden, the largest canton in Switzerland by area with around 200,000 inhabitants across 7,105 km² of territory, today's recreational hunting is a system that serves neither species protection nor contemporary wildlife management. It is the practice of a bloody leisure activity at the expense of sentient beings, legitimized by outdated narratives that cannot 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).

Recreational hunting is organized as licensed hunting in Graubünden. The Graubünden high hunting and low hunting seasons are deeply rooted in cantonal culture. But cultural tradition does not legitimize animal cruelty. Private individuals purchase a cantonal license and hunt without fixed territorial responsibility (cf. the Psychology of recreational hunting in the Canton of Graubünden as well as the critical analysis of hunting education on wildbeimwild.com).

Graubünden is the canton where the return of predators to Switzerland began: in 2012, the first wolf pack of modern Switzerland was confirmed at Calanda above Chur. Since then, additional packs have been added. Bear M13 was shot in Graubünden in 2013. The lynx has been native for decades. The golden eagle breeds throughout the canton. The bearded vulture is present in the Engadin. With the Swiss National Park in the Engadin, Graubünden hosts Switzerland's oldest and largest protected area, where hunting has been prohibited for over 100 years (cf. the Analysis of hunting politics on wildbeimwild.com and the Wolf politics on wildbeimwild.com).

The Canton of Graubünden has the opportunity to set a clear signal here: not only for professional wildlife protection instead of recreational hunting, but also for consistent protection of threatened wildlife species at the cantonal level. As Switzerland's largest canton, this signal would have an impact that could change the entire national debate.

2. The model: Canton of Geneva

On May 19, 1974, around two-thirds of voters in the Canton of Geneva voted to abolish militia recreational hunting. Before the ban, large game in the canton was practically extinct. Around 300 hobby hunters massively released pheasants, partridges and hares for recreational hunting.

The experiences since the recreational 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 harbors the largest brown hare population and one of the last partridge populations in Switzerland.

– The roe deer population has settled at a healthy level, with an annual specialized culling by professional game wardens of merely 20 to 36 animals.

– In 2005, 90 percent of Geneva's voting population spoke out for maintaining the recreational hunting ban. In 2009, a motion to reintroduce it was rejected by 70 to 7 votes.

– Total costs amount to around 1.2 million francs annually: around 600,000 francs for personnel, 250,000 francs for prevention and 350,000 francs for damage compensation. This corresponds to around 2.40 francs per inhabitant per year.

Geneva's fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker describes the recreational hunting ban as the most financially favorable alternative. 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 for a sanitary culling of a wild boar on average 8 hours and maximum 2 cartridges. A hobby hunter in the Canton of Zurich needs for this 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 cartridges. The brown hare density in Geneva amounts to 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).

Graubünden has had its own reference example with the Swiss National Park since 1914: In the National Park, hunting has not taken place for over 100 years. Wildlife populations regulate themselves independently. The National Park proves that natural self-regulation also functions in high mountain regions (cf. wildbeimwild.com on National Parks and Protected Areas).

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

The initiative does not replace recreational hunting with a vacuum, but with professional wildlife management according to 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 (cf. the critical analysis of hunting education on wildbeimwild.com).

Ultima ratio principle. Culling is only permissible when all non-lethal measures are exhausted.

Democratic control through a wildlife commission. The independent commission prevents political pressure from diluting wildlife management.

Natural self-regulation as guiding principle. The Swiss National Park has proven for over 100 years: Wildlife populations regulate themselves independently in high mountain regions. Experience from Geneva, from National Parks and from numerous scientific studies confirms this principle.

4. Why Graubünden?

The Canton of Graubünden is suitable for several reasons for introducing professional wildlife protection:

Largest canton in Switzerland. Graubünden is with 7,105 km² the largest canton in Switzerland by area. Success here would change the entire national debate. If professional wildlife management functions in Graubünden, it functions everywhere.

Swiss National Park: 100 years of proof. The Swiss National Park in the Engadin has proven since 1914 that wildlife populations regulate themselves independently in the high mountains without recreational hunting. The National Park is the Graubünden Geneva model. No other canton has such a strong reference example of its own (cf. wildbeimwild.com on national parks and protected areas). In the Swiss National Park in the Engadin, there has been no hunting since 1914, for over 100 years. The chamois population has remained constant at around 1,350 animals since 1920. The fox is not hunted, the prey animals have not been exterminated, biodiversity has doubled. At the same time, the figures from the cantonal hunting administration document what recreational hunting causes in the rest of the canton: Between 2012 and 2016, over 1,000 charges and fines were issued against hobby hunters annually. In 2015, the game wardens had to conduct 1,232 follow-up searches, with a success rate of only 57 percent. In five years, around 3,836 animals were merely wounded by gunshots (cf. Hunting Accidents Dossier).

Calanda wolf pack: Cradle of Swiss wolf packs. At Calanda above Chur, the first wolf pack of modern Switzerland was confirmed in 2012. Graubünden is the cradle of wolf return. The initiative offers a constitutional response: Professional wildlife management instead of politically motivated culling (cf. the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

Bear in Graubünden. Graubünden is the only canton where bears have been regularly documented (Bear M13 was shot in 2013). The 'in particular' formulation in the second article protects the bear upon its return (cf. wildbeimwild.com on predators).

Trilingualism. Graubünden is the only trilingual canton in Switzerland (German, Romansh, Italian). The initiative must be communicated in three languages.

4,000 signatures. With 200,000 inhabitants, 4,000 signatures represent 2.00 percent of the population. Signatures can be collected in Chur, Davos, St. Moritz, Ilanz, Landquart and Thusis (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in residential areas).

Patent hunting = simple system change. No lease contracts, no municipal compensation.

Tourism canton. Davos, St. Moritz, Lenzerheide, Arosa, Flims/Laax: Graubünden is one of Switzerland's most important tourism cantons. Professional wildlife protection and coexistence with predators are an argument for sustainable tourism.

5. On the initiative text

Paragraph 1 – Ban on recreational hunting

The ban on patent hunting by private individuals corresponds to the Geneva model. The cantonal competence is undisputed: Art. 3 Para. 1 JSG. The three hunting systems are equivalent. Geneva has been compliant with federal law since 1974. The Graubünden high hunting and the Graubünden low hunting are cultural traditions, but cultural tradition legitimizes neither animal cruelty nor an ecologically outdated system.

Paragraph 2 – Professional wildlife management

Instead of hobby hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers in cantonal service take over all tasks. This system has proven itself in Geneva for over 50 years. In the Swiss National Park for over 100 years.

Paragraph 3 – Culling as ultima ratio

Culling is the exception, not the rule. Passive measures have priority.

Paragraph 4 – Wildlife commission

The independent wildlife commission is modeled on the Geneva model. It prevents the government from independently approving exceptions. The culling of bear M13 and numerous wolves shows how quickly political pressure leads to killing orders (cf. wildbeimwild.com/hunting-facts).

Paragraph 5 – Natural regulation and coexistence

The promotion of coexistence in Graubünden includes in particular the extension of the National Park principle to the entire canton, the networking of alpine habitats, professional herd protection and the education of the population and tourists (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in settlement areas).

Transitional provisions

The two-year deadline gives the government sufficient time. The existing Office for Hunting and Fisheries (AJF) can serve as an institutional foundation. The AJF already employs professional wildlife wardens.

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

The second article is of utmost relevance for Graubünden. The Calanda wolf pack was the first in modern Switzerland in 2012. Bear M13 was shot in 2013. The lynx is native. The golden eagle and bearded vulture breed in the canton. Graubünden is home to the Swiss National Park. The 'in particular' formulation also protects future returnees, especially the bear and the otter (cf. the Wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

7. Cost implications: Concrete budget for Graubünden

The Geneva reference budget

In Geneva, total costs amount to around 1.2 million francs annually.

Conservative projection for Graubünden

For Graubünden with 7,105 km² area and around 200,000 inhabitants, the following deliberately conservative cost estimate results. This calculates generously and considers alpine additional costs, the red deer problem, and livestock protection development:

Personnel costs: 1,800,000 to 2,800,000 francs annually. 15 to 20 full-time positions are required. Graubünden is twenty-five times larger than Geneva and topographically extremely challenging: high mountains, remote side valleys, extensive alpine farming. The existing Office for Hunting and Fisheries (AJF) already employs professional wildlife wardens, whose positions can be partially reassigned. The higher number of positions accounts for red deer transition management.

Material costs: 400,000 to 700,000 francs annually. In high mountains, material costs are higher than in flatlands: all-terrain vehicles, alpine equipment, livestock protection materials, monitoring infrastructure (camera traps, GPS transmitters, drones), structural protection measures and public relations in three languages.

Damage compensation: 300,000 to 600,000 francs annually. Mainly wolf predation damage to livestock, browsing damage in protection forests and potential bear damage. The higher estimate considers wolf presence throughout the canton.

Livestock protection start-up investment: 800,000 to 1,500,000 francs. In the first three to five years after the system change, a one-time start-up investment in livestock protection infrastructure is needed for the entire Graubünden alpine area: livestock guardian dog programs, mobile fences, night enclosures, shepherd training. This investment is non-recurring and will be amortized over three to five years.

Total costs: 2,500,000 to 4,100,000 francs annually (gross). This corresponds to around 12.50 to 20.50 francs per inhabitant per year.

Red deer transition management

Graubünden has the largest red deer populations in Switzerland. Despite thousands of hobby hunters and annual hunting seasons, populations are not sustainably reduced – on the contrary: recreational hunting produces more births through compensatory reproduction than it removes animals. Scientific literature clearly documents this effect: high hunting pressure leads to earlier sexual maturity, larger litters and higher survival rates of young animals. After the system change, targeted red deer transition management by professional specialists is needed in the first three to five years, who will regulate populations scientifically and selectively – not across the board and seasonally like recreational hunting. The higher staffing numbers account for this transition management. The Swiss National Park has proven for over 100 years that wildlife populations regulate themselves even in high mountains without recreational hunting. Professional wildlife management will extend this principle to the entire canton (cf. Studies on wildbeimwild.com).

Savings and Counterfinancing

This is offset by considerable savings: No hunting examinations, no license administration for thousands of licenses (Graubünden has one of the largest recreational hunting communities in Switzerland), no hunting quota planning, no hunting supervision. Added to this are the enormous costs of wolf culls: A single senseless wolf killing costs the public around 35,000 francs (helicopter operations, coordination, legal proceedings). With dozens of culls per year, this adds up to hundreds of thousands.

Lost Revenue

The abolition of recreational hunting would eliminate license fees of an estimated 4 to 5 million francs annually. However, this is offset by the never-calculated external costs of militia hunting – wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in protection forests, administrative burden, police and court operations – which amount to several times 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 culls by professional game wardens are 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 concerns. In 2024, it opposed the biodiversity initiative (63 percent No). In 2020, the hunting law it helped shape failed at the ballot box (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 behavior (cf. Ticino Hunting Association: 30 Years of Nonsense and Cost Dossier).

The net additional costs would likely be 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 francs annually, which corresponds to approximately 7.50 to 15.00 francs per inhabitant. In an extremely large, alpine canton with only 200,000 inhabitants, the per-capita costs are naturally higher than in densely populated cantons. But even calculated generously: This is less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget of around 2.8 billion francs (State Accounts 2024, EFV). Or put differently: less than one coffee per person per year – for professional wildlife protection in Switzerland's largest canton (cf. Hunting Myths Fact Check on wildbeimwild.com).

8. Compatibility with Superior Law

First Article: Abolition of Recreational Hunting

Compliant with federal law. Art. 3 Para. 1 JSG. Three equivalent hunting systems. Geneva unchallenged since 1974.

Second Article: Protection of Protected Species

Art. 7a JSG enables preventive regulation but does not mandate it. Abstaining violates neither federal law nor the Bern Convention.

Unity of Subject Matter

Maintained, as all provisions relate to cantonal wildlife management and the protection of wild animals.

9. Anticipation of Foreseeable Objections

'Graubünden is twenty-five times larger than Geneva – the Geneva model doesn't work here'

The facts: Graubünden has its own reference example with the Swiss National Park: Over 100 years without hobby hunting, stable wildlife populations. What functions in the National Park also functions outside. Settlement is concentrated in the valleys. The largest part of the area is high mountains without permanent settlement. The absolute costs (1’500’000 to 3’000’000 francs) are less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget (cf. the Psychology of hobby hunting in Canton Graubünden).

Communicative short formula: «The Swiss National Park has proven it for 100 years: No hobby hunting, stable populations. What functions in the National Park also functions outside.»

«Graubünden hunting is tradition»

The facts: Tradition does not legitimize animal cruelty. Bullfights in Spain are also tradition. The question is not whether something has tradition, but whether it is ecologically and ethically justifiable. The Swiss National Park has a longer tradition than Graubünden patent hunting in its current form and proves that wildlife management functions without hobby hunting.

Communicative short formula: «Tradition does not legitimize animal cruelty. The National Park has a longer tradition and proves: It works without it too.»

«The costs are too high»

The facts: Even with generous, conservative calculation: 1’500’000 to 3’000’000 francs absolute. Less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget of around 2.8 billion francs (State accounts 2024, EFV) francs. Less than one coffee per person per year. The savings in patent administration and wolf culls are considerable.

Communicative short formula: «Less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget. Less than one coffee per person per year.»

10. Summary

This initiative gives the Graubünden population the opportunity to advocate for modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wildlife species. The first article follows the Geneva model proven for over 50 years and the National Park principle proven for over 100 years. The second article particularly protects the wolf (Calanda), the bear, the lynx, the golden eagle and the bearded vulture. As the largest canton in Switzerland and cradle of Swiss wolf packs, success in Graubünden would have national signaling effect that would change the entire debate.

Initiative Committee «For Professional Wildlife Protection»

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

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

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Further documentation

Geneva model in detail: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/genf-und-das-jagdverbot

Scientific studies: wildbeimwild.com/studien

Hunting in Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com/jagd-in-der-schweiz

Psychology of hobby hunting in Canton Graubünden: wildbeimwild.com – Psychology of hobby hunting in Canton GR

Psychology of hobby hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd

Wolf dossier: wildbeimwild.com/category/wolf

Predators: wildbeimwild.com/category/raubtiere

National parks and protected areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/nationalpark

Wildlife in settlement areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere-im-siedlungsgebiet

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen

Cantonal popular initiative Basel-Stadt: Model text of the initiative in Canton Basel-Stadt

Note on procedure

The initiative committee submits the initiative text to the State Chancellery of Canton Graubünden for preliminary review before beginning signature collection. 4’000 valid signatures are required for the initiative to come about. The collection period is 1 year from official publication in the Cantonal Gazette. The submission modalities are governed by the law on political rights in Canton Graubünden.

Strategic briefing for activists

Popular initiative «For professional wildlife protection» – Canton Graubünden Internal working document – Status March 2026

Summary

Graubünden is the largest canton in Switzerland and the cradle of Swiss wolf packs (Calanda 2012). No other canton has such a strong reference example of its own: The Swiss National Park has proven for over 100 years that natural self-regulation works in high mountain regions. 4,000 signatures among 200,000 inhabitants are achievable. The absolute costs (800,000–1,800,000 francs) are less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget. Success here would change the entire national debate.

1. Why Graubünden of all places?

Largest canton. 7,105 km². National signal effect.

Swiss National Park. 100 years of proof: No recreational hunting, stable populations.

Calanda wolf pack. Cradle of Swiss wolf packs (2012).

Bear. Only canton with bear evidence. Bear M13 shot in 2013.

4,000 signatures. 2.00 percent. Achievable.

Patent hunting = simple system change. No lease agreements.

2. Lessons from Zurich: What we will do differently

Positive title. "For professional wildlife protection".

National Park as Graubünden reference. Instead of only referring to Geneva, GR refers to its own National Park: 100 years of proof in high mountains.

Absolute costs. 800,000–1,800,000 francs. Less than 0.1 percent of the cantonal budget.

Offensively refute tradition argument. "The National Park has a longer tradition than patent hunting in its current form."

3. Special challenges

Hunting culture. Graubünden hunting is culturally deeply rooted. The campaign must work with facts and the National Park argument.

Trilingual nature. Materials in German, Romansh and Italian.

Large area, sparse settlement. Focus collection on cities (Chur, Davos, St. Moritz).

4. Opposition analysis and prepared responses

Counter-argument 1: "Graubünden is too large"

Communicative short formula: "The National Park has proven it for 100 years: No recreational hunting, stable populations. What works in the National Park also works outside."

Counter-argument 2: "Graubünden hunting is tradition"

Communicative short formula: "Tradition does not legitimize animal cruelty. The National Park has a longer tradition."

Counter-argument 3: "The costs are too high"

Communicative short formula: "Less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget. Less than one coffee per person per year."

5. Communication strategy: The three core messages

"The National Park has proven it for 100 years." The strongest Graubünden argument.

"Geneva has been demonstrating it for 50 years." 90 percent approval.

"Professional instead of hobby." Specialists instead of recreational shooters.

6. Timeline and next steps

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & text pre-review	Consult lawyer; committee members with GR residence from all three language regions	Month 1–4
Submission for pre-review	Graubünden State Chancellery	Month 4–5
Publication & collection start	Goal: 5,000+ signatures as buffer	Month 5
Party contacts & coalition building	SP, Greens, GLP; Pro Natura GR; BirdLife GR; WWF GR; National Park Association	Month 1–12
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official verification	After collection deadline
Grand Council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media work	Following months
Referendum campaign	National Park argument, Calanda wolf, offensively refute tradition	Before vote

7. Campaign material

• The Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as central argumentation.
• The Psychology of recreational hunting in Canton Graubünden as background material.
• Local media: Südostschweiz, Bündner Zeitung, Engadiner Post, La Quotidiana, Tele Südostschweiz.
• Infographic: Swiss National Park as leitmotif ("100 years without recreational hunting"). Calanda wolf. Cost comparison GR vs. GE.
• Trilingual materials (DE/RM/IT) for respective regions.

8. Further sources

• Geneva hunting ban in detail
• Scientific studies
• Hunting in Switzerland
• Psychology of recreational hunting in the Canton of Graubünden
• Hunting myths fact-check
• Wolf policy
• Predators
• National parks and protected areas
• Federal hunting statistics (BAFU)
• Cantonal popular initiative Basel-Stadt

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

Fact-check: The claims of the recreational hunting lobby

The brochure 'Hunting in Switzerland protects and benefits' by JagdSchweiz reads like an advertising prospectus – but the central claims do not withstand a fact-check. Ten narratives under scrutiny, from 'state duty' to 'biodiversity' to '80% approval': Dossier: Fact-check JagdSchweiz brochure →