Cantonal Popular Initiative – Canton Zug

«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of an elaborated draft

Based on § 34 of the Constitution of Canton Zug of January 31, 1894 (current version) and on the Law on Elections and Votes (WAG)

Submitted by the initiative committee [Date of submission]

Initiative text

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

The Constitution of Canton Zug is supplemented by the following paragraphs:

§ [new] Professional wildlife protection

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

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 organizations, science, and the relevant authorities. The commission supervises wildlife management and decides on regulatory measures.

5 The canton promotes natural regulation of wildlife populations, habitat connectivity and coexistence between humans and wildlife.

6 Details are regulated by law.

§ [new] Protection of endangered 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 of 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 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 endangered wildlife species within the framework of intercantonal cooperation and vis-à-vis the federal government.

Transitional provision

1 The Government Council shall issue the necessary implementing regulations within two years of the adoption of this constitutional amendment.

2 Existing hunting licenses expire with the entry into force of the implementing regulations. License fees already paid for the current hunting season will be refunded proportionally.

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

Explanations

1. Initial situation

The canton of Zug encompasses 239 km² and around 130,000 inhabitants. It is among the wealthiest and most densely populated cantons in Switzerland. The cantonal area consists of a mixture of urban settlement areas around the city of Zug and the municipalities of Baar, Cham and Risch-Rotkreuz, agriculturally used midlands as well as the Zugerberg and the pre-Alpine regions.

Recreational hunting in Zug is organized as a patent hunt. Around 230 private individuals obtain a cantonal license and hunt without fixed territory responsibility. The main hunt is roe deer hunting in October and November, traditionally practiced as 'loud hunting' with hounds: dogs drive roe deer from their cover, the animals flee on so-called trails where the hobby hunters are positioned and kill the roe deer in motion using shotgun pellets. Hunting may only be practiced on three weekdays: Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. What sounds like strict regulation is psychologically speaking the packaging of a leisure activity as an orderly system (cf. the Psychology of recreational hunting in Canton Zug).

The patent system generates no professional added value compared to professional wildlife management: Patent hunting does not bind hobby hunters to a specific area and thus makes coordinated wildlife management more difficult. At the same time, the system is administratively burdensome for the canton: examination systems, license administration, shooting planning and hunting supervision tie up resources that would be used more efficiently in the professional model (cf. the critical analysis of hunting education on wildbeimwild.com).

Since 1993, the canton of Zug has refrained from hunting hares. This moratorium was implemented at the request of the Zug hobby hunters themselves, 'to promote populations.' The renunciation of killing a species that one should not actually kill is presented as proof of responsibility. At the same time, waterfowl are on the shooting list, and 'loud hunting' with dogs for roe deer is framed as cultural heritage. Legitimation shifts from function to identity: one does not hunt because one must, but because one has always done it that way.

The claim that without recreational hunting the ecological balance would collapse has been empirically refuted by the Geneva model for over 50 years (cf. the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban on wildbeimwild.com). Zug has an even smaller area of 239 km² than Geneva (282 km²). If professional wildlife protection has been working on 282 km² for over 50 years, there is no reason why it shouldn't work on 239 km².

At the same time, more and more protected wildlife species are coming under pressure at the federal level. Political pressure on species such as lynx, beaver, otter and goosander is steadily increasing (cf. the analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com).

2. The Model: Canton Geneva

On 19 May 1974, around two-thirds of voters in Canton Geneva voted to abolish recreational hunting. The experiences since the hunting ban are unambiguous:

– Biodiversity has increased markedly. 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. Before the 1974 vote, the recreational hunting lobby had claimed that brown hares would be wiped out by predators without recreational hunting. The opposite has occurred.

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

– In 2005, 90 percent of Geneva's electorate voted to maintain the recreational hunting ban. Total costs amount to around 1.2 million francs annually, or about 2.40 francs per inhabitant. The efficiency of the Geneva model is evident in direct comparison: A professional game warden in Geneva requires an average of 8 hours and maximum 2 cartridges for a sanitary cull of a wild boar. A hobby hunter in Canton Zurich requires 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 Canton Zurich only 1.0 per 100 hectares (cf. fact-check Canton Zurich government).

A detailed presentation can be found in the dossier 'Geneva and the Hunting Ban' on wildbeimwild.com.

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

The initiative replaces recreational hunting with professional wildlife management based on the game warden model:

Professional competence instead of recreational activity. Professional wildlife managers act on a scientific basis, within the framework of a cantonal service mandate. Their goal is maintaining healthy wildlife populations, not maximizing culling numbers.

Last resort principle. Culling is only permitted when all non-lethal measures have been exhausted: electric fences, deterrence, habitat management, structural protective measures.

Democratic oversight through a wildlife commission. The independent commission prevents political pressure from undermining wildlife management.

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

4. Why Zug?

Zug is particularly suitable for introducing professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

Smaller than Geneva. Zug has 239 km², Geneva 282 km². Canton Zug is even smaller than the Geneva reference model. If professional wildlife protection has been working on 282 km² for over 50 years, there is no factual argument why it shouldn't work on 239 km².

Lost revenues

With the abolition of recreational hunting, patent fees estimated at 150,000 to 300,000 francs annually would be eliminated. However, these are offset by the never-accounted external costs of militia hunting – wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in protective forests, administrative burden, police and court interventions – which amount to many times these revenues. In the canton of Geneva, these revenues have 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 wildlife 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 fights biodiversity and species protection concerns. In 2024 it fought 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 hunters' association torpedoed the Parc Adula National Park. In the legislative period 2015 to 2019, hobby hunters in parliament politicized predominantly against environmental concerns. Anyone who claims hobby hunters are conservationists ignores their voting behavior (cf. Ticino Hunters' Association: 30 Years of Nonsense and Cost Dossier).

Switzerland's wealthiest canton. Zug has the financial capacity to finance professional wildlife management without noticeable burden. With estimated net additional costs of around 1.50 to 2.50 francs per resident per year, the cost argument that decided the vote in Zurich is ineffective in Zug.

Urban and densified. Around three-quarters of Zug's population live in the almost completely urban municipalities of Zug, Baar, Cham and Risch-Rotkreuz. The hunting cultural tradition is less deeply rooted than in mountain cantons.

Only 230 hobby hunters. In relation to the population of 130,000, 230 active patent holders are a vanishingly small minority. Political feasibility is higher than in cantons with thousands of patents.

Patent hunting as conceptually simpler system change. Unlike in hunting lease cantons (BL, SH, AG, ZH), no hunting lease contracts need to be dissolved in Zug and no municipalities need to be compensated for lost lease revenues. The patents simply expire with the entry into force of the implementing regulations. The system change is thus administratively and legally less complex.

'Loud hunting' as communicative weakness. Zug's roe deer hunting with tracking dogs – where dogs drive roe deer in panic from their habitats and the fleeing animals are then shot – is a form of hunting that meets with little understanding among the non-hunting population. The initiative offers the opportunity to replace this practice with professional, low-stress wildlife management.

5. On the first paragraph: Professional wildlife protection

Paragraph 1 – Prohibition of patent hunting

The prohibition of patent hunting by private individuals is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model (Art. 162 of the Geneva cantonal constitution). The cantonal competence for this is undisputed: The federal hunting law (JSG) expressly leaves the organization of hunting operations to the cantons (Art. 3 para. 1 JSG). The three hunting systems of Switzerland – patent hunting, lease hunting and state or management hunting – are equivalent. The canton of Geneva has practiced management hunting since 1974 in compliance with federal law.

Unlike hunting concession cantons (BL, SH, AG, ZH), Zug eliminates the need to dissolve hunting lease contracts and compensate municipalities. Existing permits expire upon the entry into force of the implementing regulations. Already paid permit fees are refunded proportionally. The system change is thus administratively and legally less complex than in hunting concession cantons.

Paragraph 2 – Professional Wildlife Management

Professionally trained wildlife managers in cantonal service assume all tasks of wildlife care and, where necessary, population regulation. The existing Office for Forest and Wildlife of the Canton of Zug provides the institutional platform for establishing these specialized positions.

Paragraph 3 – Culling as Ultima Ratio

Culling is not the rule, but the exception. In Geneva, wildlife wardens annually cull an average of around 250 wild boar, with lead animals explicitly spared for ethical reasons. The culling numbers are thus considerably lower than in comparable cantons with recreational hunting.

Paragraph 4 – Wildlife Commission

The independent wildlife commission is modeled after the Geneva model. It ensures that decisions are made based on evidence and not on the hunting ideological myths with which the hobby hunting lobby legitimizes its practice.

Paragraph 5 – Natural Regulation and Coexistence

In Zug, the connectivity of habitats between the Zugerberg, Lake Zug and the adjacent agricultural areas is particularly important. Wildlife corridors are essential for genetic diversity and the natural spread of species. The current permit system offers no territory-based coordination that could ensure such connectivity (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife in settlement areas).

Transitional Provisions

The two-year deadline gives the cantonal government sufficient time to develop implementing legislation and hire professional wildlife managers. Unlike hunting concession cantons, there is no expiration clause for lease contracts: permits expire directly upon entry into force. The proportional refund of already paid permit fees preserves legitimate expectations.

6. On the Second Paragraph: Protection of Endangered and Protected Wildlife Species

For Zug, the second paragraph is relevant due to the presence of protected species in the canton: The beaver is documented at Lake Zug and its tributaries. Waterfowl overwinter in large numbers on Lake Zug. The return of the otter to Central Switzerland is foreseeable. The revised federal hunting law (Art. 7a JSG) empowers cantons for preventive regulation but does not oblige them to do so. With this paragraph, the canton merely exercises its competence not to make use of this authorization (cf. the analysis of wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

7. Cost Implications: Concrete Budget for Zug

For Zug with 239 km² area and around 130,000 inhabitants, the following cost estimate results:

Personnel costs: 240,000 to 280,000 francs annually. Required are 2 full-time positions for professional wildlife managers. Zug is smaller in area than Geneva (239 vs. 282 km²). A full-time position in cantonal service costs around 120,000 to 140,000 francs annually including ancillary costs.

Material costs: 50,000 to 80,000 francs annually. Equipment, vehicles, deterrent devices, monitoring infrastructure, public relations work.

Damage compensation: 20,000 to 50,000 francs annually. The wildlife damage to be expected in Zug is limited due to the manageable agricultural area and low wild boar density.

Total costs: 310,000 to 410,000 francs annually (gross). This corresponds to around 2.40 to 3.15 francs per inhabitant per year.

This is offset by savings: The canton no longer needs to conduct hunting examinations, issue and manage licenses, create shooting plans, or organize hunting supervision. Geneva's fauna inspector Dandliker points out that organizing a license hunt requires at least two full-time positions. Adjusted for these savings, the net additional costs should be 150,000 to 250,000 francs annually, which corresponds to approximately 1.15 to 1.90 francs per inhabitant. For Switzerland's wealthiest canton, this is a marginal amount.

8. Compatibility with higher law

The initiative is in conformity with federal law. The federal Hunting Act (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 – license hunting, territory hunting, and state hunting – are equivalent. The canton of Geneva has practiced state hunting since 1974 and has never experienced a federal law objection in over 50 years. Art. 7a JSG enables cantons to engage in preventive regulation but does not oblige them to do so. The initiative maintains the unity of the subject matter.

9. Anticipating foreseeable objections

«Zug hunting is already strictly regulated – only three hunting days per week»

The facts: The restriction to three weekdays changes nothing about the basic principle: it is still private individuals who kill wild animals as a recreational activity. The regulation of hunting days is an organizational measure, not a qualitative improvement. Professional wildlife managers would intervene more flexibly and purposefully whenever it is ecologically sensible, not according to a rigid weekly calendar.

Communicative short formula: «Three hunting days per week are still three days when hobby hunters kill wild animals. Professional wildlife protection doesn't need a weekly calendar.»

«The hare moratorium shows that the hunting community acts responsibly»

The facts: The hare moratorium is not proof of responsibility, but an admission that hunting hares was no longer defensible. That hobby hunters refrain from killing a threatened species is not a merit, but a matter of course. At the same time, waterfowl remain on the shooting list, and 'loud hunting' with dogs on deer continues as a tradition (cf. the Psychology of hobby hunting in the canton of Zug).

Communicative short formula: «Not killing what one shouldn't kill is not a merit. It is a matter of course.»

«Zug has no wildlife problems – why the initiative?»

The facts: If Zug has hardly any wildlife problems, then the system change is all the easier, cheaper, and less risky. The absence of acute problems is the argument for the initiative, not against it. Professional wildlife protection is preventive infrastructure (cf. Hunting myths fact-check on wildbeimwild.com).

Communicative short formula: «If there's so little to do, professional wildlife protection costs even less. The argument refutes itself.»

10. Summary

This initiative enables the Zug population to vote for modern, evidence-based wildlife management. As the first license hunting canton with such a model text, Zug shows that the system change is possible not only in territory hunting cantons. At 239 km², Zug is even smaller than Geneva, and as Switzerland's wealthiest canton, the costs of approximately 1.15 to 1.90 francs per inhabitant per year are no obstacle. 'Loud hunting' with running dogs on deer belongs in a museum, not in modern wildlife policy.

Initiative committee «For professional wildlife protection»

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members according to cantonal law, with residence in the canton)

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Further documentation

Geneva model in detail: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/genf-und-das-jagdverbot – Comprehensive overview of Geneva's wildlife management since 1974.

Scientific studies: wildbeimwild.com/studien-ueber-die-auswirkung-der-jagd-auf-wildtiere-und-jaeger – Collection of scientific studies on self-regulation of wildlife populations.

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

Psychology of recreational hunting in Canton Zug: wildbeimwild.com – Psychologie der Hobby-Jagd im Kanton ZG – Motives, justifications and social dynamics of recreational hunting in Zug.

Psychology of recreational hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd – Analyses of motives, justifications and social dynamics of recreational hunting.

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

Wildlife and predators: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere – Information on wildlife, predators and human-wildlife coexistence.

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

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

Note on the procedure

The initiative committee submits the initiative text to the State Chancellery of Canton Zug for preliminary review before beginning signature collection. 2,000 valid signatures are required for the initiative to succeed. No legal collection deadline is stipulated in Canton Zug. The submission procedures follow the cantonal Law on Elections and Votes (WAG).

Strategic briefing for activists

Popular initiative 'For professional wildlife protection' – Canton Zug Internal working document – Status March 2026

Summary

Zug is the first license hunting canton for which a complete initiative text exists. At 239 km², it is smaller than Geneva (282 km²), and as Switzerland's wealthiest canton, the cost argument is ineffective. The 'loud hunt' with running dogs offers a strong communicative target. The system change is administratively simpler than in lease hunting cantons because no lease contracts need to be dissolved.

1. Why Zug?

Smaller than Geneva. 239 vs. 282 km². The Geneva model has functioned on a larger area for 50 years. Zug has no reason not to adopt it.

Wealthiest canton. Net additional costs of 1.15 to 1.90 francs per inhabitant per year are not an argument for Zug. For comparison: A cup of coffee in Zug city costs around 5 francs.

230 hobby hunters for 130,000 inhabitants. A vanishingly small minority. The population majority benefits from professional wildlife protection.

License hunting = simpler system change. No lease contracts, no municipal compensation. Licenses expire, done.

'Loud hunt' as weakness. Dogs drive deer into panic, hobby hunters shoot the fleeing animals. This form of hunting is barely defensible in public perception.

2. Lessons from Zurich

Zurich's mistake 1: Confrontational title. Our title 'For professional wildlife protection' is positive.

Zurich's mistake 2: Cost argument left unanswered. In Zug it is ineffective: The canton is wealthy, the area small, the costs marginal.

Zurich's mistake 3: No party support. Contacts to SP, Greens, GLP and Alternative – the green faction must be built early.

3. Opposition analysis

The 230 license holders form a small but locally anchored group. In Zug they are less organized than hunting societies in lease hunting cantons because the license system creates no fixed territorial structures.

The cantonal hunting association will defend the 'loud hunt' as tradition. The answer: Traditions based on panic reactions of animals belong in a museum.

The Office of Forest and Wildlife will refer to the existing regulation (three hunting days, shooting quota planning). The answer: Regulating recreational hunting is no substitute for professional wildlife protection. One optimizes a flawed system, the other replaces it.

4. Communication Strategy: The Three Core Messages

«Zug is smaller than Geneva. What has worked there for 50 years will work even better here.»

«Professional instead of hobby. Specialists instead of recreational shooters.»

«Less than 2 francs per year. Not an issue for the wealthiest canton.»

5. Timeline

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & text review	Engage lawyer; recruit committee members with ZG residence	Month 1–3
Submission for review	State Chancellery Zug	Month 3–4
Publication & collection start	Check collection deadline (Zug has no legal collection deadline.); Goal: 2,500+ signatures as buffer	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	Early talks SP, Greens, GLP, Alternative; involve nature conservation associations	Month 1–12
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official review	After collection deadline
Cantonal council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; intensify media work	Following months
Referendum campaign	Final mobilization, infographics, media presence	Before vote

6. Campaign Material

The Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as central argumentation.
The Psychology of recreational hunting in Canton Zug as background material for media contacts.
Infographic: Area comparison ZG/GE (239 vs. 282 km²), cost comparison, «230 hobby hunters for 130,000 inhabitants».
Local media: Zuger Zeitung, Zentralplus, Tele 1, Radio Central.
Visual: The «loud hunt» as image – dogs drive deer into panic. This is the reality behind the word «hunting tradition».

7. Further Sources

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 conditions in Canton Zug.

Fact-check: The claims of the recreational hunting lobby

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