Patented hunting as a solution to red deer conflicts?

A reader's letter on Linth24 succinctly expresses a sensitive demand: the canton of St. Gallen should introduce licensed hunting to increase the hunting of red deer stags and thus reduce damage to forests and agriculture as well as wildlife collisions. The author is Urs Britt, a forest owner and amateur hunter from Wattwil. The text also claims that the red deer population has "almost tripled" in 20 years and, despite culling, now stands at around 2,500 animals.

Editorial Team Wild beim Wild — December 20, 2025

The demand seems logical at first glance: if there are conflicts, recreational hunting must become "more effective".

However, closer inspection reveals that the debate is less a question of "too little hunting" than a question of goals, responsibilities, data, enforcement, and a system that produces suffering without reliably resolving conflicts.

1) Political background: "Countermeasure" through increased culling

Linth24 contextualizes the letter to the editor within a political initiative: Three members of the Swiss People's Party (SVP) in the cantonal parliament (Christian Vogel, Bruno Schweizer, Marco Gadient) consider the increasing deer population problematic and are demanding more deer culls in the canton of St. Gallen. The letter is published to reinforce this position.

The important point here is that it's not just about population numbers, but also about the power to define the narrative. Whoever defines the problem usually also defines the solution. Following this logic, the solution is almost always: kill more animals, faster, more widely, with fewer restrictions.

2) The number that is supposed to decide everything: «2,500 animals»

The number 2,500 creates a sense of urgency and suggests a simple consequence. What's missing, however, is the context:

Where exactly are the conflict hotspots located?
How strong is the actual and demonstrable influence on forest regeneration?
How does damage develop over several years?
What specific effects have the hunting measures taken so far had?

Without this context, the number is primarily one thing: a political lever.

3) Hunting statistics: High target achievement, yet increasing populations

The canton of St. Gallen reported the following for the 2023 hunting season: Over 800 red deer were killed, and the culling quotas were met by 97 percent canton-wide. At the same time, the canton notes that the red deer population continues to increase.

Herein lies the core conflict. If culling quotas are almost fully met, the problem is not automatically "a lack of hunting." Other factors then come to the fore: habitat quality, immigration, animal distribution, disturbance pressure, hunting organization, protected areas, feeding effects from agriculture, and mild winters.

Anyone calling for a system change in this situation must demonstrate why patent hunting is supposed to better control these factors. This is precisely the kind of evidence missing from the letter to the editor.

Hobby hunters in Graubünden have failed

4) Question of trust: Implementation and credibility are part of the debate

The call for "more effective hunting" depends on trust: in data, in control, and in proportionality. This trust has not been unchallenged in the canton of St. Gallen in recent years.

The website "Wild beim Wild" has long documented criticism of the St. Gallen hunting administration, including issues related to wolf management, hunter training, permits, and cases within the hunting community. Regardless of how individual accusations are assessed, one point is particularly relevant: there is a legal correction that touches upon the question of diligence and documentation quality in enforcement.

Federal Court: Shooting order was unlawful (30.06.2025)

In a ruling dated June 30, 2025, the Federal Supreme Court held that a St. Gallen court order to shoot a wolf in the Schils- and Weisstannental valleys was unlawful because, among other things, the protection of livestock had not been sufficiently examined and documented before the shooting. Pro Natura's appeal was successful.

Political irritations surrounding the management of the office

There were also political controversies. In 2024, SRF and media outlets in eastern Switzerland reported on criticism of a wolf-hunting trip to Russia by a St. Gallen official, which sparked discussions across party lines.

For the demand for patent-based hunting, this means: A system change is being sold as a technical solution, but it presupposes an administration that is perceived as neutral, transparent, and legally compliant. Anyone demanding "more kills" should therefore explain just as clearly how data quality, control, accountability, and external audits are to be improved.

5) Territorial hunting vs. patent hunting: Labels do not replace effectiveness monitoring

Hunting on leased hunting grounds is well-established in St. Gallen. A system of licensed hunting would change this principle: instead of hunting associations with responsibility for specific hunting areas, individual licensed hunters would hunt according to cantonal regulations.

The letter to the editor claims that cantons with hunting licenses are shooting "significantly more red deer" and that their populations are "declining." This sounds like a fact, but in the text it remains an assertion without any data to support it.

What matters is not the label, but the implementation: hunting seasons, quotas, controls, quiet zones, hunting pressure, protected areas, and data quality. Furthermore, a system change can create new problems, such as increased hunting pressure, more disturbance in the forest, a shift to areas that are difficult to hunt, and perverse incentives related to trophies.

6) Forest damage is real, but "shooting more" does not automatically mean forest protection.

The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) clearly states: Wild ungulates can inhibit natural forest regeneration if their populations are too large or if disturbances cause them to disperse unfavorably. The second factor is crucial: not only "how many," but also "where" and "why there."

The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) has developed implementation guidelines for forest-wildlife conflicts that rely on integrated management: data collection, impact analysis, monitoring of goal achievement, and a mix of measures. Forests are not protected by a single instrument, but rather through consistent monitoring, prevention, habitat management, and hunting interventions where they demonstrably have an effect.

Anyone who talks about forest protection must therefore also address quiet zones, recreational pressure, forest structures, hunting pressure, and the long-term development of forest regeneration. The letter to the editor reduces this complexity to a question of culling.

7) Wildlife collisions: A strong argument, but no shortcut

The letter to the editor emphasizes the danger of wildlife collisions and cites a 150-kilogram deer as a dramatic example. Yes, collisions can have serious consequences. However, road safety cannot be seriously discussed solely in terms of hunting regulations.

Hotspots, speed limits, wildlife corridors, fences, warning systems, and seasonal movements are at least as relevant. Anyone who takes safety seriously must also consider infrastructural measures and spatial planning. Otherwise, it remains an emotionally powerful argument that is politically advantageous but falls short in reality.

8) “No interest at the canton”: Responsibilities and transparency

Particularly sensitive is the accusation that authorities have "absolutely no interest" and that forest owners receive hardly any compensation. The letter to the editor even cites a figure of only 1,000 Swiss francs per year across the canton for damage caused by red deer.

However, the cantonal information on the topic of wildlife damage shows that those affected must take action, that self-help measures exist, and that the hunting association is mentioned as a contact point. This is not an all-clear, but it does contradict the assertion that there is basically no framework in place.

What's missing is transparent, publicly available data on types of damage, prevention efforts, costs, and decision-making practices. Without this transparency, a space is created where blame replaces facts.

Fact box: What does patent hunting mean?

Territorial hunting: Hunting rights are leased to hunting associations in fixed hunting areas. Responsibility and enforcement are strongly organized through these hunting areas.

Licensed hunting: Hobby hunters obtain a license and hunt according to cantonal regulations within defined areas and times. Management is achieved through quotas, hunting seasons, controls, and exceptions such as protected areas.

Important: It's not the label that matters, but the specific implementation. Licensed hunting can increase hunting pressure and displace animals more significantly. It can also make administration and control more complex.

Patent hunting is not a nature conservation concept, but a hunting model.

The call for hunting permits is being sold as a pragmatic reform. But official figures show that culling quotas are already largely being met. At the same time, animal populations continue to rise. This doesn't automatically argue for "even more shooting," but rather for an honest debate about the causes, objectives, and effectiveness of hunting.

For wildbeimwild.com, the central question remains: Is it about forest protection and safety, or about expanding hunting opportunities under the label of "management"? Anyone who wants to protect biodiversity in the forest must offer more than the same old answer to every problem: more animals killed.

St. Gallen Hunting Administration Dossier: