Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Graubünden

Graubünden is the largest canton in Switzerland by area. It has a very high density of hunting activity. The cantonal hunting authority regularly justifies this with population control, damage prevention, and tradition.

Editorial Team Wild beim Wild — January 26, 2026

However, a more detailed analysis of hunting planning, shooting permits and the actual ecological situation reveals a different picture: Hobby hunting in Graubünden often follows an outdated logic of intervention that is neither essential from a wildlife biology perspective nor widely accepted by society.

The cantonal hunting plan is based on annually redefined culling targets for various game species. Particularly striking is the high culling density for so-called small game, including brown hare, ptarmigan, and black grouse. These species have been under pressure for years due to habitat loss, climate change, and the tourist use of alpine areas. The decline of the rock ptarmigan in Switzerland is well documented, and additional hunting pressure has also been described for grouse. For some small game species in Graubünden, there is local evidence of decline or fragmentation, which is given insufficient political consideration in hunting planning.

Nevertheless, culls are regularly authorized, based less on stable population trends than on hunting traditions. Consistent hunting restrictions would be the obvious choice from a wildlife conservation perspective, but this is rarely discussed politically.

Graubünden is characterized by its system of licensed hunting. Recreational hunting is therefore not a locally limited management of hunting grounds, but rather a cantonal system organized by hunting seasons, licenses, quotas, and adjustments. This structure creates constant pressure to act: recreational hunting becomes a normalized mass practice, and hunting success is framed as a predictable achievement.

High-altitude hunting is symbolic of the performance-oriented narrative of recreational hunting: presence in the field, fulfillment of targets, status within the group. If targets are missed, the logic of corrective action takes center stage. This is precisely where special hunts become psychologically relevant: they function as an institutionalized corrective mechanism designed to enforce plan fulfillment, even when the ecological necessity is disputed.

This background text is relevant to the use of special hunting as a routine tool and to the critique of this logic.

Small game regulations as a psychological pattern

The cantonal hunting plan is based on annually redefined culling targets for various game species. Particularly noteworthy is the continuation of small game hunting, including brown hare, ptarmigan, and black grouse. These species have been under pressure for years due to habitat loss, climate change, and increasing disturbance from tourism in alpine areas.

Especially in grouse species, the link between habitat, disturbance, and population development is well-documented. In such situations, recreational hunting acts as an additional stressor, which can have additive effects depending on the initial circumstances. When populations are small, fragmented, or unstable, the risk increases that culls will no longer be compensated for. Nevertheless, culls are regularly authorized, and in the public perception, these authorizations are based less on stable, transparently communicated population trends than on hunting traditions.

Consistent hunting restrictions would be the obvious solution from the perspective of wildlife protection, but are hardly ever discussed as a standard option in politics.

The continuation of small game hunting in Graubünden cannot be explained solely by ecological arguments. Rather, it reveals a classic psychological pattern of recreational hunting: the act of shooting is experienced as an act of agency, regardless of whether a real regulatory effect can be demonstrated.

This form of recreational hunting primarily fulfills social functions within the recreational hunting community. It stabilizes identity, belonging, and status, while externalizing ecological costs. Similar mechanisms were already analyzed in the contribution on the psychology of recreational hunting in the Canton of Bern , where hunting interventions also frequently have a symbolic character.

Trophy hunting in Graubünden: Symbolism instead of wildlife protection

Trophy hunting of large animals such as red deer, chamois, and ibex is particularly controversial. Such culls are officially portrayed as selective and population-stabilizing. However, in alpine populations, culling large, genetically strong animals can promote negative long-term effects, for example through selection pressure, age structure, or reproductive dynamics.

In Graubünden, trophy hunting is nevertheless defended. The reason often lies less in wildlife biology necessity than in deeply ingrained cultural narratives. Shooting a trophy animal is considered a hunting success, proof of competence and masculinity. Psychologically, the signal counts, not the ecological impact. This is precisely where the conflict with modern wildlife conservation principles arises: conservation focuses on the animal and the ecosystem, while the logic of trophies focuses on status.

Unscientific wolf hunting and institutional failure

Hunting policy in Graubünden , particularly regarding the management of wolves, is a central point of contention. Authorizations to shoot wolves have repeatedly been justified with sweeping arguments about damage, even though scientific data demonstrates neither a general threat to livestock nor a negative impact on ungulate populations. From a scientific perspective, it is particularly problematic that culls are sometimes carried out preventively and without any population-ecological necessity.

This practice contradicts wildlife biology findings and is regularly criticized by experts outside the cantonal hunting administration. Wolf hunting in Graubünden is therefore less scientifically sound than politically and emotionally motivated.

Wolf incompetence is rampant in Graubünden.

The canton of Graubünden has been selling the wolf culls for years as "regulation" and "damage prevention." The crucial question is what the canton actually justifies, and whether these justifications are scientifically sound.

Canton of Graubünden: Puppy culling as "proactive regulation"
The press release of August 27, 2025, clearly states the general direction. Adrian Arquint says: "Up to a maximum of two-thirds of the confirmed puppies may be culled."

The canton also specifies the goal: In all packs with confirmed offspring, "up to two-thirds of the confirmed young animals" should be killed.

Canton of Graubünden: Val Fex crack and shooting "to prevent further damage"
In the case of Val Fex (August 21, 2025), the Office for Hunting and Fishing formulated the logic behind the shooting very directly: "To prevent further damage, the wolf causing the damage will be shot."

This is the standard cantonal formula: First, "damage" is determined, then culling is justified as a preventative measure. In the same document, the canton relies on the individual farm's livestock protection plan and speaks of an "emergency measure" (premature descent from the alpine pastures). This is precisely where the investigation begins, because the public presentation "despite protective measures" does not align with the documented practice.

Canton of Graubünden: Psychological goal claims in the ruling
The departmental decree of August 28, 2025, further justifies wolf hunting with behavioral objectives. The canton claims that the shooting of young animals is intended to "maintain and increase their wariness," to prevent undesirable behavior from "increasing and being passed on," to reduce migration and damage, and at the same time to "preserve social structures" and "prevent social disorganization."

This is important because the canton isn't just claiming "damage" here, but is constructing a psychological narrative: culling is supposed to make wolves more wary, control learning, and keep packs stable. This is a clever way of communicating, but scientifically by no means as clear-cut as it sounds.

Scientific assessment: What does research say about culling as a conflict resolution method? For years, international studies have been relatively consistent on one point: Lethal interventions are not a reliably effective tool if they are not coupled with consistent herd protection and verifiable effectiveness monitoring.

First, evaluations show that killings following attacks do not reliably and consistently lead to fewer repeat incidents. A large case study from Michigan (1998 to 2014) concludes that the results do not support the effectiveness of state lethal intervention in reducing further incidents.

Secondly, reviews and meta-analyses on predator conflict reduction show that non-lethal measures are, on average, more convincing, and the evidence base for "killing helps" is weak and contradictory.

Thirdly, a systematic evaluation of protective measures against wolves found that lethal control and relocation were less effective than other measures, while fences, deterrence and herding were significantly more effective in many settings.

What does this mean specifically for Graubünden?

The canton justifies the culling of puppies simultaneously with claims of "damage prevention," "increasing wariness," and "preserving social structures." This is a logical balancing act: those who want to protect social structures must explain precisely why repeated intervention in packs (including young animals) does not increase the risk of maladaptation. And those who want to prevent "damage" must provide solid evidence that livestock protection measures are implemented comprehensively and that culling offers a measurable additional benefit in comparison. This evidence is precisely what is lacking in the canton's communication, while the interventions are carried out at maximum levels.

Criminal proceedings against the head of the hunting administration

In the canton of Graubünden, several criminal proceedings are underway in connection with the enforcement of hunting and animal welfare legislation, directly affecting the credibility of the cantonal hunting administration. Specifically, department head Adrian Arquint is the focus of the criminal charges for alleged overstepping of authority, providing false information to the public, and potential official misconduct in connection with wolf culls and livestock protection cases.

The trigger was, among other things, a wolf attack on a sheep pasture in Val Fex (municipality of Sils im Engadin) in August 2025, in which 37 sheep were killed or had to be euthanized. In public statements, the cantonal authorities claimed that the attack occurred despite existing livestock protection measures. However, investigations show that at the time of the attack, neither livestock guardian dogs nor wolf-proof fences were present. The animals were grazing in an area that, according to the individual farm's livestock protection plan, was explicitly designated without protective measures.

This discrepancy between documented reality and public portrayal raises serious questions about the conduct of the authorities. The suspicion is that the dissemination of inaccurate information created the impression of failing livestock protection in order to retrospectively legitimize hunting policies against protected predators. At the same time, potential violations of the federal animal welfare law by animal owners and those responsible were downplayed or concealed.

This procedure exemplifies a structural problem in the enforcement of hunting regulations in Graubünden. The close institutional ties between the hunting administration, recreational hunters, and agricultural interests hinder independent oversight. For wildlife protection, this means that incorrect decisions can be not only legally problematic but also directly fatal for animals.

This is particularly problematic for wildlife protection , as enforcement errors can have directly fatal consequences for protected animals.

Hunting-free national park and stable ungulate populations

An often overlooked reference point lies in the heart of the canton: the Swiss National Park. There, recreational hunting is prohibited. For over a century, the National Park has demonstrated that ungulate populations can fluctuate within natural ranges without recreational hunting, controlled by climate, food supply, disease, and predators.

The national park thus contradicts a core narrative of intensive hunting policies: that heavy hunting is absolutely necessary to maintain ecological balance. The existence of this hunting-free area makes it clear that many interventions do not stem from scientific necessity, but rather from institutional constraints, tradition, and political will.

The park is a piece of wilderness left to its own devices, where no one goes hunting for pleasure. That's not a problem, says former national park director and wildlife biologist Heinrich Haller.

Even without recreational hunting, there won't suddenly be too many foxes, hares, or birds. Experience shows that nature can be left to its own devices.

Acceptance problems and social change

The social acceptance of recreational hunting in Graubünden is by no means uniform. While it is still considered perfectly normal in some rural regions, criticism is growing, particularly in urban centers and tourist areas. Visitors, second-home owners, and younger generations are increasingly questioning why wild animals continue to be hunted in sensitive habitats.

This loss of acceptance is similar to developments in the canton of Zurich , where hobby hunting in urban areas is increasingly perceived as a foreign element.

Perception and normalization of violence

A central element of critical analysis of hunting practices is the perception of violence. In Graubünden, hunting violence is highly normalized. Publicly visible culls, hunting parades, and media trivialization contribute to the perception that killing is a legitimate means of wildlife management.

Living in harmony with crime

A comparison with the canton of Geneva , where recreational hunting is prohibited, shows that wildlife management works even without regular killing and is significantly less socially contentious.

Recreational hunting in the canton of Graubünden is less an instrument of wildlife conservation than a historically developed system of power and identity. Regulations for small game and trophy hunts continue, even though their ecological necessity is often lacking. A modern wildlife policy would have to critically examine these practices and consistently prioritize animal protection over hunting interests.

Why the joy of killing is not a harmless leisure activity

In hunting communication, the act of killing is often glorified as a service provided by nature. Psychologically relevant here is the normalization of violence: when killing is framed as leisure, ritual, or status signal, the moral threshold is lowered and empathy is deliberately suppressed. These mechanisms are well-known in the psychology of violence.

People who derive pleasure from killing living beings and pay for it do not exhibit normal leisure behavior from a psychological perspective. This behavior contradicts fundamental mechanisms of empathy, compassion, and moral inhibition, as they are typically present in the general population. Psychologically, this can be described as a violence-related motivation, even if it is politically or culturally tolerated.

The pleasure derived from killing is a classic characteristic of pleasure-based violence. The act of violence itself is rewarding. Not the result, not the necessity, but the killing itself. This is not a fringe phenomenon, but clearly described in the psychology of violence.

Those who experience hobby hunting as a source of enjoyment exhibit a psychologically problematic motivation for violence, which historically and structurally works with devaluation and legitimization of violence.

In Graubünden, recreational hunting is ultimately less an instrument of wildlife conservation than a historically developed system of power, identity, and ritual. Regulations for small game, trophy hunting, and the political narrative surrounding wolf culls continue, even though their ecological necessity is often not reliably proven. A modern wildlife policy would have to consistently consider the system from the animal's perspective: habitat, disturbance, biodiversity, livestock protection, transparency, and independent monitoring, rather than quota fulfillment and status quo logic.

More information can be found in the dossier: Psychology of Hunting

Cantonal psychology analyses :