Cantonal popular initiative – Canton of Nidwalden

"For professional wildlife protection"

Constitutional initiative in the form of the finalized draft

Based on Article 53 of the Constitution of the Canton of Nidwalden of 10 October 1965 and on the Law on Referendums and Elections

Submitted by the Initiative Committee [Date of submission]

Initiative text

The undersigned persons, who are eligible to vote in the canton of Nidwalden, submit the following constitutional initiative:

The Constitution of the Canton of Nidwalden of October 10, 1965 is supplemented by the following articles:

Art. [new] Professional Wildlife Protection

1. Hunting by private individuals (licensed hunting, hobby hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the canton of Nidwalden.

2 The protection, care and, where necessary, regulation of wild animals are the sole responsibility of professionally trained wildlife managers employed by 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 control have been exhausted or are insufficient. It requires the prior authorization of the Wildlife Commission.

4. The canton shall establish an independent wildlife commission composed of representatives from animal and nature conservation organizations, the scientific community, and the relevant authorities. The commission shall oversee wildlife management and decide on regulatory measures.

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

6. Further details are regulated by law.

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

1 The canton waives requests for preventive population control of protected wild animal species under the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds, in particular wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden jackal, golden eagle, goosander and other species protected under federal law.

2 He focuses on promoting the coexistence of humans and wild animals, passive damage prevention, the ecological enhancement of habitats and the scientific monitoring of wildlife presence.

Three measures against individual wild animals that pose an immediate and significant threat to humans remain reserved. These measures are to be kept to a minimum and carried out by the responsible cantonal authority.

4 The canton actively promotes the protection and conservation of threatened wildlife species within the framework of intercantonal cooperation and towards 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 upon 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 shall ensure the continuity of wildlife management during the transition phase.

Explanations

1. Initial situation

In the canton of Nidwalden, a small central Swiss canton with approximately 43,000 inhabitants spread across 276 km², recreational hunting is a system that serves neither species conservation nor modern wildlife management. It is the pursuit of a bloody leisure activity at the expense of sentient beings, legitimized by outdated narratives that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The claim that the ecological balance would collapse without recreational hunting has been empirically refuted for over 50 years by the Geneva model (see the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban at wildbeimwild.com ).

In Nidwalden, recreational hunting is organized as a licensed hunting system. Private individuals obtain a cantonal license and hunt without fixed responsibility for a specific hunting area (see the psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Nidwalden and the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com ).

At the same time, more and more protected wildlife species are coming under pressure at the federal level. With the revision of the hunting law in December 2022, preventive wolf management was introduced. Since February 2025, beavers may be shot upon request from the canton. The canton of Nidwalden is affected by the return of the wolf: the wolf on Mount Pilatus made national headlines in 2023/2024, and Pilatus lies on the border between Nidwalden, Obwalden, and Lucerne. The lynx is native to the canton. The Stanserhorn and the Klewenalp are habitats of regional importance. At 276 km², Nidwalden is almost the same size as Geneva (282 km²) (see the analysis of hunting policy and wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com ).

The canton of Nidwalden has the opportunity to send a clear signal here: not only for professional wildlife protection instead of hobby hunting, but also for the consistent protection of threatened wildlife species at the cantonal level.

2. The model: Canton of Geneva

On May 19, 1974, roughly two-thirds of voters in the canton of Geneva voted to abolish recreational hunting by volunteer hunters. Before the ban, large game in the canton had been practically eradicated: deer and wild boar had disappeared decades earlier, and only a few dozen roe deer remained. Around 300 recreational hunters released large numbers of pheasants, partridges, and hares for recreational hunting.

The experiences since the ban on recreational hunting are clear:

Biodiversity has increased significantly. The number of overwintering waterfowl has multiplied from a few hundred to around 30,000. Geneva is now home to the largest population of brown hares and one of the last remaining populations of grey partridges in Switzerland.

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

– In a renewed referendum in 2005, 90 percent of Geneva's voters supported maintaining the ban on recreational hunting. In 2009, a motion to reinstate the ban was rejected by the cantonal parliament by a vote of 70 to 7.

– The total cost of professional wildlife management in Geneva amounts to approximately 1.2 million Swiss francs annually, divided into roughly 600,000 francs for personnel (approximately three full-time positions, distributed among about a dozen environmental officers), 250,000 francs for prevention, and 350,000 francs for compensation for damages. This equates to approximately 2.40 francs per inhabitant per year.

Gottlieb Dandliker, Geneva's wildlife inspector responsible for wildlife management since 2001, describes the ban on recreational hunting as the most financially advantageous option for the canton. A detailed explanation can be found in the dossier "Geneva and the Hunting Ban" on wildbeimwild.com .

The efficiency of the Geneva model is evident in a direct comparison: A professional game warden in Geneva needs an average of 8 hours and a maximum of 2 cartridges for the sanitary culling of a wild boar. A recreational 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 (the highest in Switzerland), while in the canton of Zurich it is only 1.0 per 100 hectares (see fact check by the Zurich cantonal government ).

3. The concept: Professional gamekeeping instead of hobby hunting

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

Expertise instead of leisure. Professional wildlife managers operate on a scientific basis (see the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com ).

The principle of ultima ratio applies. Shooting down an aircraft is only permissible if all non-lethal measures have been exhausted.

Democratic oversight through a wildlife commission. This independent commission prevents political pressure from weakening wildlife management.

Natural self-regulation as a guiding principle. Experience from Geneva, national parks , and numerous scientific studies proves that wildlife populations regulate themselves in most cases.

4. Why Nidwalden?

The canton of Nidwalden is suitable for the introduction of professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

Almost the same size as Geneva. Nidwalden, at 276 km², has nearly the same area as Geneva (282 km²). This is the strongest argument based on size in the entire series: If professional wildlife management has worked in Geneva (282 km²) for 50 years, then it will also work in Nidwalden (276 km²). The topography differs (alpine vs. flat), but a lower population density means fewer conflict zones.

Wolf on Mount Pilatus. Mount Pilatus lies on the border between Nidwalden, Obwalden, and Lucerne. The wolf on Pilatus in 2023/2024 made national headlines. The initiative offers a constitutionally sound solution: professional wildlife management instead of politically motivated culls (see the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com ).

Stanserhorn and Klewenalp. The Stanserhorn and Klewenalp are habitats for ibex, chamois, and lynx. Lake Lucerne is a waterfowl area. Professional wildlife management would protect these habitats more consistently (see wildbeimwild.com for information on national parks and protected areas ).

1,000 signatures are needed. With 43,000 inhabitants, 1,000 signatures represent approximately 2.3 percent of the population. Signatures can be collected in Stans, Hergiswil, Buochs, Stansstad, and Ennetbürgen. Hergiswil and Stansstad are part of the Lucerne metropolitan area and have an urban character (see wildbeimwild.com for information on wildlife in urban areas ).

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

Urban base on Lake Lucerne. Hergiswil, Stansstad, and Ennetbürgen are urbanized and belong to the Lucerne metropolitan area. A significant portion of the canton's population lives in this agglomeration.

5. Regarding the initiative text

Paragraph 1 – Prohibition of recreational hunting

The prohibition of private hunting rights corresponds to the Geneva model. The cantonal authority is undisputed: Art. 3 para. 1 JSG. The three hunting systems are equivalent. Geneva has been in accordance with federal law since 1974.

Paragraph 2 – Professional Wildlife Management

Instead of amateur hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the cantonal government handle all tasks. This system has proven successful in Geneva for over 50 years.

Paragraph 3 – Shooting as a last resort

Shooting down an aircraft is the exception, not the rule. Passive measures take precedence.

Paragraph 4 – Wildlife Commission

The independent wildlife commission is modeled on the Geneva system. It prevents the government council from independently granting exceptions (see wildbeimwild.com/jagd-fakten ).

Paragraph 5 – Natural regulation and coexistence

In Nidwalden, the promotion of coexistence includes in particular the protection of habitats on the Stanserhorn and the Klewenalp, the networking of wildlife corridors and the education of the population (see wildbeimwild.com on wild animals in settlement areas ).

Transitional provisions

The two-year deadline gives the government council sufficient time. The existing Office for Forests and Energy can serve as an institutional basis.

6. Regarding the second article: Protection of threatened and protected wildlife species

The second article is particularly relevant for Nidwalden. The wolf on Mount Pilatus has politicized the debate. The lynx is native to the canton. Lake Lucerne is a waterfowl habitat. The use of the word "especially" also protects future returning species (see the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com ).

7. Cost implications: Concrete budget for Nidwalden

The Geneva reference budget

In Geneva, the total costs amount to around 1.2 million Swiss francs annually: around 600,000 francs for personnel, around 250,000 francs for prevention and around 350,000 francs for compensation for damages.

Conservative forecast for Nidwalden

Nidwalden, at 276 km², is almost the same size as Geneva (282 km²) – the strongest argument based on size in the entire series. However, the alpine topography necessitates a slightly higher number of staff than in Geneva because the fieldwork is more complex. For Nidwalden, with its approximately 43,000 inhabitants, the following deliberately conservative cost estimate results:

Personnel costs: CHF 240,000 to 560,000 annually. Two to four full-time positions are required. The Stanserhorn and the Klewenalp are alpine habitats.

Material costs: 60,000 to 110,000 Swiss francs annually.

Compensation for damages: 30,000 to 80,000 Swiss francs annually.

Initial investment for livestock protection: 250,000 to 400,000 Swiss francs. One-time investment in livestock protection infrastructure for the Stanserhorn region and the Klewenalp over three to five years.

Total costs: 330,000 to 750,000 Swiss francs annually (gross).

Savings and offsetting costs

This is offset by savings: no hunting exams, no patent administration, no culling plans, no game wardens. A single wolf needlessly killed costs the public around 35,000 Swiss francs.

Lost revenue

With the abolition of recreational hunting, the estimated annual license fees of 150,000 to 250,000 Swiss francs will be eliminated. However, this is offset by the never-accounted-for external costs of volunteer hunting – wildlife collisions, hunting-related browsing damage in protected forests, administrative expenses, police and court interventions – which amount to many times these revenues. In the Canton of Geneva, these revenues have been absent since 1974 – without any financial problems: Before the hunting ban, over 400 recreational hunters were active; today, three full-time positions do the same work more effectively. Sanitary and therapeutic culling by professional game wardens is not the same as regulated hunting based on hunters' tall tales or the misguided "experience of nature" of recreational hunters. A full cost analysis shows that volunteer hunting costs taxpayers significantly more than it generates (see "What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland" on wildbeimwild.com ).

Hobby hunters in politics vote against nature conservation. The hobby hunting lobby systematically opposes biodiversity and species protection efforts. In 2024, they opposed the biodiversity initiative (63 percent voted against). In 2020, the hunting law they helped draft failed at the ballot box (51.9 percent voted against). In 2016, the Ticino Hunting Association thwarted the Parc Adula National Park. During the 2015-2019 legislative period, hobby hunters in parliament predominantly voted against environmental issues . Anyone claiming that hobby hunters are conservationists ignores their voting record (see Ticino Hunting Association: 30 Years of Nonsense and Cost Dossier ).

The net additional costs are expected to be between 200,000 and 500,000 Swiss francs annually . In absolute terms, this is modest: 200,000 to 500,000 francs for a canton with a total budget of around 450 million francs (2024 cantonal accounts, Federal Finance Administration). This represents less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget. Nidwalden also has one of the highest tax revenues of all Swiss cantons (see the fact check on hunting myths at wildbeimwild.com ).

8. Compatibility with higher-ranking law

First article: Abolition of recreational hunting

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

Second article: Protection of protected species

Article 7a of the Youth Welfare Act (JSG) permits preventive regulation but does not mandate it. Waiving this right does not violate either federal law or the Berne Convention.

Unity of matter

This is ensured, as all regulations relate to cantonal wildlife management and the protection of wild animals.

9. Anticipating foreseeable objections

"Nidwalden is too small for its own wildlife management"

The facts: Nidwalden has an area of 276 km². Geneva has 282 km² and has been practicing professional wildlife management for 50 years. The argument about size is therefore completely irrelevant. Nidwalden is even 6 km² smaller than Geneva. What works in Geneva also works in Nidwalden on an almost identical area (see the psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Nidwalden ).

A concise communicative formula: "276 km². Geneva has 282 km². The size objection is therefore moot."

"The wolf on Mount Pilatus shows that we have to shoot them."

The facts: The wolf population on Mount Pilatus needs professional management, not knee-jerk culls. Professional wildlife management would have included scientific monitoring of the wolf population and professional protection of livestock herds.

A concise communicative statement: "The wolf on Mount Pilatus needs professional management, not knee-jerk shootings."

"The costs are too high for a small canton."

The facts: Even generously estimated: 200,000 to 500,000 Swiss francs. 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the cantonal budget. Nidwalden has one of the highest tax revenues of all Swiss cantons. Easily manageable.

A concise communicative formula: "200,000 to 500,000 francs. 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the cantonal budget. Modest for one of the wealthiest cantons in Switzerland."

10. Summary

This initiative gives the people of Nidwalden the opportunity to express their support for modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wildlife species. The first article follows the Geneva model, which has proven successful for over 50 years. Nidwalden, with its 276 km² area, is almost identical to Geneva (282 km²) – the strongest argument of scale in the entire series. The second article specifically protects the wolf on Mount Pilatus and the lynx. The high tax revenue and modest absolute costs make the system change financially straightforward.

Initiative Committee «For Professional Wildlife Protection»

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3]…

(Committee members according to cantonal law, residing in the canton of Nidwalden)

Contact address: [Address of the committee]

Appendix: Further documentation

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

Scientific studies: wildbeimwild.com/studies – collection of scientific studies.

Hunting in Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com/jagd-in-der-schweiz – Continuously updated overview.

Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Nidwalden: wildbeimwild.com – Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of NW

Psychology of recreational 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

Wild animals in residential areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere-im-siedlungsgebiet

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen

Basel-Stadt cantonal popular initiative: Sample text of the initiative in the canton of Basel-Stadt

Note on the procedure

The initiative committee submits the initiative text to the State Chancellery of the Canton of Nidwalden for preliminary review before the signature collection begins. 1,000 valid signatures are required for the initiative to be successful. The collection period is 60 days (Nidwalden Election and Referendum Act). The submission procedures are governed by the Act on Referendums and Elections.

Strategic briefing for activists

Popular initiative “For professional wildlife protection” – Canton of Nidwalden Internal working document – Status March 2026

Summary

Nidwalden is the "Geneva twin" of the series: 276 km² vs. 282 km². The size argument is completely irrelevant. The wolf on Mount Pilatus (bordering Nidwalden, Obwalden, and Lucerne) is a polarizing issue. 1,000 signatures from a population of 43,000 are achievable. The urban base around Lake Lucerne (Hergiswil, Stansstad) provides the mobilization potential. Nidwalden has one of the highest tax revenues of all cantons. The absolute costs are modest, at 200,000 to 500,000 Swiss francs.

1. Why Nidwalden in particular?

Almost the same size as Geneva. 276 km² vs. 282 km². The size argument is therefore moot.

Wolf am Pilatus. Border NW/OW/LU. Nationally politicized.

1,000 signatures out of 43,000 inhabitants. 2.3 percent. Doable.

Urban base. Hergiswil, Stansstad, Ennetbürgen have an urban character.

Maximum tax revenue. Costs manageable.

Patent hunting = simple system change. No lease agreements.

2. Lessons from Zurich: What we are doing differently

Positive title. "For professional wildlife protection".

Geneva Twin. 276 vs. 282 km² is the strongest area argument in the series.

Absolute costs instead of per capita costs: 150,000–350,000 Swiss francs.

3. Opponent analysis and prepared answers

Counterargument 1: "Nidwalden is too small"

A concise communicative formula: "276 km². Geneva has 282 km². The size objection is therefore moot."

Counterargument 2: "The wolf must go"

A concise communicative statement: "The wolf on Mount Pilatus needs professional management, not knee-jerk shootings."

Counterargument 3: "The costs are too high"

In short, communicative terms: "200,000 to 500,000 francs. Affordable for one of the cantons with the strongest tax base."

4. Communication strategy: The three core messages

"276 km². Geneva has 282 km². Same area, same system." The strongest argument.

"Geneva has been setting an example for 50 years." 90 percent approval.

"Professional, not hobbyist." Experts, not recreational shooters.

5. Timeline and next steps

phase	Contents	Timeframe
Committee formation & text pre-checking	Consult a lawyer; committee members with residence in Northwest Germany	Months 1–3
Submission for preliminary review	State Chancellery of Nidwalden	Month 3–4
Publication & Collection Start	Attention: The collection period is only 60 days — therefore, tight planning is necessary. Target: 1,250+ signatures as a buffer.	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	SP, Greens; Pro Natura; BirdLife	Months 1–10
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official review	After the collection period
District council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media relations	Subsequent months
Voting campaign	Geneva twin, Pilatus-Wolf, absolute costs	Before voting

6. Campaign material

The Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com serves as the central argument.
The psychology of hobby hunting in the canton of Nidwalden as background material.
Local media: Nidwaldner Zeitung, Nidwaldner Blitz, Tele 1.
Infographic: Area comparison NW (276 km²) vs. GE (282 km²) as a guiding principle. Wolf am Pilatus. Absolute costs.

7. Further Sources

This document is a sample text from the IG Wild beim Wild (Interest Group for Wildlife in the Wild). It can be freely used by activists, organizations, or initiative committees and adapted to the conditions in the canton of Nidwalden.

Fact check: The claims of the hobby hunting lobby

The brochure "Hunting in Switzerland Protects and Benefits" by JagdSchweiz reads like an advertising leaflet – but its central claims don't stand up to a fact check. Ten narratives put to the test, from "a state responsibility" and "biodiversity" to "80% approval": Dossier: Fact check JagdSchweiz brochure →