Cantonal popular initiative – Canton of Uri

"For professional wildlife protection"

Constitutional initiative in the form of the finalized draft

Based on Article 28 of the Constitution of the Canton of Uri of October 28, 1984, and on the Law on Political Rights in the Canton of Uri

Submitted by the Initiative Committee [Date of submission]

Initiative text

The undersigned persons, who are entitled to vote in the Canton of Uri, submit the following constitutional initiative:

The Constitution of the Canton of Uri of October 28, 1984 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 Uri.

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 Uri, an alpine canton in central Switzerland with approximately 37,000 inhabitants spread across 1,077 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 Uri, 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. Contrary to popular belief, license holders do not assume ecological responsibility but rather operate within the framework of cantonal hunting quotas, which are primarily geared towards the interests of forestry and agriculture (see the psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Uri 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 wolf is present in Uri. The lynx is native to the Uri Pre-Alps. The golden eagle breeds in the Uri Alps. The ibex lives on the rocky slopes of the Uri Reuss Valley. Uri is one of the cantons with the richest wildlife in Switzerland and, at the same time, one of the most sparsely populated (see the analysis of hunting policy and wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com ).

The canton of Uri 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, with biological training and within the framework of a cantonal service mandate (see the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com ).

The principle of last resort applies. Shooting is only permissible if all non-lethal measures have been exhausted. These include electric fences, deterrents, habitat modification, relocation, taste repellents, and structural protective measures.

Democratic oversight through a wildlife commission. This independent commission prevents political pressure from weakening wildlife management. The initiative enshrines the requirement for permits in the constitution.

Natural self-regulation as a guiding principle. Experience from Geneva, national parks , and numerous scientific studies confirms that wildlife populations regulate themselves in most cases. Recreational hunting disrupts this natural process.

4. Why Uri?

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

One of the most wildlife-rich cantons in Switzerland, Uri is home to wolves, lynx, golden eagles, ibex, red deer, chamois, and numerous other species in a unique alpine landscape. The Reuss Valley, the Maderan Valley, and the Meien Valley are habitats of supra-regional ecological importance. Professional wildlife management would protect this wealth more effectively than recreational hunting (see wildbeimwild.com for information on national parks and protected areas ).

Protective forest at the Gotthard Pass. Uri has the highest proportion of protective forest in Switzerland. Browsing pressure from roe deer and red deer is one of the key challenges. Decades of recreational hunting have failed to sustainably reduce this pressure. Professional wildlife management, which utilizes the wolf as a natural regulator and reduces browsing pressure through targeted, science-based measures, is the better solution. The wolf regulates the roe deer population and reduces browsing pressure in the protective forest – this is ecologically and economically significant in a canton where protective forests determine the location of settlements and transport routes.

Wolf policy. The wolf is present in Uri. The initiative offers a constitutional answer to the wolf debate: professional wildlife management instead of politically motivated culls (see the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com ).

600 signatures. Uri has the lowest signature threshold in the series with 600 signatures. With 37,000 inhabitants, that's 1.6 percent of the population. Signatures can be collected in Altdorf, Erstfeld, Flüelen, and Schattdorf (see wildbeimwild.com for information on wildlife in populated areas ).

Patent hunting = a simple system change. No lease agreements, no municipal compensation. Existing patents expire and fees already paid are refunded proportionally.

Low population density equals fewest conflicts. With approximately 34 inhabitants per km², Uri has one of the lowest population densities in Switzerland. This means fewer conflict zones between humans and wildlife than in any other canton. Professional wildlife management finds ideal conditions here.

5. Regarding the initiative text

Paragraph 1 – Prohibition of recreational hunting

The ban on hunting by private individuals is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model. The cantonal competence for this is undisputed: The Federal Hunting Act (JSG) explicitly leaves the organization of hunting operations to the cantons (Art. 3 para. 1 JSG). The three hunting systems in Switzerland – hunting by license, hunting in designated hunting areas, and state/government-managed hunting – are equivalent. The Canton of Geneva has practiced government-managed hunting 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 animal is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures take precedence.

Paragraph 4 – Wildlife Commission

The independent wildlife commission is modeled on the Geneva system. It ensures that animal and nature conservation organizations have a say and prevents the government council from independently granting exceptions (see wildbeimwild.com/jagd-fakten ).

Paragraph 5 – Natural regulation and coexistence

In Uri, the promotion of coexistence includes in particular the protection and networking of alpine habitats, the safeguarding of protective forests through natural regulation and educating the population about how to behave towards wild animals (see wildbeimwild.com on wild animals in settlement areas ).

Transitional provisions

The two-year deadline gives the government council sufficient time to draft the implementing legislation. The existing Office for Forestry and Hunting can serve as the institutional basis.

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

The second article is particularly relevant for Uri. The wolf is present in the canton. The lynx is native to the Pre-Alps. The golden eagle breeds in the Uri Alps. The beaver has been documented along the Reuss River. The "in particular" wording is designed as a dynamic reference to federal law and also protects future returnees, especially the bear, whose return to Central Switzerland is expected (see the wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com ).

7. Cost implications: Concrete budget for Uri

The Geneva reference budget

In Geneva, which at 282 km² is about four times smaller than Uri and has around 500,000 inhabitants, the total costs amount to around 1.2 million Swiss francs annually.

Conservative projection for Uri

For Uri, with an area of 1,077 km² and approximately 37,000 inhabitants, the following deliberately conservative cost estimate results. This estimate is generous and takes into account the alpine topography and the high proportion of protective forest:

Personnel costs: CHF 360,000 to 700,000 annually. Three to five full-time positions are required. Uri is four times larger than Geneva and topographically extremely challenging: high mountains, protective forests at the Gotthard Pass, and remote side valleys. The alpine topography demands specialists with terrain knowledge and alpine experience. The higher number of positions takes into account the red deer migration management in the protective forest.

Material costs: 80,000 to 150,000 Swiss francs annually. Alpine equipment, off-road vehicles, monitoring infrastructure, livestock protection equipment and public relations.

Compensation for damages: 40,000 to 100,000 Swiss francs annually.

Initial investment for livestock protection: 300,000 to 500,000 Swiss francs. One-time investment in livestock protection infrastructure for the Uri Alps and the Reuss Valley over three to five years: livestock guardian dog programs, mobile fences, night enclosures, training of shepherds.

Total costs: 480,000 to 950,000 Swiss francs annually (gross).

Red deer and protected forest

Red deer are present in Uri, and browsing pressure in protected forests is one of the key challenges. Recreational hunting has failed to sustainably reduce browsing pressure over decades – partly due to compensatory reproduction, which leads to increased births as a result of hunting pressure. Professional wildlife management, which utilizes the wolf as a natural regulator and intervenes specifically where browsing pressure is highest, is the better solution (see studies on wildbeimwild.com ).

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 200,000 to 350,000 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 250,000 and 600,000 Swiss francs annually , which corresponds to approximately 6.75 to 16.20 francs per inhabitant . In a very small, alpine canton, the per capita costs are naturally the highest in the series, as only 37,000 inhabitants bear the burden. But even with a generous estimate, the absolute costs amount to 250,000 to 600,000 francs – less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget of approximately 501 million francs (State Accounts 2024, Federal Finance Administration). For comparison, the canton of Uri spends many times this amount on road maintenance (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

"Uri is an alpine canton – the Geneva model is the least suitable here."

The facts: Uri is sparsely populated. This means fewer conflict zones, not more. The primary task of professional wildlife management in an alpine canton is the protection of forests. Recreational hunting has failed to sustainably reduce browsing pressure in these forests over decades. Professional wildlife management, which utilizes the wolf as a natural regulator, is the better solution. Furthermore, the absolute costs are modest, ranging from 250,000 to 600,000 Swiss francs annually (see the psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Uri ).

A concise communicative formula: "A sparse population means fewer conflicts, not more. And the wolf protects the forest better than recreational hunting."

"The protected forest needs recreational hunting."

The facts: Recreational hunting has not sustainably reduced browsing pressure in protected forests over decades. Wolves regulate the deer population naturally and more effectively than seasonal hunting. Professional wildlife management can intervene precisely where browsing pressure is highest, while recreational hunting operates across large areas and seasonally.

A concise communicative formula: "Recreational hunting has failed to solve the browsing pressure in protected forests for decades. The wolf can. Professional game wardens can do it in a targeted manner."

"The per capita costs are too high."

The facts: Per capita costs are naturally higher in a canton with 37,000 inhabitants than in Zurich with 1.5 million. However, even with generous estimates, the absolute costs amount to between 250,000 and 600,000 Swiss francs annually. That's less than 0.15 percent of the cantonal budget. The canton of Uri spends many times that amount on road maintenance.

A concise communicative formula: "250,000 to 600,000 francs. 0.1 to 0.2 percent of the cantonal budget. Modest."

10. Summary

This initiative gives the people of Uri 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. The second article specifically protects the wolf, the lynx, the golden eagle, and the beaver. The lowest signature threshold in the series (600), the low population density with few conflict zones, and the issue of protective forests, which the wolf addresses more effectively than recreational hunting, make Uri a unique canton in this series.

Initiative Committee «For Professional Wildlife Protection»

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3]…

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

Contact address: [Address of the committee]

Appendix: Further documentation

The following dossiers and sources support the arguments of this initiative:

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 on the self-regulation of wildlife populations.

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

Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Uri: wildbeimwild.com – Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Uri – Canton-specific analysis.

Psychology of recreational hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd – General articles.

Wolf Dossier: wildbeimwild.com/category/wolf – Current developments in wolf policy.

Predators: wildbeimwild.com/category/raubtiere – Information on predators.

National parks and protected areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/nationalpark – Natural self-regulation in protected areas.

Wild animals in residential areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere-im-siedlungsgebiet – Coexistence of humans and wild animals.

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen – Fact check.

Cantonal popular initiative Basel-Stadt: Sample text of the initiative in the canton of Basel-Stadt – The template for the entire series of initiatives.

Note on the procedure

The initiative committee submits the initiative text to the Uri cantonal chancellery for preliminary review before the signature collection begins. 600 valid signatures are required for the initiative to be successful. The submission procedures are governed by the law on political rights in the canton of Uri.

Strategic briefing for activists

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

Summary

Uri is the featured canton in this series on protected forests. With the highest percentage of protected forest in Switzerland, the lowest population density, and the lowest signature threshold (600), Uri is unique. The core message: Wolves protect the forests better than recreational hunting because they naturally regulate the deer population and reduce browsing pressure. The absolute costs are modest, ranging from 250,000 to 600,000 Swiss francs. Wolves, lynx, golden eagles, and ibex are all present in the canton.

1. Why Uri in particular?

Canton protected by forests. Highest percentage of protected forest in Switzerland. The wolf protects it better than recreational hunting.

600 signatures. Lowest hurdle in the series. 1.6 percent of the population.

Low population density. Few conflict zones. Ideal conditions for professional wildlife management.

Abundant wildlife. Wolf, lynx, golden eagle, ibex, red deer, chamois.

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

The absolute costs are modest: 250,000 to 600,000 Swiss francs, or 0.05 to 0.1 percent of the cantonal budget.

2. Lessons from Zurich: What we are doing differently

A more positive title. "For professional wildlife protection" instead of "Game wardens instead of hunters".

The protective forest argument. In Uri, this is the strongest argument: The wolf protects the protective forest better than recreational hunting.

Absolute costs instead of per capita. In a small canton, per capita figures are misleading. The absolute figure (150,000–350,000 francs) is more convincing.

3. Opponent analysis and prepared answers

Counterargument 1: "Uri is alpine – the Geneva model doesn't fit"

The facts: Low population density means fewer conflicts. And wolves protect the forest better than recreational hunting.

A concise communicative formula: "Fewer people means fewer conflicts. And the wolf protects the protective forest."

Counterargument 2: "The protective forest needs recreational hunting"

The facts: Recreational hunting has failed to solve the problem of browsing pressure for decades. Wolves can do it. Professional gamekeepers can do it effectively.

A concise communicative formula: "Recreational hunting has failed to solve the problem of browsing pressure for decades. The wolf can."

Counterargument 3: "The costs are too high"

The facts: 250,000 to 600,000 Swiss francs in absolute terms. 0.05 to 0.1 percent of the cantonal budget.

A concise communicative formula: "250,000 to 600,000 francs. A fraction of the cantonal budget."

4. Communication strategy: The three core messages

"The wolf protects the protected forest better than recreational hunting." The strongest argument for Uri. Ecologically and economically.

"Geneva has been setting the example for 50 years." 90 percent approval, stable populations, minimal costs.

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

5. Timeline and next steps

phase	Contents	Timeframe
Committee formation & text pre-checking	Consult a lawyer; recruit committee members with UR residence permits.	Months 1–3
Submission for preliminary review	Uri State Chancellery	Month 3–4
Publication & Collection Start	Target: 750+ signatures as a buffer; 600 is the lowest hurdle of the series.	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	SP, Greens; Pro Natura Uri; protected forest as an argument for a broader coalition	Months 1–10
Submission of signatures	Registry Office, official review	After the collection period
District council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; media relations	Subsequent months
Voting campaign	Protection forest argument, wolf as a natural regulator, 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 Uri as background material.
Local media: Urner Zeitung, Urner Wochenblatt, Tele 1.
Infographic: Protective forest and wolf as a guiding principle. Browsing pressure with and without wolves. Absolute costs (150,000–350,000 Swiss francs).

7. Further Sources

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

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 →