Cantonal Popular Initiative – Canton of Zurich

«For Professional Wildlife Protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of a drafted proposal

Based on Art. 26 of the Constitution of the Canton of Zurich of February 27, 2005 and on the Law on Political Rights (GPR)

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Initiative text

The undersigned, persons entitled to vote in the Canton of Zurich, hereby submit the following constitutional initiative:

The Constitution of the Canton of Zurich of February 27, 2005 is supplemented by the following articles:

Art. [new] Professional Wildlife Protection

1 The practice of hunting by private persons (district hunting, hobby hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Canton of Zurich. Existing hunting lease contracts will not be renewed.

2 The protection, care and, where necessary, regulation of wild animals shall be 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 hazard control 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 the natural regulation of wildlife populations, the networking of habitats, and the coexistence of humans and wildlife.

6 The canton appropriately compensates affected municipalities for the loss of hunting lease revenues during a transitional period of five years.

7 The details are regulated by law.

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

1 The canton renounces applications for preventive population regulation of protected wildlife species under the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds, particularly 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 threat to humans remain reserved. They must be limited to the minimum and carried out by the competent specialist authority of the canton.

4 The canton actively advocates for the protection and conservation of threatened wildlife species within the framework of intercantonal cooperation and vis-à-vis the federal government.

Transitional provision

1 The cantonal government shall issue the necessary implementing provisions within two years of the adoption of this constitutional amendment.

2 Existing hunting lease contracts expire at the latest five years after the implementing legislation comes into force. Municipalities that lose hunting lease revenue will be appropriately compensated during the transitional period.

3 The cantonal government ensures continuity of wildlife management during the transition phase.

Explanations

1. Initial situation

In the canton of Zurich, the most populous canton in Switzerland with around 1'580'000 inhabitants on 1'729 km² of area, today's recreational hunting is a system that serves neither species conservation nor contemporary wildlife management. It is the practice of a bloody leisure pursuit at the expense of sentient beings, legitimized by outdated narratives that cannot withstand scientific scrutiny. The claim that ecological balance would collapse without recreational hunting has been empirically refuted by the Geneva model for over 50 years (cf. the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban on wildbeimwild.com).

Zurich is a hunting district canton. The hunting districts are leased by the political municipalities to private hunting societies. The lessees pay a lease fee and hunt for their own account as a leisure activity. In 2018, the initiative 'Game wardens instead of hunters' was rejected in the canton of Zurich with 84 percent No votes. This result was not proof that the cause was wrong. It was proof that the strategy was wrong. The present initiative draws lessons from 2018 and does everything differently: positive title, concrete budget calculation, species protection paragraph as coalition broadening, and early party support (cf. the psychology of hunting in the canton of Zurich as well as the hunter dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

In parallel, more and more protected wildlife species are coming under pressure at the federal level. With the revision of the Hunting Act in December 2022, preventive regulation of the wolf was introduced. The beaver may be shot upon cantonal application since February 2025. Political pressure on other species such as lynx, otter and goosander is steadily increasing. In the canton of Zurich, the beaver (on the Limmat, Sihl, Glatt and their tributaries), the lynx (at the Albis and in the Zurich Oberland) and numerous protected bird species are documented (cf. the analysis of recreational hunting in Switzerland and the wolf dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

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

2. The model: Canton of Geneva

On 19 May 1974, around two-thirds of voters in the canton of Geneva voted for the abolition of militia recreational hunting. Before the ban, large game in the canton was practically extinct: deer and wild boar had disappeared for decades, only a few dozen specimens of roe deer remained. Around 300 hobby hunters massively released pheasants, partridges and hares for recreational hunting.

The experiences since the recreational hunting ban are clear:

– Biodiversity has markedly increased. 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.

– The roe deer population has stabilized at a healthy level, with an annual special cull by professional game wardens of only 20 to 36 animals. The population moves at a density compatible with the forest area.

– In 2005, 90 percent of Geneva voters spoke out in a renewed referendum for maintaining the recreational hunting ban. In 2009, a motion for reintroduction was rejected in the cantonal parliament by 70 to 7 votes.

– The total costs of professional wildlife management in Geneva amount to around 1.2 million francs annually, divided into around 600'000 francs for personnel (about three full-time positions, divided among around a dozen environmental officers), 250'000 francs for prevention and 350'000 francs for damage compensation. This corresponds to around 2.40 francs per inhabitant per year.

The Geneva fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker, responsible for wildlife management since 2001, describes the recreational hunting ban as the financially most favorable alternative for the canton. A detailed presentation can be found in the dossier 'Geneva and the hunting ban' on wildbeimwild.com.

The efficiency of the Geneva model is shown in direct comparison: A professional game warden in Geneva needs on average 8 hours and a maximum of 2 cartridges for a sanitary cull of a wild boar. A hobby hunter in the canton of Zurich needs 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 cartridges for this. The brown hare density in Geneva is 17.7 animals per 100 hectares (highest in Switzerland), in the canton of Zurich only 1.0 per 100 hectares (cf. fact check cantonal government Zurich).

3. The concept: Professional game wardenship instead of recreational hunting

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

Professional expertise instead of leisure pursuit. Professional wildlife managers act on a scientific basis, with biological training and within the framework of a cantonal service mandate. Their goal is maintaining healthy wildlife populations, not maximizing kill numbers (cf. the hunter dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

Ultima ratio principle. A cull is only permissible when all non-lethal measures have been exhausted. These include electric fences, deterrence, habitat design, relocation, taste repellents and structural protective measures.

Democratic control through a wildlife commission. The independent commission prevents political pressure from diluting wildlife management. The initiative constitutionally anchors the approval requirement.

Natural self-regulation as guiding principle. The experience from Geneva, from protected areas and documented by numerous scientific studies: wildlife populations regulate themselves autonomously in most cases. Recreational hunting disrupts this natural process by destroying social structures, artificially increasing reproduction rates and altering migration patterns.

4. Why Zurich – and why now?

Zurich is suitable for a new attempt despite the 2018 failure because conditions have fundamentally changed:

Lost revenues

Abolishing recreational hunting eliminates hunting lease revenues of an estimated 800,000 to 1,200,000 francs annually. However, these are offset by the never-accounted external costs of militia hunting – wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in protective forests, administrative overhead, police and court interventions – which amount to a multiple of these revenues. In Canton Geneva, these revenues have been foregone 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 culling by professional game wardens is not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters' folklore or misunderstood 'nature experience' of hobby hunters. A full-cost analysis shows: militia hunting costs taxpayers significantly more than it generates (cf. 'What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland' on wildbeimwild.com).

Hobby hunters in politics vote against nature conservation. The recreational hunting lobby systematically opposes biodiversity and species protection initiatives. In 2024, it opposed 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 hunting association torpedoed the Parc Adula National Park. In the legislative period 2015 to 2019, hobby hunters in parliament voted predominantly against environmental initiatives. Anyone claiming hobby hunters are conservationists ignores their voting record (cf. Ticino Hunting Association: 30 Years of Nonsense and Cost Dossier).

Lowest per capita costs of all cantons. Zurich has the largest population of all cantons with 1,580,000 inhabitants. Net additional costs amount to 0.45 to 0.85 francs per inhabitant per year. This is one-third of Geneva's level (2.40 francs) and renders the cost argument that was fatal in 2018 ineffective. The alleged 20 million francs in additional costs claimed by the Zurich government in 2018 were never substantiated. Zurich's hunting administration failed to provide an explanatory response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The specifically calculated figures are now available.

Changed political environment. In 2018, the second paragraph on species protection did not exist. Today, the threat to protected species through federal politics is reality: wolves are preemptively regulated, beavers may be shot since February 2025, mergansers are under pressure. This mobilizes conservation organizations that stood aside in 2018.

New title, new strategy. 'Game wardens instead of hunters' was a confrontational title that defined itself against the opponent. 'For professional wildlife protection' is positively formulated and forces opponents to position themselves against 'professional wildlife protection,' which is communicatively difficult.

Most populous canton. Success in Zurich would have the greatest signal effect of all cantons. Zurich is the canton that most strongly influences national debate.

6,000 signatures in 6 months. The threshold is absolutely high, but proportionally low with 1,580,000 inhabitants (0.4 percent). In Zurich, Winterthur, Uster, Dübendorf, Dietikon and Wetzikon, signatures can be collected efficiently (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife).

Beavers on Limmat, Sihl and Glatt. Beavers are documented on several Zurich waterways. The initiative protects beavers in the canton (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife and predators).

Lynx on Albis and in the highlands. Lynx are documented in Zurich highlands and on Albis. Professional wildlife management protects lynx and utilizes their ecological function as natural regulators of roe deer populations.

5. On the first paragraph: Professional wildlife protection

Section 1 – Ban on recreational hunting and expiration of lease contracts

The ban on hunting by private individuals in hunting districts is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model. 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 in Switzerland – patent hunting, district hunting and state or government hunting – are equivalent. Canton Geneva has practiced government hunting in compliance with federal law since 1974. The addition 'Existing hunting lease contracts will not be renewed' ensures that the system change proceeds in an orderly manner and respects existing contractual obligations.

Section 2 – Professional wildlife management

Instead of hobby hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers in cantonal service take over all responsibilities. This system has proven successful in Geneva for over 50 years. Geneva's fauna inspector Dandliker points out that organizing patent hunting would require at least two full-time positions, while approximately one full-time position is devoted to wild boar regulation in Geneva.

Section 3 – Culling as ultima ratio

Culling is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures take precedence. In Geneva, approximately 250 wild boar are culled annually by game wardens (according to FOEN hunting statistics), mainly juveniles, with lead animals explicitly spared.

Section 4 – Wildlife commission

The independent wildlife commission is modeled on the Geneva system. It ensures that animal and nature protection organizations have a voice and prevents the government from independently approving exceptions. The involvement of science ensures evidence-based decisions (cf. the Hunting Ban Switzerland dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

Section 5 – Natural regulation and coexistence

Promoting coexistence in Zurich includes particularly securing and networking wildlife corridors (Limmat, Sihl, Glatt), ecological enhancement of green spaces in settlement areas and educating the population about behavior toward wildlife (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wildlife).

Section 6 – Compensation for municipalities

Specific to district hunting cantons. Zurich municipalities receive lease revenues that are compensated for five years. Lease revenues per municipality are marginal in relation to municipal budgets.

Transitional provisions

Two years for implementing legislation, five-year expiration clause for lease contracts. The existing Office for Landscape and Nature (ALN) with fisheries and hunting administration can serve as an institutional basis.

6. On the second paragraph: Protection of endangered and protected wildlife species

The second paragraph is the central strategic innovation compared to 2018. It did not exist then. Today it mobilizes a broader coalition: not only animal welfare organizations, but also nature conservation organizations, BirdLife, Pro Natura, WWF and beaver groups are addressed by the species protection paragraph. Beavers are documented on Limmat, Sihl and Glatt. Lynx are present in Zurich highlands and on Albis. The 'in particular' formulation is conceived as a dynamic reference to federal law and also protects future returnees (cf. the Wolf Dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

7. Cost Implications: Concrete Budget for Zurich

The Geneva Reference Budget

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

Projection for Zurich

For Zurich with 1,729 km² area and around 1,580,000 inhabitants:

Personnel costs: 720,000 to 980,000 francs annually. 6 to 7 full-time positions are required. Zurich is six times larger than Geneva, but predominantly lowland and densely populated. The number of conflict zones per unit area is higher than in sparsely populated cantons, but the infrastructure is better.

Material costs: 140,000 to 200,000 francs annually.

Damage compensation: 100,000 to 200,000 francs annually.

Total costs: 960,000 to 1,380,000 francs annually (gross). This corresponds to around 0.60 to 0.85 francs per inhabitant per year.

Savings

This is offset by significant savings: No more hunting lease contracts to administer, no hunting examinations, no hunting planning, no hunting supervision. The net additional costs are likely to be 400,000 to 700,000 francs annually which corresponds to around 0.25 to 0.45 francs per inhabitant This represents the absolutely lowest per capita costs of all cantons in the series – one sixth of the Geneva level.

The alleged 20 million francs in additional costs that the Zurich government claimed in 2018 are demonstrably false. The Zurich hunting administration failed to provide an explanatory answer to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The specifically calculated figures are now available (cf. Fact Check Zurich Government Council on wildbeimwild.com).

8. The Initiative Process in Canton Zurich

In Canton Zurich, a popular initiative at the constitutional level requires the collection of 6,000 signatures within 6 months (Art. 26 Para. 2 KV ZH). The initiative committee must be registered with the State Chancellery. Upon submission, the Government Council examines the initiative for admissibility. If approved, it is submitted to the Cantonal Council and subsequently to the people for voting.

The 6,000 signatures can be collected in Zurich, Winterthur, Uster, Dübendorf, Dietikon and Wetzikon. These are the largest cities in Canton Zurich. With a professional collection system, this is achievable.

9. Strategic Integration

The Zurich initiative is part of a national strategy: Popular initiatives for professional wildlife protection are being launched in a coordinated manner in several cantons. Coordinated measures at the national level create synergies in argumentation, media work and political positioning. Canton Zurich is suitable as a leading canton for German-speaking Switzerland.

10. Further Procedure

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 Zurich.

The next step is the formation of an initiative committee in Canton Zurich, consisting of people from various municipalities in the canton, with voting persons from Canton Zurich. The committee ensures the sponsorship of the initiative and gives it political legitimacy.

The legal basis, political argumentation, communicative framework and budget are established with this document. The initiative committee can begin implementation directly.

Cantonal Popular Initiatives – Other Cantons

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 Zurich.

Facts about the Hobby Hunting Lobby

The brochure 'Hunting in Switzerland Protects and Benefits' by JagdSchweiz reads like an advertising prospectus – but the central claims do not withstand fact-checking. Ten narratives under scrutiny, from 'state task' through 'biodiversity' to '80% approval': Dossier: Fact Check JagdSchweiz Brochure →