Federal popular initiative "For professional wildlife protection"

Federal popular initiative in the form of the fully developed draft

Based on Article 139 of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999
Submitted by the Initiative Committee [Date of submission]

The undersigned voters submit the following request:
The Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999 is amended as follows:

Article 79a (new) Professional wildlife protection

1. Hunting by private individuals (hobby hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Swiss Confederation.

2 The protection, care and regulation of wild animals are the sole responsibility of professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the cantons.

3. The shooting of wild animals is only permitted as a last resort (ultima ratio principle). It requires the prior approval of an independent wildlife commission.

4 The cantons shall establish independent wildlife commissions composed of representatives of animal and nature conservation associations, scientists and the relevant authorities.

5 The federal government and the cantons promote the natural regulation of wildlife populations, the networking of habitats and the coexistence of humans and wildlife.

6. Further details are regulated by law.

Article 79b (new) Protection of threatened and protected wild animal species

1. The preventive population control of protected wild animal species is prohibited. This includes, in particular, wolves, lynxes, bears, beavers, otters, golden eagles, and other species protected under federal law.

2 The federal government and the cantons are focusing on promoting the coexistence of humans and wild animals, passive damage prevention and the scientific monitoring of the presence of wild animals.

Three measures against individual wild animals in cases of immediate danger to humans remain reserved. These measures must be kept to a minimum and carried out exclusively by the responsible cantonal authority.

4 The Federal Government is committed to the international protection of endangered wildlife species.

Transitional provision relating to Articles 79a and 79b (new)

1 The Federal Council shall issue the necessary implementing regulations within three years of the adoption of this constitutional amendment.

2 The cantons shall ensure the continuity of wildlife management during the transition phase.

3. Existing hunting licenses and hunting leases expire upon the entry into force of the implementing regulations. License fees and lease payments already paid for the current hunting season will be refunded proportionally.

Explanations

1. Initial situation

Switzerland currently has three hunting systems: license hunting, territorial hunting, and state-run hunting (Canton of Geneva). Around 30,000 recreational hunters obtain licenses or lease hunting grounds annually. According to JagdSchweiz (the Swiss Hunting Association), hunting license and lease fees amount to approximately 26 million Swiss francs per year.

The external costs of recreational hunting are not included in any official calculations: 20,000 wildlife collisions per year cause approximately 76 million Swiss francs in insurance costs. Around 300 hunting accidents per year, a significant proportion of which result in serious injuries, cause an estimated 3.6 million Swiss francs in SUVA (Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund) costs; since 2000, over 75 people have died in hunting accidents.

The 585,000 hectares of protected forest require annual investments of around 150 million Swiss francs from the federal government, cantons, and beneficiaries; approximately 30 percent of the protected forest area exhibits insufficient regeneration because hunting pressure drives wildlife into the forest (displacement effect). Recreational hunting, through compensatory reproduction, produces more animals than it harvests: high hunting pressure leads to earlier sexual maturity and larger litters. The system intended to protect the protected forest exacerbates the problem it purports to solve (see the comprehensive dossier on hunting myths at wildbeimwild.com).

The political developments of recent years have further exacerbated the situation: The revision of the Federal Hunting Act in December 2022 introduced preventive wolf population control. Since February 2025, beavers may be shot upon request from the canton. Political pressure on lynx, otters, and other protected species is steadily increasing. The weakening of species protection at the legislative level makes its anchoring in the Federal Constitution imperative (see the analysis of hunting policy and wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The recreational hunting lobby opposes nature conservation efforts not only at the legislative level but also at the ballot box. On September 27, 2020, voters rejected the revision of the hunting law with 51.9 percent of the vote ( SRF ). On September 22, 2024, the biodiversity initiative failed with 63 percent voting against it, actively opposed by the recreational hunting lobby, the farmers' association, and the FDP ( SRF ). In 2016, the Ticino hunting association FCTI torpedoed the establishment of Switzerland's second national park, Parc Adula, with fear-mongering ( SRF ). During the 2015-2019 legislative period, recreational hunters in parliament voted overwhelmingly against environmental initiatives . This systematic obstruction is a key reason why wildlife protection must be enshrined in the constitution, resistant to the political pressure exerted by the recreational hunting lobby.

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. Before the ban, large game in the canton had been practically eradicated: deer and wild boar had been absent for decades, and only a few dozen roe deer remained. Over 400 recreational hunters released large numbers of pheasants, partridges, and hares for hunting.

The results after more than 50 years 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 brown hare population in Switzerland and one of the last grey partridge populations: 17.7 brown hares per 100 hectares, compared to 1.0 in the canton of Zurich.
The efficiency of professional wildlife management is proven: A game warden needs 8 hours and 2 cartridges for a targeted kill. A recreational hunter needs 60 to 80 hours and 15 cartridges for the same result.
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, distributed among personnel (around three full-time positions, divided among about a dozen environmental officers), prevention, and compensation for damages. This equates to roughly 2.40 Swiss francs per inhabitant per year.
The same pattern can be seen on a large scale in the Engadin National Park: Hunting has been prohibited for over 100 years, resulting in a stable population of chamois at 1,350 animals, while biodiversity has doubled.

A detailed account can be found in the dossier "Geneva and the hunting ban" on wildbeimwild.com.

3. Why a federal initiative?

Twenty-five cantonal initiatives mean twenty-five parallel campaigns, twenty-five signature drives, and twenty-five referendums – in cantons with very different political starting points, from Basel-Stadt to Graubünden, from Geneva to Appenzell Innerrhoden. A federal initiative decides everything at once and creates a uniform wildlife protection law for the whole of Switzerland.

Legal necessity. Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Federal Hunting Act (JSG) explicitly delegates the organization of hunting to the cantons. The three equivalent hunting systems – license hunting, territorial hunting, and state-run hunting – are currently regulated at the cantonal level. Only an amendment to the Federal Constitution can create a nationwide ban on recreational hunting. Article 79a of the Federal Constitution makes state-run hunting, modeled on the Geneva system, the federal standard (see wildbeimwild.com for information on hunting in Switzerland).

Signature hurdle. For a federal popular initiative, 100,000 valid signatures are required within 18 months. With 25 parallel cantonal campaigns and a well-organized national collection effort, this hurdle is realistic. By comparison, the hunting ban in Geneva was passed in 1974 with a simple popular initiative that mobilized less than a third of the electorate.

Double majority. A federal popular initiative requires a majority of both the people and the cantons. This is challenging, but achievable: Geneva has successfully used this system for 50 years. The financial arguments are applicable nationwide. Wolf policy mobilizes people throughout Switzerland. The animal welfare movement is firmly established throughout the country.

Geneva as a reference. If the model has worked in one Swiss canton for over 50 years, it will work everywhere – that is the initiative's strongest argument, and it can be applied throughout Switzerland (see Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

4. Cost implications

The Geneva reference budget
Geneva, with an area of 282 km² and around 500,000 inhabitants, spends approximately 1.2 million Swiss francs annually on professional wildlife management – 2.40 francs per inhabitant per year. Three full-time positions perform the work of over 400 former hobby hunters, more efficiently and cost-effectively.

Conservative forecast for Switzerland
For the whole of Switzerland, with an area of 41,285 km² and around 9 million inhabitants, the following deliberately conservative cost estimate results, which takes into account alpine topography, the establishment of livestock protection measures and transition management:

Personnel costs: 18 to 35 million Swiss francs annually. Approximately 150 to 250 full-time positions are required (specialists with training in wildlife biology or wildlife ecology). Focusing on conflict regions – the Alpine region with predators, the Swiss Plateau with wild boar and beavers, and lakeshore areas – allows for efficient staffing.
Operating costs: 5 to 10 million Swiss francs annually. Equipment, vehicles, monitoring infrastructure, livestock protection materials, IT, public relations and coordination between the cantons.
Compensation for damages: 3 to 8 million Swiss francs annually. Damage caused by wild animals in agriculture and forestry, browsing damage, beaver damage to waterways, wolf attacks.
Initial investment for livestock protection: 5 to 10 million Swiss francs (one-time cost). In the first five years after the system change, a one-time investment in livestock protection infrastructure is needed for the Alpine cantons: livestock guardian dog programs, mobile fences, night enclosures, and training for shepherds. This investment is not recurring.

Total gross costs: 26 to 53 million Swiss francs annually. After deducting the eliminated administrative costs for hunting exams, license administration, culling planning and game management, as well as the current costs for wolf culls (around 35,000 Swiss francs per cull), the net additional expenditure amounts to approximately 15 to 40 million Swiss francs annually.

Per capita: 1.70 to 4.50 Swiss francs per inhabitant per year. That's less than a cup of coffee. In contrast, there are the never-accounted-for external costs of recreational hunting: 76 million Swiss francs in wildlife accident insurance costs, 3.6 million Swiss francs in SUVA (Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund) costs for hunting accidents, and a substantial portion of the 150 million Swiss francs in protective forest maintenance costs, which are attributable to the displacement effect caused by hunting.

In relation to the total budget. The federal government and the cantons together have a total budget of approximately 100 billion Swiss francs. The net additional costs amount to less than 0.05 percent of this budget.

5. Regarding the initiative text

Article 79a of the Federal Constitution – Professional wildlife protection

Article 79a paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution – Prohibition of recreational hunting
The core of the initiative is the federal ban on recreational hunting by private individuals. It corresponds to the Geneva model, which has been practiced in accordance with federal law since 1974. Article 79a of the Federal Constitution effectively replaces Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Hunting Act as a delegation provision and creates a clear federal legal basis for the nationwide ban. Unlike a statutory amendment, this constitutional amendment cannot be changed by Parliament and permanently protects the ban against political pressure from the recreational hunting lobby.

Article 79a paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution – Professional wildlife management
Instead of amateur hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the cantonal government handle all tasks related to wildlife care and, where necessary, population control. These specialists have a background in biology or wildlife ecology and act on a scientific basis and in the public interest.

Article 79a paragraph 3 of the Federal Constitution – Shooting as a last resort
The key innovation compared to the current system: Shooting is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures – electric fences, deterrents, relocation, habitat management – take precedence. The requirement for approval by the independent Wildlife Commission according to Art. 79a para. 3 of the Federal Constitution prevents political pressure from individual interest groups from weakening wildlife management.

Article 79a paragraph 4 of the Federal Constitution – Wildlife Commissions
The independent wildlife commissions are modeled on the Geneva model of the constitutional fauna commission. Their composition, comprising representatives from animal and nature conservation organizations, science, and government agencies, ensures that decisions are evidence-based and not based on the hunting-ideological myths with which the recreational hunting lobby has legitimized its practices for decades.

Article 79b of the Federal Constitution – Protection of threatened and protected wild animal species

Article 79b of the Federal Constitution is particularly effective at the federal level: it prevents Parliament from gradually eroding species protection, as happened with the 2022 revision of the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage (JSG). The prohibition of preventive population control for wolves, lynxes, bears, beavers, otters, and golden eagles is designed as a dynamic provision and also protects future returning species. The "minimum clause" for immediate danger to humans ensures that the initiative does not create protection situations that would be unmanageable in practice (see wildbeimwild.com on predators and wolf policy).

Transitional provisions relating to Articles 79a and 79b of the Federal Constitution

The three-year timeframe (compared to two years in the cantonal initiatives) takes into account the greater complexity of a nationwide system change: The Federal Council must draft implementing legislation, the 26 cantons must establish wildlife commissions and hire professional wildlife managers. The existing staff of the cantonal hunting inspectorates can serve as an institutional basis. The pro rata reimbursement of license fees and lease payments prevents unjust enrichment of the public purse at the expense of private individuals who entered into contracts in good faith.

6. Compatibility with higher-ranking law

Federal Constitutional Conformity
A federal popular initiative in the form of the finalized draft, which directly amends the Federal Constitution, is by definition compliant with federal law: The new provisions of Art. 79a of the Federal Constitution (professional wildlife protection) and Art. 79b of the Federal Constitution (protection of threatened and protected wildlife species) take precedence over the Hunting Act and create the new constitutional basis for the nationwide ban on recreational hunting and the protection of protected species. They supersede Art. 3 para. 1 of the Hunting Act as a delegation provision, insofar as it delegates the organization of recreational hunting to the cantons, and authorize the Federal Council to enact the implementing legislation within the framework of Art. 79a and 79b of the Federal Constitution.

Berne Convention and international law
Switzerland has entered reservations to the Bern Convention on the Conservation of Wild Fauna and Flora, which permit the hunting of certain species. The prohibition of recreational hunting and preventive population control of protected species, enshrined in Articles 79a and 79b of the Federal Constitution, points towards higher protection standards and does not contradict the spirit of the Bern Convention; rather, it strengthens the protection of endangered species required under international law. The EU Habitats Directive is not applicable, as Switzerland is not an EU member.

Guarantee of ownership
Under Swiss law, the hunting prerogative – the right to hunt wild animals – rests with the state, not with private individuals. Recreational hunters derive their hunting rights from the state (through a license or lease agreement). There is no private property right to hunting rights that would be infringed by Articles 79a or 79b of the Federal Constitution. The pro rata reimbursement of fees and lease payments stipulated in the transitional provisions to Articles 79a and 79b of the Federal Constitution ensures that there is no unjustified infringement of property rights.

Unity of matter
The initiative maintains the unity of subject matter: Art. 79a BV, Art. 79b BV, the transitional provision and the explanatory notes relate exclusively to the protection and management of wild animals on Swiss territory and are closely related in substance.

Voting behavior: Hobby hunters versus nature conservation

The claim that hobby hunters are the "greatest conservationists" is refuted by their voting behavior:

Hunting Law 2020: 51.9 percent No. The relaxation of wolf protection, which was significantly influenced by the hobby hunting lobby, was rejected by the electorate ( SRF ).
Biodiversity Initiative 2024: 63 percent vote no. Actively opposed by the hobby hunting lobby, the farmers' association, and the FDP ( SRF ).
Parc Adula 2016: The second Swiss national park, torpedoed by the hobby hunting lobby with fear-mongering propaganda. The FCTI (Ticino Hunting Association) openly opposed the park ( wildbeimwild.com ).
Ptarmigan protection Ticino 2021: The FCTI fought unsuccessfully against the protection of the endangered ptarmigan.
Lead-free ammunition 2023: Motion by Martina Munz rejected by 99 to 94 votes, with active resistance from hobby hunters in parliament.
Legislative period 2015 to 2019: Hobby hunters in the Swiss Parliament were mostly politically opposed to environmental concerns.

In short: "Hobby hunters in politics vote against national parks, against biodiversity, against species protection. The facts are clear."

7. Anticipating foreseeable objections

"Too expensive"
The facts: 1.70 to 4.50 Swiss francs per person per year. Less than a cup of coffee. Less than 0.05 percent of the total budget of the federal and cantonal governments. This contrasts with 76 million Swiss francs in wildlife accident insurance costs, 3.6 million Swiss francs in SUVA (Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund) hunting accident costs, and a substantial portion of the 150 million Swiss francs in protective forest maintenance costs, all of which are borne by the general public.
A concise communicative formula: "Less than one coffee per person per year. Less than 0.05 percent of the budget."

"Wildlife populations are exploding"
The facts: 50 years of Geneva and 100 years of the Engadine National Park prove the opposite. In Geneva, chamois populations have stabilized at a healthy, forest-compatible level. In the Engadine National Park, chamois populations have remained stable at 1,350 animals for decades. Wildlife populations regulate themselves through competition for food, territorial defense, disease, and natural predator-prey cycles. Recreational hunting disrupts this natural regulation through compensatory reproduction (see studies on wildbeimwild.com).

A concise communicative formula: "50 years of Geneva. 100 years of the national park. Populations are stable. The facts disprove the myth."

"Tradition and Culture"
The facts: Tradition does not legitimize animal cruelty. The Engadine National Park has a longer hunting-free tradition than militia-based recreational hunting in its current form. Swiss animal welfare legislation has gradually expanded the protection of sentient beings over the last 50 years. This initiative is the logical next step.

A concise communicative formula: "The national park has a longer tradition. And nature is richer there."

"A majority of cantons is impossible."
The facts: In 2005, 90 percent of Geneva's voters supported maintaining the hunting ban. The initiative breaks a taboo, but the financial argument ("less than a coffee"), the Geneva evidence model, and the wolf policy are mobilizing support in cantons outside the urban centers. A majority of cantons is challenging, but not impossible: Geneva, Basel-Stadt, Neuchâtel, Jura, and Ticino are realistically likely to support it. A broad coalition of animal welfare, nature conservation, and agricultural associations (the livestock protection argument) is crucial.

A concise communicative formula: "Geneva has 90% approval. The facts are convincing. Switzerland will surprise us."

"The protected forest needs recreational hunting."
The facts: Recreational hunting drives wild animals into the forest (displacement effect) instead of reducing browsing pressure. Despite intensive recreational hunting, the proportion of protective forest area with tolerable wildlife impact has fallen from over two-thirds (2015) to less than half (WSL/BAFU Forest Report 2025). In the Alpine regions, between one-third and over 40 percent of the protective forest area exhibits silviculturally problematic browsing pressure. Wolves demonstrably reduce browsing pressure through the "landscape of fear" principle, without the need for recreational hunters (see the protective forest myth dossier on wildbeimwild.com).

In short: "Recreational hunting exacerbates the browsing problem it claims to solve. The figures prove it."

8. Summary

This initiative allows the Swiss electorate to vote in favor of modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wildlife species. Article 79a of the Federal Constitution follows the Geneva model, which has proven successful for over 50 years, and replaces recreational hunting with professional wildlife conservation. Article 79b of the Federal Constitution protects wolves, lynxes, bears, beavers, otters, and golden eagles from preventive culling at the federal level and makes the protection standards resistant to political pressure.

A federal initiative is more efficient than 25 cantonal campaigns: one signature drive, one vote, one system change. Gathering 100,000 signatures in 18 months is realistic for a well-organized national campaign. The required double majority is challenging, but achievable. The result would be a Switzerland where wildlife is neither target for recreational hunters nor victimized by politically motivated culling policies, but rather professionally protected as an integral part of a living ecosystem – for the benefit of the animals and the entire population.

Initiative Committee «For Professional Wildlife Protection»

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3]…

(Committee members residing in Switzerland and entitled to vote at the federal level)

Contact address: [Address of the committee]

Appendix: Further documentation

The following dossiers and sources support the arguments of this initiative and are available as attachments:

Geneva model in detail: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/genf-und-das-jagdverbot – Comprehensive presentation of Geneva's wildlife management since 1974 with costs, population figures and biodiversity development.

What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com – The bill that nobody presents – Full cost accounting of recreational hunting including external costs, wildlife accidents and damage to protected forests.

Hunting myths fact check: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen – Scientifically sound refutation of the most common claims of the hobby hunting lobby.

Scientific studies: wildbeimwild.com/studies – Collection of scientific studies on the self-regulation of wildlife populations and the ecological impacts of recreational hunting.

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

Wolf Dossier: wildbeimwild.com/category/wolf – Current developments in wolf policy in Switzerland, pack documentation, JSG revision 2022.

Predators: wildbeimwild.com/category/raubtiere – Information on wolves, lynxes, bears and other predators in Switzerland.

Psychology of recreational hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd – Comprehensive articles on the psychology of recreational hunting.

Engadin National Park: wildbeimwild.com/category/nationalpark – 100 years of hunting-free protected area as a scientific reference model.

Wild animals in residential areas: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere-im-siedlungsgebiet – Background information on the coexistence of humans and wild animals in urban and suburban areas.

Hunting accidents: wildbeimwild.com/jagdunfaelle – Documentation of hunting accidents in Switzerland, SUVA statistics, fatalities since 2000.

Hunting training: wildbeimwild.com/die-jagdausbildung – Critical analysis of hunting training in comparison to professional wildlife management training.

Basel-Stadt Cantonal Popular Initiative (Proposal): wildbeimwild.com – Basel-Stadt Cantonal Popular Initiative – The proposal for the entire cantonal initiative series from which the federal initiative emerged.

Federal Hunting Statistics: jagdstatistik.ch (BAFU) – Official shooting and license statistics of the Federal Office for the Environment.

Strategic briefing for activists

Federal popular initiative “For professional wildlife protection” Internal working document – as of March 2026

Summary

A federal initiative is the most consistent and efficient strategy for a nationwide system change in wildlife management. Instead of 25 parallel cantonal campaigns, many of which would be doomed from the outset in cantons with strong hunting traditions, a single national campaign allows for a decision at the federal level. 100,000 signatures in 18 months, the required double majority, and the political resistance of the recreational hunting lobby are real hurdles. But the Geneva model, established over 50 years ago, the commitment to true cost accounting, and wolf policy as a mobilizing issue provide a starting point that truly makes a federal initiative possible.

1. Why a federal initiative?

Efficiency. One federal campaign instead of 25 cantonal campaigns. One collection, one vote, one system change.

Legal necessity. Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Hunting Act delegates hunting to the cantons. Only an amendment to the Federal Constitution can create a nationwide ban. The initiative makes state-managed hunting the federal standard.

Overcoming the weakness of the cantonal strategy. In many cantons – Graubünden, Valais, Uri, Schwyz, Appenzell – recreational hunting is so deeply rooted in the culture that cantonal initiatives have no chance of success in the foreseeable future. A national referendum allows the urban majority to act as a counterweight.

Wolf policy as a national mobilization issue. The 2022 revision of the Hunting and Wildlife Management Act (JSG) has elevated the wolf debate to the national level. The species protection clause of the initiative builds on this and is mobilizing support throughout Switzerland.

Geneva as a national reference model. The strongest argument is applicable nationally: If it has worked in Geneva for 50 years, it will work everywhere – in Zurich, in Bern, in Valais, in Graubünden.

2. Lessons learned from the cantonal campaigns

A positive title. "For professional wildlife protection" instead of "Game wardens instead of hunters" or "Hunting ban." The positive title describes what the initiative stands for, not what it opposes.

A concrete budget calculation. 1.70 to 4.50 Swiss francs per person per year. Less than a coffee. Less than 0.05 percent of the budget. The Zurich experience shows: Inaccurate or inflated cost estimates from the other side can be fatal. Your own calculations must be watertight.

A broad coalition from the outset: the Social Democratic Party (SP), the Green Party, the Green Liberal Party (GLP), and the Evangelical People's Party (EVP) at the national level. Pro Natura Switzerland, WWF Switzerland, and BirdLife Switzerland are also involved, along with animal welfare organizations and academic support. Wolf policy makes nature conservation associations natural allies.

Species conservation as a means of broadening coalition support. The second article mobilizes nature conservation associations that have so far been defensive in the wolf debate. This makes the initiative broader than a mere "hunting ban" initiative.

Secure early party support. In the National Council and the Council of States, a left-green-liberal parliamentary majority exists in urban cantons. Early involvement prevents the Zurich debacle (0:165 in the cantonal parliament).

3. Special Challenges

100,000 signatures in 18 months. That equates to roughly 185 signatures per day. With a professional collection organization employing paid collectors in major cities (Zurich, Bern, Basel, Geneva, Lausanne), this is realistic. A national campaign with coordinated online and offline signature collection is crucial.

Double majority. The cantonal majority requires a majority in 12 of the 23 cantonal votes (20 cantons + 6 half-cantons at 0.5 each). Small rural cantons with strong hunting cultures pose a challenge. The strategy must win over the urban cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel-Stadt and Basel-Land, Geneva, Vaud, Neuchâtel, Jura, Ticino) with a clear majority while simultaneously avoiding rejection in cantons with a strong hunting culture.

Resistance from the organized recreational hunting lobby. JagdSchweiz, the cantonal hunting associations, and the forestry and agricultural interests associated with recreational hunting will wage a well-funded counter-campaign. The cost argument and the claim of a "wildlife population explosion" are the central counterarguments. Both can be refuted by the Geneva model and the national park.

Media framing. Hobby hunting is often portrayed uncritically in rural media. The national campaign must actively engage with quality journalism, social media, and direct dialogue with the urban population.

Campaign budget. The truth about costs also applies to the initiators: A federal popular initiative against recreational hunting cannot be won with leaflets and volunteer work alone. To prevail against the well-funded counter-campaign by the Swiss Farmers' Union, Hunting Switzerland, and allies, a national campaign budget of at least 2 to 3 million Swiss francs is needed – the aim is 4 to 5 million francs for a campaign on equal footing. With 9 million inhabitants, this equates to approximately 0.25 to 0.55 francs per capita and is significantly less than the annual costs of recreational hunting currently borne by the general public.

Organization and financing. The federal initiative needs a professional foundation: a national steering committee with clear financial transparency and a broad alliance of animal welfare, nature conservation, environmental, and livestock protection organizations. Donations and membership fees will not be used for constant lobbying, but for a one-time systemic correction: away from subsidized recreational hunting for 0.3 percent of the population, towards professional wildlife protection in the interest of all.

4. Opponent analysis and prepared answers

Counterargument 1: "Too expensive – the state cannot finance this"

The facts: 1.70 to 4.50 Swiss francs per person per year. Less than 0.05 percent of the total budget of the federal government and the cantons. This contrasts sharply with the 76 million Swiss francs in wildlife accident insurance costs currently borne by the general public. Recreational hunting costs Switzerland more than it brings in.

A concise communicative formula: "Less than one coffee per person per year. Hobby hunting costs us significantly more today."

Counterargument 2: "Wildlife populations would explode without recreational hunting"

The facts: 50 years of Geneva, 100 years of the Engadine National Park. Stable populations, greater biodiversity, lower browsing pressure. Compensatory reproduction shows: recreational hunting produces more animals than it takes.

A concise communicative formula: "50 years of Geneva. 100 years of the National Park. The facts disprove the myth."

Counterargument 3: "A majority of cantons is impossible"

The facts: 90 percent voted in favor in Geneva in 2005. The cost argument is strong in small cantons with few recreational hunters spread across large areas: The population bears the costs but has no interest in recreational hunting. Wolf policy also mobilizes support in cantons with mountain farming in the interest of livestock protection.

A concise communicative formula: "90% in Geneva. The facts speak for themselves. Switzerland will surprise you."

Counterargument 4: "Hunting as a hobby is part of Swiss culture"

The facts: Approximately 30,000 recreational hunters out of 9 million inhabitants represent 0.3 percent of the population. Tradition does not legitimize animal cruelty. The national park has a longer hunting-free tradition than militia-based recreational hunting in its current form. In Geneva, 90 percent of the population has approved the hunting ban, even though it has changed their "culture."

A concise communicative formula: "0.3 percent of the population. The national park has a longer tradition. 90% in Geneva."

Counterargument 5: "The protective forest needs recreational hunting"

The facts: Browsing pressure in protective forests has increased despite intensive recreational hunting. Recreational hunting drives animals into the forest (displacement effect). Wolves demonstrably reduce browsing pressure through the "landscape of fear" principle. Maintaining protective forests costs the public 150 million Swiss francs per year – even though recreational hunting continues.

A concise communicative formula: "150 million francs for protective forest maintenance – despite recreational hunting. The displacement effect is proven."

5. Communication strategy: The three core messages

“Geneva has been demonstrating it for 50 years. What works there works everywhere in Switzerland.” The strongest argument is empirical and local: A Swiss canton has proven it. Not a Scandinavian country, not an American national park – Geneva, Switzerland.

"Less than the cost of a coffee per person per year. Recreational hunting costs us significantly more than that today." The cost argument must be presented proactively. A full cost analysis shows that recreational hunting is a subsidized project for 0.3 percent of the population at the expense of everyone else.

"Professional wildlife protection instead of hobby hunting. For the animals, for the forest, for all of us." The positive title conveys the message: The initiative is not against hunters, but for modern, evidence-based wildlife management in the public interest.

6. Timeline and next steps

phase	Contents	Timeframe
Committee formation and preliminary text review	Consult a legal expert at the federal level; committee members must reside in Switzerland and have federal voting rights; preliminary review by the Federal Chancellery	Months 1–4
Submission for preliminary review	Federal Chancellery (Art. 68 BPR); official publication in the Federal Gazette	Month 4–5
Collective start	18-month timeframe; target: 120,000+ signatures as a buffer; professional signature collection organization in all major cities from day one.	Month 5
Coalition building	SP, Greens, GLP, EVP national; Pro Natura, WWF, BirdLife, animal welfare organizations; academic support; wolf policy as a coalition issue	Months 1–15
Submission of signatures	Federal Chancellery, official review	Month 18–20
Parliamentary consultation	National Council and Council of States; message from the Federal Council; intensify media relations	Months 20–36
Voting campaign	Final mobilization; Geneva argument; true cost accounting; wolf policy; mobilizing the urban majority	Months 36–42

7. Campaign material

The Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com serves as the central argument and proof of what is feasible.
The full cost calculation of hobby hunting on wildbeimwild.com as a counter-argument to the "too expensive" accusation.
The hunting myths fact check on wildbeimwild.com as response material to counterarguments.
National media: SRF, NZZ, Tages-Anzeiger, Le Temps, La Liberté, Corriere del Ticino, 20 Minutes, Watson.
Infographic: Cost comparison Switzerland vs. Geneva; Wildlife collisions vs. management costs; Biodiversity Geneva vs. hunting cantons; 50 years of the National Park.
Trilingual campaign materials (German, French, Italian) from the start.
Collection tables in Zurich, Bern, Basel, Geneva, Lausanne, Lugano, Winterthur, St. Gallen as main locations.

8. 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 political situation at the federal level.

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 →