Template text: Hunting ban modeled on Geneva
The canton of Geneva has demonstrated for decades that abandoning recreational hunting is possible and that neither security nor agriculture nor biodiversity suffer as a result. On the contrary: Private hunting is prohibited, the regulation of wildlife lies with state game wardens who act in a targeted manner and under clear responsibility of the community.
1. Motion
The government council is tasked with submitting to the Grand Council a proposal to amend the law on hunting and wildlife protection (………), the law on forest and nature (………) as well as other relevant ordinances, through which recreational hunting in the canton (………) is gradually abolished and replaced by professional wildlife management modeled on the canton of Geneva. The legal revision must in particular ensure,
- that a concept for the conversion from the current license or territory hunting system to a state-responsible wildlife management is developed, which
- provides for the abolition of private hunting of mammals and birds
- contains a binding step-by-step plan with pilot regions, transitional provisions and an end date for recreational hunting.
- that after the expiry of the transition period, sovereign interventions in wildlife populations (particularly culling due to wildlife damage, traffic safety, animal diseases or animal suffering) are carried out exclusively by cantonal game wardens or other professionally appointed specialists, comparable to the system in the canton of Geneva.
- that the tasks, competencies and responsibilities of the cantonal game management are defined such that
- wildlife management is clearly separated from recreational activities
- operations are based on comprehensible criteria such as damage prevention, traffic safety and animal welfare
- the methods employed correspond to current standards of ethics, technology and safety (such as the use of night vision and thermal imaging technology to minimize missed shots and accidents, as practiced in Geneva).
- that non-lethal measures systematically receive priority over lethal interventions, specifically
- protective measures in agriculture (fences, electric fences, deterrence, adaptation of crops)
- measures in forests according to forest-wildlife concepts
- where appropriate, further innovative instruments of fertility control or deterrence, as they are already being tested or examined in discussions around deer and other species.
- that the financing of the new system is regulated transparently, in particular
- the existing hunting license or district revenues are replaced by suitable, socially compatible instruments
- the costs of wildlife management and damage prevention are transparently documented and compared with the current situation (recreational hunting plus compensation)
- the cantonal government explains whether, following the Geneva model, existing wildlife warden positions can be utilized or need to be adapted.
- that the cantonal government submits a report that
- summarizes the Canton of Geneva's experiences with the hunting ban since 1974 (development of wildlife populations, biodiversity, damage in agriculture and forestry, costs, public acceptance)
- compares the current situation in the canton (………) with this
- shows which adaptations of federal law would be necessary or sensible to establish a model based on Geneva's example across cantons.
- that the canton (………) advocates at federal level and in intercantonal bodies for
- professional wildlife administration by state wildlife wardens to be recognized as an equal or superior alternative to recreational hunting
- the legal foundations to be further developed so that cantons with hunting bans for recreational hunters have no financial or organizational disadvantages compared to hunting cantons.
The cantonal government considers the necessary transitional provisions in its proposal, particularly for existing hunting leases, already issued licenses, ongoing hunting plans and the socially compatible reduction of the existing recreational hunter population.
2. Brief justification
The Canton of Geneva has had a general hunting ban for private hunters since 1974. The population decided in a referendum to abandon militia hunting of mammals and birds. Since then, the right to shoot wildlife lies with the state: culling is carried out by cantonally employed wildlife wardens within the framework of officially responsible wildlife management.
The balance after several decades is remarkable:
- Biodiversity has developed positively, many wildlife populations have stabilized or increased. Evaluations show that primarily waterfowl and other sensitive species benefit from the hunting-free tranquility.
- Problem species such as wild boar are regulated through targeted, professionally planned culling. The animals are killed in demarcated operations by wildlife wardens, instead of being hunted by a large number of recreational hunters throughout the entire hunting season.
- In Geneva, modern technical aids such as light amplifiers and infrared devices are used. Culling takes place under controlled conditions at night. This increases shooting accuracy, reduces disturbance and reduces the risk of accidents compared to recreational hunting widespread during the day.
Geneva thus refutes central narratives of the hunting lobby: Neither does agriculture collapse, nor do wildlife damages inevitably explode when private hunters are eliminated. What matters is not the number of armed individuals in the forest, but planned, professional management with clear objectives and responsibilities.
At the same time, the Geneva system strengthens fundamental principles of a modern constitutional state:
- Sovereign interventions in wildlife populations are a task of the public sector and not of private recreational groups.
- The population can exercise political responsibility and control because management runs through democratically legitimized authorities.
- Animal welfare, safety and nature conservation interests can be better coordinated when public agencies rather than hunting associations take the lead.
The canton (………) faces major challenges like other cantons: return of large predators, climate crisis, increasing recreational use, conflicts over forests, agriculture and biodiversity. A hunting system based on recreational hunting with licenses or territories has grown historically, but is not necessarily the best answer to these challenges.
According to federal law, no canton in Switzerland must provide for recreational hunting. It is the right of the cantons to decide whether hunting is permitted or not. If a canton decides against hunting or even only partially against hunting, it can freely do so according to the federal constitution. The canton of Geneva has long chosen this exemplary path.
Geneva shows that another path is possible: wildlife policy without recreational hunting, but with targeted interventions by game wardens, clear concepts and high transparency. After fifty years of experience, this model is no longer at the beginning, but offers a solid foundation for other cantons that want to fundamentally modernize their hunting regulations.
With the present motion, the government council is not called upon to copy Geneva unreflectively. Rather, it should:
- systematically evaluate the experiences of the canton of Geneva
- develop its own concept tailored to the conditions in canton (………) for professional wildlife management without recreational hunting
- show how a socially compatible, legally compliant and financeable conversion can be realized in several steps.
Thus canton (………) can become a pioneer of contemporary wildlife law that centers animal welfare, safety, biodiversity and democratic control over armed interventions in nature.