Cantonal popular initiative: Canton of Zug

«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of a drafted proposal

Based on § 35 in conjunction with § 79 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Canton of Zug of 31 January 1894 (current version) and on the Act on Elections and Votes (WAG)

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Text of the initiative

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

The Constitution of the Canton of Zug is to be supplemented by the following paragraphs:

§ [new] Professional wildlife protection

1 The exercise of hunting by private individuals (licence hunting, recreational hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Canton of Zug.

2 The protection, care and, where necessary, regulation of wild animals shall be the exclusive responsibility of professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the canton.

3 The killing of wild animals is only permitted as a last resort, when all other suitable measures for preventing damage or averting danger have been exhausted or are insufficient. It requires prior approval by the Wildlife Commission.

4 The canton shall establish an independent Wildlife Commission, composed of representatives of animal welfare and nature conservation organisations, the scientific community and the authorities concerned. The commission shall oversee wildlife management and decide on regulatory measures.

5 The canton shall promote the natural regulation of wildlife populations, the connectivity of habitats and the coexistence of humans and wild animals.

6 Further details shall be regulated by law.

§ [new] Protection of endangered and protected wild animal species

1 The canton refrains from regulating populations of protected wild animal species pursuant to Art. 7a of the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds and does not grant kill permits for individual animals of protected species pursuant to Art. 12 para. 2 of this Act, in particular not for wolf, lynx, bear, beaver, otter, golden jackal, golden eagle, goosander and other species protected under federal law. Paragraph 3 remains reserved.

2 It relies on fostering coexistence between humans and wild animals, passive damage prevention, the ecological enhancement of habitats and the scientific monitoring of wild animal presence.

3 Measures against individual wild animals that pose an immediate and significant danger to humans remain reserved. They are to be limited to the minimum necessary and carried out by the canton's competent specialist authority.

4 The canton actively advocates for the protection and preservation of endangered wild animal species within the framework of inter-cantonal cooperation and towards the Confederation.

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 licences expire upon the entry into force of the implementing provisions. Patent fees already paid for the current hunting season will be reimbursed on a pro-rata basis.

3 The cantonal government shall ensure continuity of wildlife management during the transitional phase.

Explanatory notes

1. Starting position

The Canton of Zug covers 239 km² and has around 130,000 inhabitants. It is one of the wealthiest and most densely populated cantons in Switzerland. The cantonal territory consists of a mixture of urban settlement areas around the city of Zug and the municipalities of Baar, Cham and Risch-Rotkreuz, agriculturally used lowland areas, as well as the Zugerberg and pre-alpine regions.

Recreational hunting in Zug is organised as licence hunting. Around 230 private individuals purchase a cantonal licence and hunt without fixed responsibility for a particular ground. The main hunt is the roe deer hunt in October and November, traditionally conducted as a « noisy hunt » with scent hounds: dogs drive roe deer from their cover, the animals flee along so-called crossing paths where the recreational hunters are stationed and shoot the roe deer in motion with shotgun fire. Hunting may only take place on three days of the week: Monday, Wednesday and Saturday. What sounds like strict regulation is, from a psychological perspective, the packaging of a leisure activity as an orderly system (see the Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Zug).

The licence system creates no professional added value compared with professional wildlife management: licence hunting does not tie the recreational hunting community to a specific area, making coordinated wildlife management more difficult. At the same time, the system is administratively burdensome for the canton: examination procedures, licence administration, kill quota planning and hunting supervision tie up resources that would be deployed more efficiently under a professional model (see the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com).

Since 1993, hunting of the hare has been suspended in the canton of Zug. This moratorium was introduced at the request of the Zug recreational hunters themselves, "to promote population numbers". Refraining from killing a species that should not really be killed is presented as evidence of a sense of responsibility. At the same time, waterfowl remain on the kill list, and the "loud hunt" with dogs for roe deer is framed as cultural heritage. The justification shifts from function to identity: hunting is no longer carried out because it is necessary, but because it has always been done this way.

The claim that without recreational hunting the ecological balance would collapse has been empirically disproven by the Geneva model for over 50 years (cf. the comprehensive dossier on the Geneva hunting ban on wildbeimwild.com). At 239 km², Zug even has a smaller area than Geneva (282 km²). If professional wildlife protection has been working on 282 km² for over 50 years, there is no reason why it should not work on 239 km².

At the same time, more and more protected wild animal species are coming under pressure at the federal level. Political pressure on species such as the lynx, beaver, otter and goosander is steadily increasing (see the analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com).

2. The role model: canton of Geneva

On 19 May 1974, a good 70 percent of those voting in the canton of Geneva voted in favour of abolishing militia-based recreational hunting. The experience since the ban on recreational hunting has been unequivocal:

Biodiversity has increased markedly. 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 and one of the last grey partridge populations in Switzerland. Before the 1974 vote, the recreational hunting lobby had claimed that the brown hare would be wiped out by Predators without recreational hunting. The opposite has occurred.
The roe deer population has settled at a healthy level, with an annual special cull by professional game wardens of just 20 to 36 animals.
The ban has been in force continuously for over 50 years. Geneva has never lifted it. The total costs amount to around 1.2 million Swiss francs annually, or around 2.40 francs per inhabitant. The efficiency of the Geneva model is evident in a direct comparison: a professional game warden in Geneva needs, on average, 8 hours and a maximum of 2 cartridges for a sanitary kill 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 density of brown hares in Geneva is 17.7 animals per 100 hectares (the highest in Switzerland), whereas in the canton of Zurich it is only 1.0 per 100 hectares (cf. fact check by the Zurich Cantonal Council).

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

3. The concept: professional wildlife wardens instead of recreational hunting

The initiative replaces recreational hunting with professional wildlife management based on the game warden model:

Professional expertise instead of leisure pursuit. Professional wildlife managers act on a scientific basis, within the framework of a cantonal service mandate. Their goal is the preservation of healthy wildlife populations, not the maximisation of kill numbers.

Last-resort principle. A kill is only permitted once all non-lethal measures have been exhausted: electric fences, deterrence, habitat design, and structural protective measures.

Democratic oversight through a wildlife commission. The independent commission prevents political pressure from diluting wildlife management.

Natural self-regulation as a guiding principle. Experience from Geneva, from national parks and from numerous scientific Studies documented: wildlife populations regulate themselves independently in most cases. Recreational hunting disrupts this process by destroying social structures and artificially increasing reproduction rates.

4. Why Zug?

Zug is particularly well suited to introducing professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

Smaller than Geneva. Zug covers 239 km², Geneva 282 km². The canton of Zug is even smaller than the Geneva reference model. If professional wildlife protection has worked on 282 km² for over 50 years, there is no factual argument why it should not work on 239 km².

Recreational hunters in politics vote against nature conservation. The recreational hunting lobby systematically opposes biodiversity and species protection concerns. In 2024, it fought against the Biodiversity Initiative (63 per cent No). In 2020, the hunting act it had helped shape failed at the ballot box (51.9 per cent No). In 2016, the Ticino hunting association torpedoed the Parc Adula national park. During the 2015–2019 legislative period, recreational hunters in parliament voted predominantly against environmental concerns. Anyone who claims that recreational hunters are nature conservationists is ignoring their voting behaviour (cf. Ticino Hunting Association: 30 Years of Nonsense and Cost dossier).

One of the wealthiest cantons in Switzerland. Zug has the financial capacity to fund professional wildlife management without any noticeable burden. With estimated net additional costs of around 1.15 to 1.90 francs per resident per year, the cost argument that decided the vote in Zurich is ineffective in Zug.

Urban and densely populated. Around three-quarters of the Zug population live in the almost entirely urban municipalities of Zug, Baar, Cham and Risch-Rotkreuz. The cultural tradition of hunting is less deeply rooted than in mountain cantons.

Only 230 recreational hunters. In relation to a population of 130,000, 230 active licence holders represent a vanishingly small minority. Political feasibility is higher than in cantons with thousands of licences.

Licence hunting as a conceptually simpler system change. Unlike in territorial-hunting cantons (Basel-Landschaft, Schaffhausen, Aargau, Zurich), no hunting lease agreements need to be dissolved in Zug, and no municipalities need to be compensated for lost lease income. The licences simply expire once the implementing provisions come into force. The system change is therefore administratively and legally less complex.

«Loud hunting» as a communicative weak point. Zug's roe deer hunting with scent hounds (in which dogs drive roe deer out of their cover in a state of panic, and the fleeing animals are then shot) is a form of hunting that meets with little understanding among the non-hunting-affine population. The initiative offers the opportunity to replace this practice with professional, low-stress wildlife management.

5. On the first paragraph: professional wildlife protection

Paragraph 1: Ban on licence hunting

The ban on licence hunting by private individuals is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model (Art. 162 of the Geneva cantonal constitution). Cantonal competence in this matter is undisputed: the federal Hunting Act (JSG) explicitly leaves the organisation of hunting operations to the cantons (Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG). The three hunting systems in Switzerland (licence hunting, territorial hunting and state or administered hunting) are equivalent. The canton of Geneva has practised administered hunting since 1974 in compliance with federal law.

Unlike territorial hunting cantons (BL, SH, AG, ZH), there is no need in Zug to terminate hunting lease agreements or compensate municipalities. Existing licences expire upon entry into force of the implementing provisions. Licence fees already paid are refunded on a pro-rata basis. The system change is thus administratively and legally less complex than in territorial hunting cantons.

Paragraph 2: Professional wildlife management

Professionally trained wildlife managers in cantonal service take over all tasks of wildlife care and, where necessary, population regulation. The existing Office for Forest and Wildlife of the canton of Zug provides the institutional platform for establishing these specialist units.

Paragraph 3: Kill as a last resort

A kill is not the rule but the exception. In Geneva, game wardens kill an average of around 250 wild boars per year, with lead animals explicitly spared for ethical reasons. The kill numbers are thus considerably lower than in comparable cantons with recreational hunting.

Paragraph 4: Wildlife commission

The independent wildlife commission is modelled on the Geneva system. It ensures that decisions are made on an evidence-based basis and are not founded on the hunting-ideological myths with which the recreational hunting lobby legitimises its practice.

Paragraph 5: Natural regulation and coexistence

In Zug, the connectivity of habitats between the Zugerberg, Lake Zug and the adjoining agricultural areas is particularly important. Wildlife corridors are indispensable for genetic diversity and the natural spread of species. The current licence system offers no territory-based coordination that could ensure such connectivity (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wild animals in settlement areas).

Transitional provisions

The two-year deadline gives the cantonal government sufficient time to draft the implementing legislation and hire professional wildlife managers. Unlike territorial hunting cantons, there is no sunset clause for lease agreements: licences expire directly upon entry into force. The pro-rata refund of licence fees already paid preserves the protection of legitimate expectations.

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

For Zug, the second paragraph is relevant because of the presence of protected species in the canton: the beaver is documented on Lake Zug and its tributaries. Waterfowl overwinter in large numbers on Lake Zug. The return of the otter to central Switzerland is foreseeable. The revised federal hunting act (Art. 7a JSG) authorises the cantons to carry out preventive regulation, but does not oblige them to do so. The same applies to kill permits for individual animals under Art. 12 para. 2 JSG. With this paragraph, the canton is merely exercising its authority not to make use of this power (cf. the analysis of wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

7. Cost implications: Concrete budget for Zug

For Zug, with an area of 239 km² and around 130,000 inhabitants, the following cost estimate results:

Personnel costs: CHF 240,000 to 280,000 annually. Two full-time positions for professional wildlife managers are required. Zug is smaller in area than Geneva (239 vs. 282 km²). A full-time position in the cantonal service costs around 120,000 to 140,000 francs annually, including ancillary costs.

Material costs: CHF 50,000 to 80,000 annually. Equipment, vehicles, deterrent devices, monitoring infrastructure, public relations work.

Damage compensation: 20,000 to 50,000 francs annually. The wildlife damage expected in Zug is limited due to the manageable agricultural area and the low wild boar density.

Total costs: 310,000 to 410,000 francs annually (gross). This corresponds to around 2.40 to 3.15 francs per inhabitant per year.

This is offset by savings: the canton no longer has to conduct hunting examinations, issue and administer licences, draw up kill quotas, or organise wildlife wardens' oversight. The long-serving Geneva fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker pointed out that organising a licence hunting system would require at least two full-time positions. Adjusted for these savings, the net additional costs are likely to be in the region of 150,000 to 250,000 francs annually, which corresponds to around1.15 to 1.90 francs per inhabitant. For one of the wealthiest cantons in Switzerland, a marginal amount.

Lost revenue

With the abolition of recreational hunting, the licence fees estimated at 150,000 to 300,000 francs annually will no longer apply. However, this must be weighed against the never-balanced external costs of militia hunting (wildlife accidents, hunting-related browsing damage in protective forests, administrative expenses, police and court interventions), which are likely to significantly exceed this revenue. In the canton of Geneva, this revenue has not existed 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 better. Sanitary and therapeutic kills carried out by professional game wardens are not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters' lore or a misunderstood sense of "connection with nature" among recreational hunters. A full-cost accounting shows that militia hunting costs the taxpayer considerably more than it generates (cf. «What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland» on wildbeimwild.com).

8. Compatibility with superior law

The initiative complies with federal law. The Federal Hunting Act (JSG) expressly leaves the regulation of hunting rights, the hunting system, the hunting area and hunting supervision to the cantons (Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG). The three hunting systems (licence hunting, territorial hunting and administrative hunting) are equivalent. The canton of Geneva has practised administrative hunting since 1974 and has never faced a federal objection in over 50 years. Art. 7a JSG allows the cantons to carry out preventive regulation but does not oblige them to do so. The initiative preserves the unity of subject matter.

9. Anticipating foreseeable objections

«Zug hunting is already strictly regulated: only three hunting days per week»

The facts: Limiting hunting to three weekdays changes nothing about the basic principle: it is still private individuals killing wild animals as a leisure activity. Regulating hunting days is an organisational measure, not a qualitative improvement. Professional wildlife managers would intervene more flexibly and specifically whenever it makes ecological sense, not according to a rigid weekly schedule.

Short communicative formula: «Three hunting days a week are still three days on which recreational hunters kill wild animals. Professional wildlife protection doesn't need a weekly schedule.»

«The hare moratorium shows that the recreational hunting community acts responsibly»

The facts:The hare moratorium is not proof of a sense of responsibility, but an admission that hunting hares was no longer justifiable. The fact that the recreational hunting community refrains from killing a threatened species is not a merit, but simply a matter of course. At the same time, waterfowl remain on the kill list, and the “noisy hunt” with dogs chasing roe deer continues as a tradition (cf. the Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Zug).

Short communicative formula: “Not killing what one shouldn't kill is not a merit. It is simply a matter of course.”

“Zug has hardly any wildlife problems, so why the initiative?”

The facts: If Zug has hardly any wildlife problems, then the system change is all the easier, cheaper and less risky. The absence of acute problems is the argument for the initiative, not against it. Professional wildlife protection is preventive infrastructure (cf. Hunting myths fact check on wildbeimwild.com).

Short communicative formula: “If there is so little to do, professional wildlife protection costs even less. The argument refutes itself.”

10. Summary

This initiative allows the population of Zug to vote in favour of modern, evidence-based wildlife management. As a licence hunting canton, Zug shows that the system change is possible not only in territorial hunting cantons. At 239 km², Zug is even smaller than Geneva, and for one of the wealthiest cantons in Switzerland, costs of around CHF 1.15 to 1.90 per inhabitant per year are no obstacle. The “noisy hunt” with scent hounds chasing roe deer belongs in a museum, not in a modern wildlife policy.

Initiative committee “For professional wildlife protection”

[Name 1], [Name 2], [Name 3] …

(Committee members in accordance with cantonal law, resident in the canton)

Contact address: [Committee address]

Appendix: Further documentation

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

Scientific studies: wildbeimwild.com/studien-ueber-die-auswirkung-der-jagd-auf-wildtiere-und-jaeger. Collection of scientific studies on the self-regulation of wildlife populations.

Hunting in Switzerland: wildbeimwild.com/warum-die-hobby-jagd-in-der-schweiz-kein-naturschutz-ist. Continuously updated overview of Swiss hunting policy.

Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Zug: wildbeimwild.com: Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of ZG. Motives, justifications and social dynamics of recreational hunting in Zug.

Psychology of recreational hunting: wildbeimwild.com/category/psychologie-jagd. Analyses of motives, justifications and social dynamics of recreational hunting.

Wolf dossier: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/wolf-in-der-schweiz-fakten-politik-und-die-grenzen-der-jagd. Current developments in wolf policy in Switzerland.

Wild animals and predators: wildbeimwild.com/category/wildtiere. Information on wild animals, predators and the coexistence of humans and wild animals.

Hunting myths: wildbeimwild.com/dossiers/jagdmythen. Fact check on the most common claims made by the recreational hunting lobby.

Cantonal popular initiative Basel-Stadt: Template text of the initiative in the canton of Basel-Stadt.

Note on the procedure

The initiative committee submits the text of the initiative to the State Chancellery of the Canton of Zug for preliminary review before the collection of signatures begins. 2,000 valid signatures are required for the initiative to be formally admitted. There is no statutory collection period in the Canton of Zug. The submission procedures are governed by the cantonal Act on Elections and Votes (WAG).

Strategic briefing for activists

Popular initiative «For professional wildlife protection», Canton of Zug Internal working document, as of March 2026

Summary

Zug is a licence hunting canton for which a complete initiative text is available. At 239 km², it is smaller than Geneva (282 km²), and in one of Switzerland's wealthiest cantons, the cost argument carries no weight. The «noisy hunt» with scent hounds offers a communicatively strong point of attack. The system change is administratively simpler than in territorial hunting cantons, because no lease agreements need to be terminated.

1. Why Zug?

Smaller than Geneva. 239 vs. 282 km². The Geneva model has functioned on a larger area for 50 years. Zug has no reason not to adopt it.

A financially strong canton. Net additional costs of 1.15 to 1.90 francs per resident per year are no argument for Zug. By comparison: a cup of coffee in the city of Zug costs around 5 francs.

230 recreational hunters among 130,000 residents. A vanishingly small minority. The majority of the population benefits from professional wildlife protection.

Licence hunting = a simpler system change. No lease agreements, no municipal compensation. Licences simply expire, and that's it.

The «noisy hunt» as a weak point. Dogs drive roe deer into a panic, and recreational hunters shoot the fleeing animals. This form of hunting is hard to defend in the eyes of the public.

2. Lessons from Zurich

Zurich's mistake 1: Confrontational title. Our title «For professional wildlife protection» is positive.

Zurich's mistake 2: the cost argument left unanswered. In Zug it carries no weight: the canton is wealthy, the area small, the costs marginal.

Zurich's mistake 3: No party support. Contacts with the SP, the Greens, the GLP and Alternative (the green parliamentary group) need to be established early on.

3. Analysis of opponents

The 230 licence holders form a small but locally rooted group. In Zug they are less organised than hunting associations in territorial hunting cantons, because the licence system does not create fixed hunting-ground structures.

The cantonal hunting association will defend the «noisy hunt» as tradition. The answer: traditions based on the panic reactions of animals belong in a museum.

The Office for Forests and Wildlifewill point to the existing regulation (three hunting days, kill quota planning). The answer: regulating recreational hunting is no substitute for professional wildlife protection. One optimises a flawed system, the other replaces it.

4. Communication strategy: The three core messages

«Zug is smaller than Geneva. What has worked there for 50 years will work even better here.»

«Professional instead of recreational. Specialists instead of weekend shooters.»

«Less than 2 francs per year. For one of the wealthiest cantons, that's no issue at all.»

5. Timeline

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & preliminary text review	Bring in a lawyer; recruit committee members resident in Zug	Month 1–3
Submission for preliminary review	Zug State Chancellery	Month 3–4
Publication & start of signature collection	No collection deadline; target: 2,500+ signatures as a buffer	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	Early talks with the SP, Greens, GLP, Alternative; involve nature conservation associations	Month 1–12
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official verification	After completion of the collection
Cantonal parliament debate	Parliamentary anchoring; intensify media work	Following months
Voting campaign	Final mobilisation, infographics, media presence	Before the vote

6. Campaign material

Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as the central set of arguments.
The Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Zug as background material for media contacts.
Infographic: area comparison ZG/GE (239 vs. 282 km²), cost comparison, «230 recreational hunters per 130,000 residents».
Local media: Zuger Zeitung, Zentralplus, Tele 1, Radio Central.
Visually: the «loud hunt» as an image. Dogs driving roe deer into a panic. That is the reality behind the term «hunting tradition».

7. Further sources

This document is a template text from IG Wild beim Wild. It may be freely used and adapted to the conditions in the canton of Zug by activists, organisations or initiative committees.

Fact check: The claims of the recreational hunting lobby

The brochure «Die Jagd in der Schweiz schützt und nützt» (Hunting in Switzerland protects and benefits) by JagdSchweiz reads like an advertising flyer, yet its central claims do not withstand a fact check. Ten narratives put to the test, ranging from “state task” and “species diversity” to “80% approval”: Dossier: Fact check on the JagdSchweiz brochure →