Hunting-free private forest: pacifying private property for ethical reasons
Private owners should be able to have their land exempted from recreational hunting on ethical grounds. The background is the guarantee of property, freedom of conscience and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
1. Motion
The Government Council is instructed to submit to the Grand Council a bill amending the Act on Hunting and Wildlife Protection (………) and the Hunting Ordinance (…………), introducing in the canton of (………) the possibility of declaring private land closed to hunting on ethical grounds. The revision of the act must in particular ensure that:
- owners of private woodland and other private land in the canton of (………) can, on application, demand that recreational hunting no longer be practised on their land if they reject hunting on the basis of fundamental ethical convictions.
- such land is recorded in hunting law as an area with a hunting ban or as a district closed to hunting, and is integrated into hunting planning.
- the conditions and procedure for closing land to hunting are regulated by law, namely:
- Competence of the issuing authority
- Form of the application and proof of the ethical grounds
- Legal nature of the decision, including the possibilities for appeal
- overriding public interests are safeguarded by allowing targeted interventions by the competent authority in narrowly defined exceptional cases, namely in:
- epidemic control and animal disease prevention in cases of immediate danger to people or considerable risk to significant property, or for compelling nature conservation reasons
- the Government Council sets out in its message:
- the likely scale of the private woodland and other private land that could be affected by the possibility of closure to hunting
- how this affects hunting planning, kill quota planning and the regulation of wildlife damage
- what financial and organisational consequences can be expected for the canton and the municipalities.
- that the new regulation is expressly in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on compulsory hunting, and thus strengthens the property guarantee and the freedom of conscience of landowners.
In its bill, the cantonal government takes account of the necessary transitional provisions, in particular with regard to existing hunting plans and ongoing hunting arrangements.
2. Brief rationale
Today, owners of land in the canton must tolerate strangers hunting on their property for recreational purposes, even though they reject hunting on fundamental ethical grounds. Although cantonal hunting law provides for hunting-ban areas, wildlife quiet zones and other protected areas, it recognises no individual right for landowners to declare their land hunting-free on grounds of conscience.
The European Convention on Human Rights protects both property and freedom of conscience. In its rulings in “Chassagnou v. France” (1999) and “Herrmann v. Germany” (2012), the European Court of Human Rights held that landowners who reject hunting on ethical grounds may not be compelled to tolerate hunting on their land. These rulings rely on the protection of property under the First Protocol to the ECHR, which Switzerland has not ratified. Freedom of conscience, however, applies in Switzerland without restriction, under Art. 9 ECHR as well as Art. 15 of the Federal Constitution. The Confederation and the cantons are obliged to design their legal order in conformity with fundamental rights.
Anyone who rejects hunting on grounds of conscience must not be forced by the state to tolerate blood and bullets on their own land. Hunting-free properties are nothing radical, but a long overdue consequence of the property guarantee, freedom of conscience and animal welfare.
The Federal Hunting Act sets the framework for the protection and use of wild mammals and birds. The cantons, however, have considerable room for manoeuvre when it comes to the hunting system, hunting ground, hunting planning and additional protective provisions. Within this scope, the canton of (……) can exempt properties from hunting, thereby creating new sanctuaries for wild animals while also strengthening the rights of landowners.
Under federal law, no canton in Switzerland is required to provide for recreational hunting. It is up to the cantons to decide whether hunting is permitted or not. If a canton decides against hunting, or only partially against it, it is free to do so under the Federal Constitution. The canton of Geneva made this exemplary choice long ago.
This motion instructs the cantonal government to create a clear legal basis so that private forest owners can have their land declared a hunting-free zone on ethical grounds. At the same time, it ensures that overriding public interests such as disease control, safety and nature conservation are safeguarded, and that the effects on hunting planning, kill quota planning and wildlife damage regulation are set out transparently. This gives the canton of (……) greater legal certainty and brings its hunting legislation into line with human rights requirements.
3. Situation in the cantons
Bern: In 2026, member of the cantonal parliament Susanne Clauss submitted the interpellation “Hunting on private land”. The cantonal government rejected a hunting-free designation, relying on the First Protocol to the ECHR, which Switzerland has not ratified. It left freedom of conscience out of consideration (How the canton of Bern governs around freedom of conscience in hunting).
Ticino: On 19 October 2026, members of the cantonal parliament Tamara Merlo and Maura Mossi Nembrini (Più Donne) submitted an interrogazione. They ask the cantonal government whether recreational hunters may open gates and cross fences in order to hunt on private land, and what limits apply to pastures and animal enclosures. A hunting-free designation on ethical grounds is not addressed (Recreational hunters on private land: Ticino Grand Council members demand clarity).