Cantonal Popular Initiative: Canton of Basel-Landschaft

«For professional wildlife protection»

Constitutional initiative in the form of a drafted proposal

Based on § 28 of the Constitution of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft of 17 May 1984 and on the Act on Political Rights (GpR)

Submitted by the initiative committee [date of submission]

Text of the initiative

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

The Constitution of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft of 17 May 1984 is supplemented by the following paragraphs:

§ [new] Professional wildlife protection

1 The practice of hunting by private individuals (territorial hunting, recreational hunting) is prohibited throughout the entire territory of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft. Existing hunting lease agreements between municipalities and hunting associations 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 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 promotes the natural regulation of wildlife populations, the connectivity of habitats, and the coexistence of humans and wild animals in settled and agricultural areas.

6 The canton shall compensate the municipalities for the loss of hunting lease income within the framework of implementing legislation.

7 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 lease agreements shall expire at the respective next ordinary contract renewal date, but no later than within five years of the implementing legislation entering into force.

3 The Cantonal Council shall ensure the continuity of wildlife management during the transitional phase and shall regulate compensation for municipalities for lost hunting lease income.

Explanatory notes

1. Starting position

The Canton of Basel-Landschaft covers 518 km² and has just under 300,000 inhabitants. It extends from the densely populated suburbs of the city of Basel (Arlesheim district) through the Ergolz valley and the Tafeljura (Liestal and Sissach districts) to the Waldenburg valley (Waldenburg district) and the Laufental (Laufen district). Around 40 per cent of the canton's area is forested, with a similarly large proportion used for agriculture.

In Basel-Landschaft, recreational hunting is organised as territorial hunting. The hunting rights belong to the municipalities, which lease them to hunting associations under contract. These hunting associations consist of recreational hunters who kill wild animals as a leisure activity. The system of territorial hunting generates a particularly problematic dynamic: the hunting associations are locally rooted, often personally intertwined with municipal councils and citizens' communes, and form closed circles that outsiders can hardly gain insight into (see the critical analysis of the hunting training on wildbeimwild.com as well as the Psychology of Hunting in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft).

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). Recreational hunting serves neither species conservation nor contemporary wildlife management. It is the exercise of a bloody leisure pursuit at the expense of sentient beings, legitimised by outdated narratives that do not withstand scientific scrutiny.

At the same time, more and more protected wild animal 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. In the first two regulation periods, 2023/2024 and 2024/2025, the FOEN approved the kill of a total of around 225 wolves; 147 animals were actually killed. In December 2024, the wolf's protection status under the Bern Convention was downgraded from "strictly protected" to "protected". Political pressure on other species such as the lynx, beaver, otter and goosander is steadily increasing (see the analysis of hunting policy on wildbeimwild.com).

The canton of Basel-Landschaft has the opportunity, together with the neighbouring canton of Basel-Stadt, to set a clear example: for professional wildlife protection instead of recreational hunting, and for the consistent protection of endangered wild animal species at the cantonal level.

2. The role model: canton of Geneva

On 19 May 1974, a good 70 percent of voters in the canton of Geneva voted to abolish militia-style recreational hunting. Before the ban, big game in the canton had been practically wiped out: red deer and wild boars had been absent for decades, and only a few dozen roe deer remained. Over 400 recreational hunters released large numbers of pheasants, grey partridges and hares for recreational hunting.

The experience since the recreational hunting ban has been unequivocal:

Biodiversity has increased markedly. The number of overwintering waterbirds has multiplied from a few hundred to around 30,000. The area of Lake Geneva and the Rhône gained international significance for bird protection.
Geneva is now home to the largest population of brown hares and one of the last remaining grey partridge populations in Switzerland. Before the 1974 vote, the recreational hunting lobby had claimed that the brown hare would, without recreational hunting, be Predators without recreational hunting. The opposite has occurred.
The canton now has a growing population of around 60 to 100 red deer and around 680 roe deer (2024, according to the Federal Hunting Statistics of the FOEN). The roe deer population has doubled since 2015, from around 330 to 680 animals, with an annual special kill by professional game wardens of only 20 to 36 animals. The professional wildlife wardens intervene selectively and to a minimal extent, rather than striving for the highest possible kill numbers as is the case in recreational hunting.
The ban has been in force continuously for over 50 years. Geneva has never repealed it.
The total cost of professional wildlife management in Geneva amounts to around 1.2 million francs annually, divided into roughly 600,000 francs for personnel (approx. 3 full-time positions), around 250,000 francs for prevention, and around 350,000 francs for damage compensation. This corresponds to roughly 2.40 francs per resident per year. The efficiency of the Geneva model becomes clear 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 presentation of the Geneva model with all figures 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 does not replace recreational hunting with a vacuum, but with professional wildlife management based on the game warden model. This model is founded 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 to maintain healthy wildlife populations, not to maximise kill numbers. By contrast, recreational hunting, by its very nature, pursues the interest of securing its own raison d'être through high populations of huntable species (see the critical analysis of hunting training on wildbeimwild.com).

Last-resort principle. A kill is only permitted once all non-lethal measures have been exhausted. These include electric fences, deterrence, habitat design, relocation, taste repellents and structural protective measures. In Geneva, fruit trees are protected with netting to prevent roe deer and hares from gnawing the bark. For wild boars, the canton provides farmers with electric fences. This practice shows that coexistence is a matter of will, not technical feasibility.

Democratic oversight through a wildlife commission. The independent commission, made up of animal and nature conservation organisations, scientists and authorities, prevents political pressure from individual interest groups from diluting wildlife management. The Basel initiative enshrines this protective mechanism constitutionally by establishing the wildlife commission's approval requirement.

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

4. Why Basel-Landschaft?

Basel-Landschaft is particularly well suited to introducing professional wildlife protection for several reasons:

Lowest signature threshold. For a cantonal popular initiative in Basel-Landschaft, only 1,500 valid signatures are required, with a collection period of 24 months (2 years). This is one of the lowest thresholds in Switzerland and realistically achievable.

Shared administrative structure with Basel-Stadt. Basel-Landschaft and Basel-Stadt jointly operate the Office for Forest and Wildlife of both Basel cantons. This existing structure considerably simplifies the system change: the institutional foundation for professional wildlife management is already in place. Should Basel-Stadt adopt the parallel initiative, a unified system would emerge across the entire Basel metropolitan area.

Manageable area. At 518 km², Basel-Landschaft is one of Switzerland's smaller cantons. The conversion is practically manageable and financially affordable. The specific costs are set out in section 7.

Territorial hunting as a weak point.Territorial hunting in Basel-Landschaft is a system of closed circles. Hunting rights belong to the municipalities, which lease them to hunting associations. These associations decide for themselves who is admitted, forming local power structures that are neither democratically legitimised nor professionally supervised. The public effectively has no influence over who kills which wild animals in their municipality, in what numbers, or according to what criteria. The initiative gives this control back to the public (see the Psychology of Hunting in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft).

Urbanisation trend. The Arlesheim district, where over 40 per cent of the canton's population live, is almost completely urbanised and borders directly on the city of Basel. Urbanisation is also increasing in the other districts. The cultural tradition of hunting is less deeply rooted in Basel-Landschaft than in alpine cantons.

Signalling effect. A success in Basel-Landschaft would, after Geneva and possibly Basel-Stadt, represent a further Swiss example of professional wildlife protection. A double success in both Basel cantons would have a signalling effect reaching far beyond the region.

5. On the first paragraph: professional wildlife protection

Paragraph 1: Ban on recreational hunting and termination of hunting lease agreements

The ban on recreational hunting by private individuals is the core of the initiative. It corresponds to the Geneva model (Art. 162 of the Geneva cantonal constitution). The cantonal competence for this is undisputed: the federal hunting act (JSG) expressly leaves the organisation of hunting operations to the cantons (Art. 3 paras. 1 and 2 JSG). The three hunting systems in Switzerland (licence hunting, territorial hunting and state or regie hunting) are of equal standing. The canton of Geneva has practised regie hunting in conformity with federal law since 1974.

The addition regarding the non-renewal of hunting lease contracts is specific to, and necessary for, Basel-Landschaft, because unlike Basel-Stadt, a comprehensive leasing system exists here. The wording respects existing contractual commitments by not requiring immediate termination, but instead allowing the contracts to expire at the next regular renewal date.

Paragraph 2: Professional wildlife management

Instead of recreational hunters, professionally trained wildlife managers employed by the canton take over all tasks of wildlife care and, where necessary, population regulation. The existing Office for Forest and Wildlife of both Basel cantons offers the ideal institutional platform for establishing these specialist units.

Paragraph 3: Kill as a last resort

The central innovation compared to today's system: a kill is not the rule, but the exception. Passive measures take priority. In Geneva, game wardens kill an average of around 250 wild boars each year, with lead animals explicitly spared for ethical reasons and to preserve the social stability of the sounders. Kill numbers are thus considerably lower than in comparable cantons with recreational hunting, where kills serve not only to prevent damage but primarily to satisfy the hobby.

Paragraph 4: Wildlife commission

The independent wildlife commission is modelled on the Geneva system. It ensures that animal welfare and conservation organisations have a say in regulatory decisions, and prevents the government from approving exceptions independently and under pressure from interest groups. The involvement of science guarantees that decisions are evidence-based and do not rest on the hunting-ideology myths with which the recreational hunting lobby has legitimised its practice for decades.

Paragraph 5: Natural regulation and coexistence

In Basel-Landschaft, the connectivity of habitats is particularly important: the canton lies at the interface between the densely populated agglomeration belt and the still relatively intact forest areas of the Jura. Wildlife corridors between these landscape areas are indispensable for genetic diversity and the natural spread of species. The current system of territorial hunting further fragments these corridors, because each hunting association manages its hunting ground independently, without overall coordination across hunting-ground boundaries (cf. wildbeimwild.com on wild animals in settlement areas).

Paragraph 6: Compensation for municipalities

This paragraph is specific and central to Basel-Landschaft as a territorial-hunting canton. Under territorial hunting, lease revenues flow to the municipalities. For most municipalities, this income is fiscally insignificant (annual lease fees per hunting ground are typically in the low five-figure range), but it is instrumentalised by municipal politicians as an argument against the system change. The initiative addresses this objection by constitutionally guaranteeing a cantonal compensation for the loss of lease income.

Transitional provisions

The two-year deadline for implementing legislation corresponds to the template text for Basel-Stadt. The addition concerning the expiry clause for hunting lease contracts is specific to Basel-Landschaft: existing contracts are not terminated immediately but expire at the next ordinary renewal date, at the latest, however, within five years. This generous transitional period respects existing contractual relationships and gives the municipalities sufficient time for the changeover.

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

Paragraph 1: Renunciation of preventive regulation of protected species

The core of this paragraph is the canton's deliberate renunciation of the option to submit applications to the Confederation for preventive population control of protected species. 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 competence not to make use of a federal authorisation.

This is particularly important for Basel-Landschaft, where several protected species actually occur or are spreading: the beaver is documented along the Birs, the Ergolz and other watercourses. The lynx is repeatedly recorded in the canton's Jura region. The return of the otter to north-western Switzerland is foreseeable (cf. the analysis of wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com).

Paragraph 2: Coexistence and passive damage prevention

Instead of kills, the canton relies on preventive, non-lethal measures. In Basel-Landschaft, this particularly concerns coexistence with the beaver, whose dams and burrowing activities occasionally lead to conflicts with agriculture and flood protection. Professional beaver management based on the Geneva model relies on structural protective measures, drainage systems and, where necessary, proper relocation, rather than kills.

Paragraph 3: Reservation for hazard prevention

This reservation ensures that the canton can fulfil its duty to avert danger. The dual restriction (“immediate” and “significant”) prevents the reservation from being misused as a gateway for routine kills.

Paragraph 4: Active protection policy towards the Confederation

This paragraph obliges the canton to actively advocate for species protection in inter-cantonal cooperation and in consultations on federal ordinances. Together with Basel-Stadt, as a twin canton, Basel-Landschaft could form a clear voice for the protection of endangered species in the national debate.

7. Cost implications: concrete budget for Basel-Landschaft

The Geneva reference budget

In Geneva, which at 282 km² is about half the size of Basel-Landschaft and has around 500,000 inhabitants, the total cost of professional wildlife management amounts to around CHF 1.2 million annually: around CHF 600,000 for personnel (approx. 3 full-time positions), around CHF 250,000 for prevention and around CHF 350,000 for damage compensation.

Projection for Basel-Landschaft

For Basel-Landschaft, with an area of 518 km² and just under 300,000 inhabitants, the following realistic cost estimate results:

Personnel costs: CHF 360,000 to 480,000 annually. 3 to 4 full-time positions for professional wildlife managers are required. A full-time position in cantonal service, including social contributions and employer overheads, costs around CHF 120,000 to 140,000 annually. These specialists could be integrated into the existing Office for Forests and Wildlife of both Basel cantons.

Material costs: 80’000 to 120’000 francs annually. This includes equipment, vehicles, deterrent devices, monitoring infrastructure (camera traps, GPS transmitters), electric fences for agricultural operations, tree protection and public relations work.

Damage compensation: 50’000 to 100’000 francs annually. Mainly wild boar damage to crops, browsing damage caused by roe deer in the forest, and occasional beaver damage to riverbanks.

Compensation to municipalities: CHF 100,000 to 200,000 annually. The hunting lease revenue of the municipalities typically falls in the low five-figure range per hunting ground.

Total costs: CHF 590,000 to 900,000 annually. This corresponds to around CHF 2.00 to 3.05 per inhabitant per year (gross).

Lost revenue

Abolishing recreational hunting means forgoing lease income from territorial hunting, estimated at between 200,000 and 400,000 francs annually. However, this is offset by the never-tallied external costs of militia hunting (wildlife-vehicle collisions, hunting-related browsing damage in protective forests, administrative expenditure, police and court interventions), which are likely to significantly exceed this income. In the canton of Geneva, this income has been forgone since 1974 without any financial problems: before the hunting ban, over 400 recreational hunters were active; today, three full-time positions do the same job 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 “experience of nature” among recreational hunters. A full-cost analysis shows that militia hunting costs taxpayers considerably more than it generates in revenue (cf. «What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland» on wildbeimwild.com).

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).

Savings and net additional costs

This is offset by savings: the canton no longer has to administer hunting leases, conduct hunting examinations or organise hunting supervision. The long-standing Geneva fauna inspector Gottlieb Dandliker pointed out that organising a licence hunting system would require at least two full-time positions; managing territorial hunting with its lease agreements, ground planning and kill quota monitoring would likely involve a comparable effort. A realistic estimate of the net additional cost is between 300,000 and 500,000 francs annually, which amounts to roughly 1.00 to 1.70 francs per resident corresponds.

8. Compatibility with superior law

The initiative complies with federal law. The federal hunting act (JSG) expressly leaves it to the cantons to regulate hunting eligibility, the hunting system, the hunting area and hunting supervision (Art. 3 para. 1 and 2 JSG). The three hunting systems (licence hunting, territorial hunting and state-administered hunting) are equivalent. The canton of Geneva has practised state-administered hunting since 1974 and has never, in over 50 years, faced any objection under federal law.

Ending hunting lease agreements through non-renewal does not affect the guarantee of property, since hunting lease agreements are time-limited public-law contracts to which there is no legal entitlement of renewal. The generous transitional period of up to five years respects the protection of legitimate expectations.

Art. 7a of the Hunting Act enables cantons to carry out preventive regulation but does not oblige them to do so. Forgoing this option violates neither federal law nor the Bern Convention. The initiative preserves the unity of subject matter, as all provisions relate to cantonal wildlife management and the protection of wild animals.

9. Anticipating foreseeable objections

“Basel-Landschaft is not an urban canton, the Geneva model doesn't work here”

The facts: Geneva covers 282 km², roughly half the size of Basel-Landschaft, and also has significant agricultural land, including viticulture, arable farming and grassland. Wild boar populations in Geneva are stable, with kills carried out by professional game wardens averaging around 250 animals per year. The system works even in a landscape with mixed land use.

Short communicative formula: «Geneva has vineyards, fields and forest, and professional wildlife protection has been working there for 50 years. What works in Geneva also works in Basel-Landschaft.»

«The municipalities lose their lease income»

The facts: Hunting lease income is fiscally marginal for most municipalities. The initiative provides for cantonal compensation for the loss of lease income (paragraph 6). There can be no talk of expropriation: the municipalities' hunting right is not abolished — rather, the right to lease it out to private individuals is replaced by professional enforcement.

Short communicative formula: «Lease income is a small amount in the municipal budget. The initiative compensates the municipalities, and wild animals are no longer killed for recreational enjoyment.»

«The hunting associations perform valuable work for the municipalities»

The facts: Hunting associations are contractually obliged to provide these services; they do not do so as a favour, but as a counter-performance for the right to kill wild animals. In the professional system, these tasks are better placed: professional wildlife managers carry out the recovery of fallen game, follow-up searches and damage prevention as part of their service mandate, with better training and without the systemic conflict of interest inherent in recreational hunting (cf. Analysis of hunting myths on wildbeimwild.com).

Short communicative formula: «Hunting associations do not perform ‹forced labour›. They fulfil a contractual obligation, as a counter-performance for the right to kill wild animals. Professional experts can do this better, more independently and without a conflict of interest.»

10. The Office for Forests and Wildlife of both Basel cantons: an opportunity rather than an obstacle

Basel-Landschaft and Basel-Stadt jointly run the Office for Forest and Wildlife of Both Basels (Amt für Wald und Wild beider Basel). This bi-cantonal structure is not an obstacle to the initiative but a special opportunity. Should Basel-Stadt adopt the parallel initiative, a unified, professional wildlife management system would emerge across the entire Basel metropolitan area. Should only Basel-Landschaft adopt the initiative, the delineation of responsibilities is governed by the existing intercantonal treaty and administrative agreement. Experience from Geneva shows that professional wildlife management can be integrated into existing administrative structures without the need to create a new authority.

11. Summary

This initiative gives the population of Basel-Landschaft the opportunity to speak out in favour of modern, evidence-based wildlife management and comprehensive protection of endangered wild animal species. The first paragraph follows the Geneva model, which has proven itself for over 50 years, and replaces territorial hunting with professional wildlife protection, at net additional costs of around 1.00 to 1.70 Swiss francs per resident per year. The second paragraph ensures that the canton of Basel-Landschaft refrains from the pre-emptive killing of protected species and instead actively commits to their conservation.

The result would be a Basel-Landschaft in which wild animals are neither targets for recreational hunters nor victims of a politically motivated kill policy, but are instead professionally protected as part of a living cultural landscape, for the benefit of the animals and the population as a whole.

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, including costs, population figures and biodiversity trends.

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 and the ecological impacts of recreational hunting.

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

Psychology of Hunting in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft: wildbeimwild.com: Psychology of Hunting in the Canton of BL. Motives, justifications and social dynamics of recreational hunting in Basel-Landschaft.

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 parallel initiative in the neighbouring canton.

Note on the procedure

Before the collection of signatures begins, the signature list must be submitted to the Cantonal Chancellery of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft for preliminary review. The initiative committee consists of eligible voters resident in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft. 1,500 valid signatures are required for the initiative to come about. The collection period is 24 months from publication in the official gazette. The submission procedures are governed by the Act on Political Rights of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft.

Strategic briefing for activists

Popular initiative «For Professional Wildlife Protection», Canton of Basel-Landschaft Internal working document, as of March 2026

Summary

After Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft is the strategically second most important canton for an initiative «For Professional Wildlife Protection». The signature threshold of 1,500 is extremely low, the joint Office for Forest and Wildlife provides an institutional bridge, and a double success in both Basel cantons would send a signal reaching far beyond the region. The biggest challenge is the stronger entrenchment of territorial hunting in the rural part of the canton.

1. Why Basel-Landschaft?

One of the lowest thresholds in Switzerland. In Basel-Landschaft, only 1,500 valid signatures are needed for a cantonal popular initiative, with a collection period of 24 months (2 years). The 1,500 signatures are realistically achievable in a canton with just under 300,000 inhabitants.

The bridge between town and country. Basel-Landschaft is neither a purely urban canton nor a mountain canton. It is an agglomeration canton with urban, suburban and rural areas. It is precisely this mix that makes it the ideal test case: if professional wildlife protection works here, it will work in any canton of the Swiss Plateau.

The joint office as a trump card. The Office for Forest and Wildlife of both Basel cantons is already the institutional foundation for wildlife management in both cantons. The system change does not require a new authority, but rather the repurposing of existing resources.

Territorial hunting as the Achilles' heel. The system of closed leaseholding associations can be portrayed as undemocratic and opaque. The population has no influence over who kills wild animals in their municipality. The initiative gives the population back this control.

2. Lessons from Zurich, and why BL is different

Zurich's mistake 1: Confrontational title. «Game wardens instead of hunters» defined itself in opposition to the opponent. Our title «For Professional Wildlife Protection» is positive.

Zurich's mistake 2: The cost argument went unanswered. The alleged 20 million francs were never substantiated. Our initiative contains a detailed budget calculation: net additional costs of around 1.00 to 1.70 francs per inhabitant.

Zurich's mistake 3: No party support. In the cantonal council, the initiative was rejected without a single dissenting vote. In Basel-Landschaft, the starting position is different: the SP, Greens and GLP are well represented in the cantonal parliament.

The decisive difference compared to Zurich: At 518 km², Basel-Landschaft covers less than a third of Zurich's area (1,729 km²). The cost calculation is a completely different matter: in Zurich, the opposing side could instil fear with figures in the millions. In Basel-Landschaft, we're talking about under one million francs.

3. The second paragraph as coalition broadening

The species protection clause mobilises support beyond the classic animal welfare scene. Particularly relevant for Basel-Landschaft:

Beavers on the Birs and Ergolz. The beaver is present in the canton and is viewed predominantly positively by the population. However, since February 2025 the cantons have been able to authorise the killing of individual beavers that cause significant damage. The initiative protects the beaver in the canton.

Lynx in the Jura. The lynx is repeatedly confirmed in the Basel-Landschaft Jura. Its presence is a sign of intact ecosystems.

Fishing associations as allies. The debate over the killing of goosanders also concerns anglers, who depend on intact aquatic ecosystems.

4. Opponent analysis

The hunting associations are the directly affected parties. Their strength is their local roots in the municipalities. Their weakness is that they are perceived as exclusive, opaque clubs. The question “Who decides in your municipality which animals are killed?” is communicatively powerful.

The municipalitieswill lament the loss of lease revenue. The response: the amounts are marginal, and the initiative provides for cantonal compensation.

The cantonal hunting association will try to discredit the initiative as “urban-green” and “out of touch with reality”. The answer: Geneva, with its vineyards and fields, has proven the opposite for 50 years.

5. Communication strategy: the three core messages

«Geneva has been demonstrating it for 50 years.» The strongest argument: not a thought experiment, but 50 years of lived practice. More biodiversity, stable populations, in force for over 50 years.

«Professional instead of hobby.»The question is not whether wild animals are managed, but by whom: by professionals acting in the public interest, or by private individuals as a leisure activity.

«Less than two francs a year.» The net additional costs amount to around 1.00 to 1.70 francs per inhabitant. Less than half a coffee.

6. Timeline

Phase	Content	Timeframe
Committee formation & preliminary text review	Engage a lawyer; recruit eligible committee members resident in Basel-Landschaft	Month 1–3
Coordination with Basel-Stadt	Coordinate with a possible BS initiative committee; plan joint media work	Month 1–6
Submission for preliminary review	Cantonal Chancellery of Basel-Landschaft	Month 3–4
Publication & start of signature collection	The 24-month deadline begins with publication in the official gazette; target: 2,000+ signatures as a buffer	Month 4
Party contacts & coalition building	Early talks with SP, Greens, GLP; secure letters of support; involve nature conservation associations	Month 1–12
Submission of signatures	State Chancellery, official review	Month 19–21
Cantonal council debate	Parliamentary anchoring; intensify media work	Month 22–30
Voting campaign	Final mobilisation, infographics, media presence	Month 30–36

7. Campaign material

Geneva dossier on wildbeimwild.com as the central set of arguments. The scientific studies should be prepared for media discussions.
The Psychology of Hunting in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft as background material for media contacts.
Infographics: cost comparison BL/GE per inhabitant, biodiversity development in Geneva, «50 years of success».
Local media: Basler Zeitung, bz Basel, Volksstimme, Oberbaselbieter Zeitung, Telebasel.
Municipality-specific fact sheets: For each municipality with a hunting ground, compare the actual lease income against the compensation claim.

8. Further sources

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

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 →