Downgrading of wolf protection: Legally questionable

Switzerland is currently handling its wolves in a manner that not only raises serious concerns, but may also set a precedent for EU member states.

Editorial Wild beim Wild — 30 July 2025

On 24 June 2025, the EU's downgrading of the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) came into force.

Some countries, such as Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, have so far indicated that they will maintain "strict protection" of the wolf.

As a non-EU country, Switzerland is not bound by EU legislation, yet its approach to hunting disregards core principles of the Berne Convention and thereby violates internationally binding conservation standards.

Schlampereien im Büro von Katrin Schneeberger

The canton of Valais is once again setting a bad example, having culled a total of 34 wolves between September 2024 and January 2025 using partly illegal methods during hunting operations. A DNA analysis revealed that only half of the animals killed belonged to the problem packs approved by the Federal Office for the Environment.

The proactive wolf massacre in Graubünden and other cantons alike is based neither on scientific facts nor on knowledge of wolves, but on loud propaganda. The cantons are not responding situationally or selectively to problems or damage that could be considered justified exceptions under the Berne Convention; instead, they seek to decimate the population broadly and on a large scale, at any cost. What is sold as regulation is an ideologically motivated elimination project aimed at displacing wolves that are so vital to the ecosystem — to the benefit of a livestock farming industry that has long since lost all proportion, with its damaging consequences for flora and fauna in the alpine region.

It is internationally condemned and ethically indefensible to kill wolf pups. Switzerland is repeatedly criticized by the Bern Convention for its wolf policy. Furthermore, the newly introduced term 'basic regulation' is neither defined nor mentioned in the Hunting Act nor in the Hunting Ordinance.

The wolf is not included in hunting law, just as the ibex, the wildcat, the lynx, the golden jackal, the bear, the otter, etc. are not. All are considered protected, as stated on the website of the BAFU. Therefore, hobby hunters are not permitted to intervene either. This is reserved exclusively for wildlife wardens. The inclusion of hobby hunters in the so-called basic regulation is legally speaking not permissible at all. The wolf is also not among the huntable species in Switzerland and therefore does not fall under the cantonal hunting prerogative. The wolf is and remains a protected animal, and a hobby hunter has no right to target it, as with all other protected animals. Hunting association president Charles-Henri de Luze in the canton of Vaud has also stated clearly that this, if at all, is the responsibility of the wildlife wardens.

The EU-27 member states now have 18 months to transpose the directives into national law.

However, this transposition is not mandatory, and we urgently call on member states to refrain from amending their respective legislation, or at least to delay doing so, on the basis of the following considerations:

Legal uncertainty

According to legal experts, the EU amendment proposal “has remarkable shortcomings,” and several proceedings are currently pending regarding the EU's decision on listing under Annex 2. These include a case filed by ClientEarth with the EU Ombudsman concerning the collection of wolf data, and a lawsuit brought by five associations before the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), alleging, among other things, a lack of scientific accuracy and a violation of EU procedural rules. It should be noted that the CJEU has repeatedly emphasized the need for “scientific accuracy and precaution” and that it has recently ruled that protected species that have achieved a favorable conservation status (FCS) “must be protected against any deterioration of that status.” Should the ongoing legal proceedings result in the annulment of the downlisting decision, amendments to national laws could therefore no longer be compatible with EU law.

Lack of a Robust Scientific Basis

The EU's decision to downgrade the wolf's protection status is widely regarded as politically motivated rather than grounded in solid legal and scientific foundations, placing it in conflict with the core requirements of the EU Habitats Directive. In its opinion, the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) described the downlisting as “premature and flawed,” and a further 700 scientists and academics expressed their concerns about the decision in two open letters to the Secretary General of the Bern Convention. Indeed, the downlisting proposal is not supported by current ecological and population data. Wolves in Europe do not constitute a single population, and most sub-populations within the EU remain endangered, threatened, or at risk. Under the Habitats Directive, member states are entitled — and in some cases obliged — to maintain stricter protection standards than those established at EU level, particularly when science recommends further conservation measures.

Socioeconomic Arguments Are Legally Irrelevant

As the ECJ recently clarified, socioeconomic considerations, including those relating to predators, are not valid grounds for changing the protection status under the Habitats Directive.

Furthermore, in 2023, wolves were responsible for just 0.065% of sheep and goat mortality in the EU (the main target species of , and livestock losses from wolf attacks are currently offset by compensation and prevention measures funded through EU mechanisms such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

No Immediate Legal Obligation

Although the downgrading was decided within the framework of the Bern Convention – again primarily under pressure from EU leadership, there is no binding legal obligation or deadline forcing EU member states to immediately transpose this decision into their respective national laws. As already mentioned, the EU Habitats Directive provides for an 18-month adaptation period, which should offer sufficient time for the creation of legal clarity.

Prioritising Human-Wildlife Coexistence Over Lethal Control

Most EU citizens value the existence and conservation of wild fauna and flora and are convinced that society has a responsibility to pass on complete and healthy ecosystems to future generations. Likewise, the legal protection and reintroduction of predators remains a societal aspiration. According to a 2023 survey, the majority of rural residents in ten European countries favor the protection of predators. It is high time to prioritise coexistence and non-lethal protective measures for animals, which have proven effective.

In summary, the politically motivated decision to downgrade the wolf's protection status from “strictly protected” to “protected” is legally and scientifically unfounded and carries the risk of being reversed in anticipation of a court ruling.

IG Wild beim Wild therefore calls on the EU-27 member states to implement all national protective measures for the wolf.

Further Articles