The Ticino veterinary office looks the other way and the animals die

It is a pattern that can no longer be explained as coincidence.

On October 16/17, 2025, eleven fallow deer were killed in Bironico in a single night. The cantonal Office for Hunting and Fishing confirmed that the enclosure fence was not sufficiently wolf-proof. And yet, the cantonal veterinary office had issued a permit to keep the animals.

On February 1, 2026, four sheep died in Sonvico. Official assessment: animals not adequately protected.

On the night of February 5th/6th, 2026, a wolf killed ten sheep in Paudo. Livestock owner Piero Maretti admitted that the fence "repeatedly had holes" and the barn was too small for all the animals, forcing the sheep to spend the night outdoors. The authorities determined that the animals were not adequately protected.

On February 6, 2026, ten more sheep were found dead in Bellinzona; two animals have since disappeared. On February 19, 2026, three lambs died in Gambarogno. In both cases, the authorities gave the same response: the animals were not adequately protected.

Five incidents in four months. More than 38 animals killed. Always the same diagnosis. Never any consequences.

An authority that knows its duties but fails to fulfill them

The cantonal veterinary office has not only an advisory role in the area of livestock farming, but also a genuine duty of supervision and control. This is not an abstract requirement, but rather applicable law.

The Animal Welfare Act (TSchG) and the Animal Welfare Ordinance (TSchV) oblige cantons to actively monitor compliance with animal welfare regulations and to intervene in cases of violations. This supervisory duty is not an option that can be exercised only when one has time; it is legally binding.

The Bironico case goes even further: there, the cantonal veterinary office issued a permit to keep fallow deer, even though the enclosure did not meet the legally required standards. The intrusion of wolves cannot be explained otherwise. The Office for Hunting and Fishing confirmed the inadequate fencing. The permit must therefore have been granted nonetheless, otherwise keeping the deer would have been illegal in the first place. This is not just a case of neglected inspection; it is an unlawful granting of a permit. The IG Wild beim Wild (Wildlife Interest Group) has therefore filed a criminal complaint against the veterinary office itself for abuse of office.

“Not sufficiently protected” – and then what?

What happens after this official determination? Apparently: nothing.

There are no publicly documented cases known to the IG Wild beim Wild (Wildlife Interest Group) where the Ticino veterinary office, following a wolf attack, conducted a follow-up inspection, set a deadline, imposed a requirement, or initiated proceedings. Instead, they wait for the next attack and again record that the animals were "not adequately protected.".

This cycle has a name: official tolerance. And it has a direct consequence: animal owners who don't take their duty of care seriously don't have to fear any sanctions. The implicit signal emanating from the veterinary office is: nothing will happen to you.

Not in the Alps, but right on our doorstep

One detail that is consistently overlooked in the public debate: These animals were not on a remote alpine pasture, far from any human sight. Bironico lies in the valley at 468 meters above sea level, a few kilometers from Lugano. Paudo, Sonvico, Bellinzona, Gambarogno – all valley locations, all inhabited areas, all places where the livestock owners live or reside in close proximity to their animals.

This makes the negligence even harder to comprehend. Anyone with a chicken coop in their garden builds an enclosure to keep foxes out, not because the law requires it, but because it's simply common sense. Anyone who leaves chickens unprotected is rightly considered negligent. That the same logic apparently doesn't apply to sheep and fallow deer kept by hobbyists is difficult to explain, except perhaps by the fact that no consequences have been threatened so far.

The fox is not a protected animal, yet every chicken owner protects their animals from it. The wolf is protected, yet apparently sheep can be left overnight in enclosures with holes in the fence without penalty. This is a logic that is incompatible with both animal welfare and common sense.

The law is clear – the practice is not

The requirements are clearly regulated in Switzerland:

The Animal Welfare Ordinance requires livestock owners to take all reasonable measures to prevent unnecessary pain, suffering, or harm. Anyone who knows they are farming in a wolf territory – and this has been known in the canton of Ticino for years – must protect their farm accordingly. Wolf-proof electric fences, guard dogs, and keeping livestock indoors at night: these measures are reasonable, they are eligible for financial subsidies, and they work.

Article 9 of the Wildlife Ordinance (WildtierV) explicitly stipulates that fences for keeping deer in enclosures must be at least two meters high and constructed in such a way that predators cannot access them. Anyone who issues a permit for such keeping without verifying these requirements is acting unlawfully.

The Animal Welfare Act (TSchG) criminalizes not only the active mistreatment of animals, but also the negligent omission of a duty. This includes the deliberate failure to act in the face of a foreseeable and avoidable danger. This applies to animal owners and authorities.

Who protects, who must protect

In public discourse, every wolf attack is followed reflexively by calls for culling. The wolf is expected to pay the price for human failure. This is not only ecologically short-sighted, it is a reversal of responsibility.

The wolf behaves according to its species' principles. It is an opportunist that hunts prey where it is easily accessible. Anyone who leaves sheep overnight in a pasture with holes in the fence, anyone who keeps fallow deer behind a fence that does not meet legal requirements, anyone who forgoes protective measures despite a known wolf presence, is handing their animals to the wolf on a silver platter.

And an authority that tolerates this bears partial responsibility.

Even worse: This paper-based protection creates the very problem it claims to solve. Wolves that learn livestock are easily accessible specialize in preying on them. Then the number of livestock kills rises. Then there are calls for culls. And the real failure – inadequate monitoring and insufficient enforcement of livestock protection obligations – remains invisible.

Thirty years of Wolf – not a single person injured

There is a fact that is almost never mentioned in the heated wolf debate: the wolf has been present in Switzerland again for over thirty years. Since the first reintroduction in the early 1990s, despite growing packs and increasing wolf presence in all parts of the country, there has not been a single documented attack on a human.

No injured hikers. No attacked children. No robbery of a farmer.

Anyone following the public debate might think otherwise. The wolf is portrayed as an unpredictable threat, and calls for its culling are made with urgency, as if public safety were at stake. However, the only real danger posed by wolves is to livestock, and even this danger could have been largely avoided in the documented cases in Ticino through legally compliant protective measures.

For comparison: In Switzerland, around 9,500 to 10,000 people are bitten by dogs each year so severely that they require medical attention. This is shown by both a SUVA study (evaluation period 2003–2007) and a large-scale Swiss study from 2000/2001. Children are bitten twice as often as adults. Particularly alarming: It has been proven that it is often farm dogs that aggressively attack hikers and cyclists – precisely those farms that portray the wolf as an existential threat keep dogs on their land that injure thousands of people every year. No one reports on this. There are no calls for culling, no emergency decrees, no parliamentary initiatives.

The wolf isn't the problem. The problem is sheep farmers who keep their animals in enclosures with holes in the fences in the valley, right next to their houses, and the authorities who have tolerated this for years without complaint. Making the wolf the scapegoat is convenient. It distracts from the real question: Why aren't protective obligations enforced? And why do animals have to die for it?

What the IG Wild demands of wild animals

In all documented cases, the IG Wild beim Wild has filed criminal charges with the Ministero Pubblico in Bellinzona: against the responsible animal owners for animal cruelty by omission, and – in the Bironico case – against the cantonal veterinary office for unlawful granting of permits and abuse of office.

Furthermore, the IG Wild demands the following from the wild animal:

Consistent follow-up inspections. After every incident where "animals are not adequately protected" is determined, the veterinary office must issue binding requirements and monitor their implementation. Anyone who fails to comply with these requirements is prohibited from keeping animals.

Clear liability rules are needed. Subsidies and direct payments to livestock owners must be linked to proof of effective herd protection measures. Those who fail to protect their animals receive no money.

Transparency regarding enforcement practices. The Canton of Ticino must disclose how many inspections have been carried out since 2020, how many violations have been documented, and how many proceedings have actually been initiated. This is a matter of democratic accountability.

Official consequences. If it turns out that the veterinary office systematically turned a blind eye, those responsible there must also be held accountable.

Animal welfare doesn't end at the stable door

It's time to have this debate honestly. Protecting livestock from wolf attacks is not a question of whether, but how. The methods are known, proven, and affordable. What's lacking is the political will to implement them.

As long as authorities document attacks without taking action, animal owners will continue to neglect their duty of care. And as long as this goes unpunished, more animals will suffer and die. Unnecessary, avoidable, and illegal.

Paper protection is not animal protection. And an authority that fails to fulfill its supervisory duties is not a protective authority.

Further reading: Criminal complaint: Wolf kills sheep in Ticino · Eleven fallow deer killed – and again nobody is looking closely