The real problem wolf sits in the authorities

Not to regulate, not to observe, but to wipe out.

While the international conservation union IUCN clearly demands with Motion 142 that wolf killings should only be permitted as an absolute last resort, Grisons shows how, with the finger on the trigger on the hunt, the meaning of species protection is perverted.

Two packs formed this year in the Lower Engadine — that is no problem, that is a success. It shows that nature is capable of healing itself, if only it is allowed to. Yet instead of feeling pride in this return of the wilderness, the canton responds with fear, control and lead. One pack has killed livestock — and immediately the call to kill is sounded. So simple, so convenient, so backward-looking.

Where is the responsibility?

The wolf is protected, and not by chance. It is part of a functioning ecosystem, it keeps wildlife populations in balance and strengthens biodiversity. But what does Grisons do? It treats the wolf as if it were an unwelcome intruder. Instead of investing in better herd protection, training and coexistence strategies — as Motion 142 demands — the easiest path is chosen: killing.

That is not wildlife management, that is politically motivated symbolic politics. A gift to those who loudly stoke fear and ignore facts. It is a capitulation to lobby pressure — and a betrayal of the responsibility that we as a society bear towards nature.

Anyone who takes species protection seriously cannot accept this approach

The IUCN has given Switzerland a clear mandate: revise the hunting act, create a legal basis for genuine coexistence — and make the killing of wolves the ultima ratio, not the routine. Yet Grisons does exactly the opposite and once again drags Switzerland into an ecological and moral fiasco.

If we lose the wolf, we lose more than a species. We lose the proof that coexistence between humans and wilderness is even possible.

And perhaps that is precisely the point: the true problem wolf does not stand on four legs in the Engadine — it sits in the office, wears a suit and calls destruction «administration».

And the BAFU? Instead of acting as a guardian of nature conservation, it makes itself the willing accomplice of the cantons. No critical questioning, no consistent examination of whether herd protection measures have been exhausted; the kill applications are approved almost reflexively. In doing so, the authority hollows out its own mandate and betrays the wolf's protected status.

Anyone who takes species protection seriously must not merely supply a stamp and signature, but must represent the voice of nature. Anything else is a declaration of bankruptcy.

Switzerland is not alone in this world. It has signed international agreements such as the Bern Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity, which demand clear protection for the wolf. These treaties are not non-binding recommendations, but obligations. Whoever ignores them gambles away credibility on the international stage. Precisely a country that likes to present itself as a pioneer in nature conservation must not hide behind cantonal kill fantasies. If Switzerland breaks its own commitments, it sends a fatal signal: that treaties and species protection only apply as long as they are politically convenient.

Dossier: Wolf Switzerland: facts, politics and the limits of hunting

Take-action campaign: In light of the catastrophic policy of Federal Councillor Albert Rösti (SVP), ask your municipality for a remission request for federal and cantonal taxes due to the recently approved killing of wolves in Switzerland. You can download the template letter here: https://wildbeimwild.com/ein-appell-fuer-eine-veraenderung-in-der-schweiz/