«Tradition» as a fig leaf: When Ticino hobby hunting cultivates its own contradictions

Corti himself cites the decisive figures: when he obtained his hunting license, around 1,600 ungulates were killed per year in Ticino; today the number is about 7,000.

A fourfold increase within a single generation of hunters. But anyone who thinks this rise was imposed on the hunters is mistaken. For decades, hobby hunter associations in Switzerland have politically demanded higher shooting quotas, citing "excessive wildlife populations," "browsing damage," and "disease risks." These are precisely the arguments Corti is using again now.

Hobby hunting did not develop into a "containment hunt" by chance. It was actively made into one. When the FCTI now expresses concern about tradition and "values," this is less self-criticism than a rhetorical balancing act: they want to keep the high kill numbers while at the same time cultivating the image of the thoughtful, nature-loving huntsman.

When the wolf suddenly stands in the way of "tradition"

The contradiction becomes particularly revealing on the topic of the wolf. In the past hunting season, Ticino's hobby hunters did not kill a single wolf, because the rules are said to be too complex and there is a risk of losing one's hunting license through mistakes. Corti puts it clearly: the hobby hunter going about his normal activity cannot be the solution to the "wolf problem."

Here the logic becomes fully transparent. Where hunting tradition seems threatened, one invokes values, patience, and respect for the animal. But when it comes to predators that compete with hobby hunting for red deer and roe deer, expanded powers are pragmatically demanded. This is exactly what is happening in Ticino: the Ticino department is planning a kind of "support group" made up of selected hobby hunters who would be allowed to kill wolves outside the hunting season and with the same means as the game wardens, ideally from September 2026 onward.

With this, hobby hunting is leaving behind the "traditional" framework that Corti defends in the same breath. In 2024, 322 hobby hunters were trained for wolf regulation, and in 2025 another 119 were added. That is not tradition — that is a systematic arming against a single predator.

The record of state-led wolf killing

The figures cited in the article speak for themselves. Despite four culling orders for individual wolves and the possibility of killing up to 20 juveniles as part of proactive pack regulation, only six animals were ultimately killed. The 22 Ticino game wardens spent 1,200 hours on individual culls and another 1,900 hours between September and January on pack regulation.

3,100 hours of paid state working time for six dead wolves. This raises a question that the original article does not pose: are the ecological, social, and financial costs in any reasonable proportion to the result? And when success fails to materialize, the answer apparently comes reflexively: even more shooters, even more powers, even less protection for the animal.

City people with hunting licenses: an image problem, not a generational shift

Corti is pleased about the new generation and notes that more and more hunters come from urban centers, whereas hobby hunting used to be practiced predominantly by residents of the Ticino valleys. That is honest, but it undermines precisely the narrative of a rural, down-to-earth tradition that the FCTI cultivates at the same time. Anyone who drives from Lugano or Bellinzona into the mountains on weekends to shoot deer is pursuing a hobby, not a cultural practice in the sense of their forefathers.

Conclusion: when tradition becomes an argument for everything

The FCTI's appearance ahead of today's annual general meeting in Mendrisio is a textbook example of how the hobby hunting lobby moves between contradictory self-images. Tradition is invoked when it comes to external perception. Efficiency, new resources, and expanded intervention powers are demanded as soon as concrete interests are at stake — above all, the reduction of an unwelcome predator.

An honest debate about hobby hunting in Ticino would have to start somewhere else: How many wild animals may a leisure activity kill each year? What role does hobby hunting play in an ecosystem in which the wolf would long since have been a natural regulator again? And why is the state increasingly taking on tasks that hobby hunters cannot or will not perform, financed with taxpayers' money? As long as these questions remain unanswered, the reference to "roots" and "identity" is above all one thing: a convenient curtain drawn over uncomfortable realities.

From 1,600 to 7,000 hoofed animals killed: what the Ticino figures reveal about the whole system

Davide Corti, president of the Federazione cacciatori ticinese, provided in the "Corriere del Ticino" a figure that explains everything that is rotten about the hobby hunting system. When he obtained his hunting license, around 1,600 hoofed animals per year were killed in Ticino. Today it is about 7,000. A fourfold increase in one generation. Corti presents this as an inevitable necessity, as a consequence of a changed climate and territory. But the honest reading is a different one — and it is uncomfortable.

What 7,000 hoofed animals killed really tells us

When the bag rises by a factor of four and hobby hunters simultaneously claim they are "regulating," then something is wrong with the narrative. If one were truly regulating, the populations would have to fall after a few years of intensive hunting, and so would the bag. Instead, the opposite happens: populations rise, kills rise, pressure rises. That is not regulation, that is a spiral.

Wildlife biology has a precise term for this: compensatory reproductive dynamics. Wild animals respond to population losses through hunting with an increased birth rate, earlier sexual maturity, and larger litters. In wild boar, normally only the lead sow reproduces. If she is shot, suddenly all the female animals of the sounder reproduce. In foxes, studies from the Bavarian Forest National Park show that without hunting the birth rate is around 1.7 cubs per litter, while in heavily hunted areas it is many times higher. Hobby hunting creates precisely those populations whose reduction it then sells as its raison d'être.

The reasons that are not spoken aloud

Corti points to "climate and territory." Both play a role, but they do not come close to explaining a factor of four. The real drivers lie deeper and are systematically concealed in official communication.

First, hobby hunting in Central Europe has, over centuries, exterminated the natural predators: wolf, lynx, bear. Precisely those species that would establish a lasting ecological balance among ungulates. Second, the strongest and most experienced animals are preferentially shot — that is, exactly those individuals that stabilize social structures and regulate the group's reproduction. Third, hunting pressure destroys family groups, which leads to earlier sexual maturity and larger litter sizes.

The result is a self-sustaining system: hobby hunting produces the problem it claims to solve. And the more it shoots, the more it has to shoot.

Why hunting-free areas show the opposite

The empirical evidence is unambiguous and has been available for decades. In the Swiss National Park, hunting has been prohibited since 1914. Wildlife populations are stable, the forest is regenerating, biodiversity is increasing. On game trails within the park, about 30 times more tree seedlings were found than outside, because deer disperse seeds. In the Italian Gran Paradiso National Park, hunting has been banned since 1922. The responsible veterinarian, Bruno Bassano, sums up the result soberly: there has never been any damage and populations have never had to be reduced.

In the canton of Geneva, the population voted on the hunting ban in a referendum in 1974. Today, around 60 red deer and 200 to 300 roe deer live there in stable populations. The hare, threatened with extinction before the hunting ban, now has one of the highest densities in Switzerland. The number of overwintering waterfowl has more than tenfold increased. Geneva's wildlife inspector Gottlieb Dandliker, a biologist and conservationist, says: «Some kind of regulation is therefore taking place».

This regulation works through food supply, weather, diseases, territorial behavior, social structures and, where present, predators. It does not need the hobby hunter with a rifle. On the contrary, it requires his absence.

Anyone who compares Ticino with hunting-free reference areas will see that the increase from 1,600 to 7,000 ungulates killed is not a natural constant. It is the expression of a management system that produces populations in order to have to reduce them.

Has the public been lied to for decades?

The honest answer is: they are being systematically misled. Not through a single lie, but through a web of half-truths, omitted context, and linguistic tricks.

"Husbandry," "care," "regulation," "nature conservation" are the central terms of hobby hunting communication. None of them withstands scrutiny from a wildlife biology perspective. Anyone who allows populations to grow by destroying social structures is not practicing husbandry. Anyone who shoots out the strongest animals is not practicing care. Anyone who works without predators and politically opposes their return is not practicing regulation. Anyone who kills 130,000 wild animals per year in Switzerland for a leisure activity is not practicing nature conservation.

Ticino's wolf policy also fits into this picture. Despite four cantonal culling orders and the option, under proactive pack regulation, to kill up to 20 juveniles, only six wolves were shot during the season. The 22 game wardens spent 1,200 hours on individual culls and another 1,900 hours on pack regulation. 3,100 hours of paid working time for six dead animals, while at the same time the only predator that would actually regulate ungulate populations on a lasting basis is being pushed back with ever new means. The contradiction is obvious, but is rarely named in the media.

For decades, the public has been told that hobby hunting is necessary because otherwise everything would spiral out of control. They are rarely told that this "spiraling out of control" is a construct of hobby hunting itself. They are rarely told that hunting-free areas in the immediate vicinity prove the opposite.

What needs to change

An honest reform of wildlife policy in Switzerland and Ticino would require several steps.

Predators must be allowed to take on their ecological role. Wolf, lynx, and bear regulate ungulate populations on a lasting, selective, and cost-free basis. Any policy that slows their return through ever more broadly framed culling orders perpetuates the hobby hunting system at the taxpayers' expense.

Protected areas and wildlife sanctuaries must be expanded. Geneva and the Swiss National Park are models that have been functioning for decades. They are not exceptions — they are proof.

Wildlife management belongs in professional state hands, not in the leisure time of hobby shooters. Game wardens, wildlife biology and official monitoring are the structures that a modern country needs. Where interventions are necessary, trained professionals should carry them out according to scientific criteria, transparently documented and politically controlled.

The language must be detoxified. "Hobby hunting" is the precise term for a leisure activity with a rifle. "Stewardship" and "care" are PR vocabulary. An honest debate begins with honest terms.

And finally: the population must be given the opportunity to vote on the hobby hunting system. Geneva did so in 1974. For fifty years, the result has been living proof that nature does not need the hobby hunter with a rifle.

The Ticino figure rising from 1,600 to 7,000 is not an operational accident, it is a confession. It shows that hobby hunting helps produce the very problem it claims to solve. It shows that the narrative of tradition and identity is invoked precisely when the statistics undermine credibility. And it shows that an honest wildlife policy in Switzerland would finally have to start reckoning with the reality of hunting-free areas, instead of ignoring it. The population has a right to this debate. Unfortunately, for decades it has not been given that debate with the necessary clarity.