Val Fex: kill permit expired – open questions about communication and follow-up

On 21 August 2025, a wolf attacked sheep on the Alp Muot Selvas in the Val Fex above Sils in the Engadine.

Eleven animals were killed outright; a further 26 had to be euthanised because of their injuries. In total, 37 sheep were affected.

The case triggered a public debate about herd protection and wolf management. Following the attack, the Grisons Office for Hunting and Fishing ordered the kill of one wolf causing damage within 60 days. In the later cantonal monitoring overview, however, the entry «Fex» does not record a kill, but rather «expiry of the kill permit».

IG Wild beim Wild filed a criminal complaint. Its representative was questioned by the Grisons cantonal police as a person providing information. The Grisons public prosecutor now refuses the organisation party status, access to the files and any further information. It regards the IG and its representative as mere complainants.

The attack in the Val Fex

The attack occurred on the Alp Muot Selvas. A single-farm herd protection concept was in place for the alp. According to publicly available information, it distinguished between protectable and non-protectable grazing areas. A protective fence had been erected for parts of the alp; the animals attacked, however, were not within this protected area.

Following the kill, the Office for Hunting and Fishing stated that the incident showed the «limits of herd protection». This statement was taken up by the media. It could give the impression that the sheep had been attacked despite effective protective measures.

The actual situation is more nuanced: a herd protection concept existed for the entire alp. The kill in question, however, took place in an area which, according to the available information, was not secured by wolf-deterrent measures. The subsequent correction of the SRF reporting stated that the attack had occurred on a part of the alp designated as non-protectable.

In the view of wildbeimwild.com, the specific protection situation was not presented with sufficient clarity in the public communication. The reference to the «limits of herd protection» obscured the decisive fact that the animals killed were not behind a wolf-deterrent fence.

Permit expired

On 26 August 2025, the Office for Hunting and Fishing ordered the kill of the damage-causing wolf in order to prevent further damage. The permit was limited to 60 days and applied to the territory of the municipalities of Sils and Bregaglia.

The cantonal monitoring overview, as of 31 December 2025, records the «expiry of the kill permit» for «Fex». The overview distinguishes between kill permits, their expiry and documented kills. For the Val Fex entry it lists no kill.

The public documentation therefore does not show that a wolf was shot on the basis of the Val Fex order. It shows that the time-limited permit expired.

In the same region, the kill of an individual wolf on grounds of «problematic behaviour» is documented. This is listed in the overview as a separate order. It cannot therefore be inferred from the public records that this animal was shot on the basis of the Val Fex order, or that it was identical with the wolf described as damage-causing at the time of the kill.

The criminal complaint

IG Wild beim Wild filed a criminal complaint with the Grisons public prosecutor on 29 August 2025. According to the organisation, it concerned possible breaches in the context of animal welfare as well as the communication about the herd protection situation in Val Fex.

On 5 September 2025, the IG requested various investigative measures. In particular, it called for the retrieval of documents from the cantonal wildlife wardens and of the farm-specific herd protection concept, the questioning of those responsible, and a veterinary assessment of the killed and injured sheep.

On 17 April 2026, the Grisons cantonal police interviewed the representative of IG Wild beim Wild in Roveredo as a person providing information. According to the IG, he answered the remaining open questions in writing and submitted documentation on the matter.

After that, the organisation received no notification of any further steps until the beginning of August 2026. On 6 August it requested information on the status of the proceedings, filed an application for access to the case files and declared its constitution as a private claimant.

No rights as the complainant

First Public Prosecutor Claudio Riedi answered the request on 10 August 2026. He stated that the investigations were still ongoing. At the same time, he refused to recognise IG Wild beim Wild as a private claimant and rejected the application for access to the files.

In justification, the public prosecutor explained that neither the organisation nor its representative were injured parties within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. Being an injured person would be a prerequisite for taking part in the proceedings as a private claimant. The IG and its representative were therefore merely complainants and thus «other persons involved in the proceedings» under Article 105 paragraph 1 letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In the view of the public prosecutor, they are therefore – apart from the limited entitlement to be informed about the initiation and conclusion of the criminal proceedings under Article 301 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code – not entitled to any further procedural rights. The letter expressly states: «We cannot provide you with any further information. And we must reject the application for access to the files.»

The information asymmetry nevertheless remains problematic. Vis-à-vis the media, the public prosecutor selectively confirms outcomes of criminal proceedings relating to hunting. It thus confirmed to Keystone-SDA, after RSI had previously reported on the matter, a fine in another case, the compensation for the value of an animal killed through poaching, and the retention of the hunting licence.

IG Wild beim Wild, which filed a criminal complaint in the Val Fex case and submitted documentation, by contrast receives only the information that investigations are ongoing in the current proceedings. Legally, the situations are not identical: information may be provided to the media under the conditions of Article 74 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whereas complainants without the status of an injured party hold no procedural rights. This legal distinction does not, however, alter the institutional gap: anyone reporting possible animal welfare violations is in practice barely able to ascertain whether and how the prosecuting authorities are examining the information submitted.

In this specific case, the public prosecutor granted IG Wild beim Wild neither access to the case files nor sight of the record of its own interview. It also stated that, beyond the indication that investigations were still ongoing, it would provide no further information. As a result, throughout the ongoing proceedings the organisation has no way of verifying whether the requested investigative steps were carried out and how the authority assesses its documentation.

The documented findings

The public prosecutor's procedural reasoning follows a narrow but established distinction: party rights in criminal proceedings are in principle held by those directly harmed. An organisation that reports a possible criminal offence without itself being violated in its own rights cannot, as a rule, derive party status from this.

The Val Fex case nevertheless illustrates the practical consequence of this legal position. IG Wild beim Wild can gather information on possible animal welfare violations, file a criminal complaint and give a statement in a police interview. After the interview, however, it cannot verify which documents the prosecuting authorities consult, which individuals they question, or whether the information submitted is being investigated at all.

The state information blackout is fully documented: according to the public prosecutor, the investigation is ongoing. No further information is being provided. Access to the files is being denied

What is established

In the Val Fex case, the following points are therefore established:

• On 21 August 2025, a wolf attacked 37 sheep on the Muot Selvas alp; 11 animals died immediately, a further 26 had to be euthanised.
• The sheep concerned were in an unprotected area of the alp, or in one designated as not protectable.
• Following the kill, the canton issued a shooting permit limited to 60 days.
• The cantonal monitoring records the expiry of the shooting permit for «Fex», not a documented kill.
• IG Wild beim Wild filed a criminal complaint and its representative was questioned as an informant.
• The public prosecutor confirms that the investigation is ongoing, but refuses party status, access to the files and any further information.

From the perspective of wildbeimwild.com, a central difficulty therefore remains: the public presentation of the kill put the «limits of herd protection» in the foreground. The subsequent shooting permit expired according to public cantonal documentation. And the organisation that wanted to have these procedures reviewed under criminal law cannot, because of its status as complainant, trace how its complaint is being handled.