Victory for the animal exploiters — defeat for animal welfare

In 1868, women in Zurich submitted the first — albeit unsuccessful — petition for active and passive voting rights on the occasion of a cantonal constitutional revision in Zurich.

The struggle of the trailblazers lasted over 100 years. It was not until 7 February 1971 that Swiss voters approved federal voting and electoral rights for women.

At the western end of Switzerland, in the Canton of Geneva, a hunting ban for hobby hunters was implemented on 19 May 1974. Around two thirds of voters said yes to the hunting ban demanded by animal welfare advocates.Since then, the state has regulated the world of wildlife and no longer fills its coffers with blood money from hobby hunters.

The hunting ban in Geneva was a sensation and attracted great attention far beyond the canton. For the hunting world it was a shock — and remains so to this day. Because the example of Geneva proves that it is possible — even in a densely populated cultural landscape — to manage without hobby hunters,indeed, that nature and animals are far better off with wildlife wardens, and that people benefit from this too.

Initiative: Wildlife Wardens Instead of Hobby Hunters

The initiators have shown good faith and done their duty. The rest is not in their hands.

In the Canton of Zurich, no initiative has ever been approved when all parties were against it beforehand.With a low voter turnout of 39.7 percent, the Animal Party’s initiative «Wildlife Wardens Instead of Hunters» was rejected in the Canton of Zurich on 23 September 2018. Only 16.1 percent, or 56’709 voters, approved the popular initiative. 294’595 voters rejected it.

The result is due in part to the fact that the side of animal exploiters ran their campaign with alternative facts and tea-leaf reading, investing large sums of money in the process. On the other hand, hardly any politicians or journalists took the time to inform themselves objectively — for example, by visiting Geneva in person. That would have made it easy to pick apart the fake news spread by the hobby hunters or the cantonal government. Simply reading and understanding the initiative text correctly, and asking the initiators for clarification if necessary, would likely have been sufficient.

Like parrots, everyone repeated in chorus the hobby hunters' fake news about fencing off the entire cantonal territory or leaving wildlife populations to regulate themselves through disease, traffic accidents, or starvation — even though this is not the case in either the city of Zurich or the canton of Geneva, where wildlife wardens are in charge.

In the canton of Geneva, the wildlife warden system has been functioning for over 44 years and is internationally recognized as a model in expert circles. Geneva once had over 400 hobby hunters. Today, the same work is carried out by 11 wildlife wardens sharing three full-time positions, and only one full-time position is devoted to regulatory purposes — that is, lethal force. No one wants to unnecessarily restrict wildlife habitat. Besides, roe deer easily jump over temporary electric fences. In the canton of Zurich too, wildlife wardens could organize an on-call service for wildlife accidents, just as is already done in the cantons of Zug and Geneva. In the canton of Bern, hobby hunters are not needed for this either. The canton of Geneva today has the highest hare populations in all of Switzerland. Evidently, wildlife wardens have an entirely different motivation than the at-risk group of hobby hunters. Wildlife wardens also do not practice cruel hunting methods such as earth hunting or driven hunts. Wildlife wardens are sober on duty. Wildlife wardens retire at 65. Anyone in favor of greater safety, species protection, biodiversity, animal welfare, and ethics could really only have voted YES.

Sanitary and therapeutic culls carried out by wildlife wardens are not the same as regulatory hunting based on hunters' jargon or a misguided understanding of nature.

IG Wild beim Wild

It is hard to imagine that the people of Zurich would suddenly support cruel hunting practices such as earth hunting and driven hunts, that the environment would be needlessly contaminated with highly toxic ammunition, or that the landscape would be disfigured by shooting platforms. Game wardens do not shoot foxes, ducks, songbirds and the like for fun simply because it is now hunting season. Surveys in recent years have repeatedly shown that hunting activities such as earth hunting or driven hunts are rejected by the overwhelming majority of the population, and that hunting should be made more ecological and animal-friendly.

Hobby hunters cannot make anyone happy, as is demonstrated year after year by the enormous reports of damage. Wild animals live in constant fear of hobby hunters. Wild animals do not like hobby hunters. The suffering of these poor animals will sooner or later reflect back on human society in the canton of Zurich as an unpleasant consequence. No self-criticism came from the hobby hunters.

The Genevans, by contrast, are happy to pay for game wardens because they appreciate encountering living animals on their walks in the open countryside. This impression is scientifically confirmed. The canton found in a long-term study a significant increase in biodiversity.

Animal Protection Initiatives

When it comes to animal welfare, the electorate curiously tends to vote against animal protection when it comes to initiatives — especially when doing the right thing for our times might also come at a cost. And so, on that same Sunday, the «Fair Food Initiative» was also decisively rejected.The supporters of the initiatives had the sound and ethical arguments; their opponents, once again, had plenty of money but no compassion and a great deal of self-interest.The factor of money prevailed over good arguments, which is a moral indictment.

We all wish for animals to be kept in species-appropriate conditions. And yet eggs and meat from industrial and cruel factory farming continue to end up on the shelves of our supermarkets. The Fair Food Initiative seeks to exclude food products from animal-cruel production. And with transparent labelling of production methods, consumers can choose greater animal welfare when they shop.

According to a post-vote survey, households with higher and lower incomes both clearly rejected the Fair Food Initiative in equal measure. The by far strongest argument for rejection was the fear of rising food prices.

From the perspective of voters, the price argument also spoke against the “For Food Sovereignty” initiative.

The initiators of all the various initiatives were pioneers, and their concerns were well-intentioned.Just as in 1868, when well-meaning women in Zurich began fighting for the right to vote.