Recreational hunter refuses to kill grey heron: acquittal

The case is a striking example of how contradictory the Swiss hunting system is organised: volunteer lay hunters are called upon by the authorities to “put out of their misery” wounded wild animals, even when they are protected species. In this case, it was a grey heron that lay severely injured in the grass after colliding with a train. Rather than shooting hastily, the recreational hunter did the right thing — he stopped to think.

Animal suffering caught between law and conscience

The district court made clear: no one is obliged to kill a protected bird with their own hands if doing so is not immediately possible or is legally doubtful. In doing so, the court contradicted the district administration, which had previously fined the man 750 francs. The reasoning at the time: he had “unnecessarily delayed putting the heron out of its misery”.

Yet this is about more than mere procedural law. The case exposes the moral imbalance of a system that preaches animal welfare but delegates routine killing to the recreational hunting community. When even a volunteer game warden hesitates out of basic humanity, he becomes the accused, while the structural violence against wild animals remains untouched.

One man shows backbone, the system reacts with irritation

The Zurich-based recreational hunter explained in court that he had refused because he recognised the bird as a protected species. Moreover, it would have taken him almost two hours to arrive on site with his weapon. Instead, he informed the game warden, who ultimately put the animal out of its misery. The court shared his assessment: this decision was “plausible” and “responsible”.

Such rare rulings are important because they show that compassion and common sense may have a place in hunting practice. Yet they change nothing about the fundamental problem: in Switzerland, recreational hunters are still used as the “extended arm” of the authorities to kill wild animals, even in doubtful cases or in protected zones.

A turning point in sight?

The man, now 60 years old, announced that he would give up his post. Already in 2022 he had been convicted over a similar case, at the time involving a crow in a nature reserve. This case, too, is currently before the Federal Supreme Court.

The repeated punishment of a recreational hunter who visibly acts according to ethical principles shows that the hunting system itself is sick. Switzerland would need a modern wildlife management that puts protection, care and rescue above the old paradigm of rule by the gun.

Perhaps this ruling marks the beginning of a rethink: away from mechanical “release” by firearm and towards genuine animal ethics and a professionalisation of wildlife protection.

Addendum of 17 September 2026:The Federal Supreme Court has upheld the one-year exclusion of a Zurich hunting leaseholder from hunting ground leases, hunting licence and hunting supervision (Ruling 2C_703/2025 of 19 August 2026). The case arose, among other things, from his refusal to put an injured young crow out of its misery in a bird reserve. The case bears clear parallels to the proceedings described here, though a definitive match cannot be established based on the anonymised rulings. According to the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant justified his refusal in the crow case on the grounds of lacking jurisdiction within the protected area, not on ethical concerns. The assessment expressed in this article, that the recreational hunter had evidently acted on ethical grounds, can no longer be maintained without qualification in light of the parallels to the crow case. Correction: According to the trial report, it was not a game warden who put the grey heron out of its misery, but a fellow hunting supervisor. Background on the ruling: Federal Supreme Court upholds ban for Zurich recreational hunter.

Dossier: Hunting and Animal Welfare