Wolves, easier culls: environmentalists opposed, farmers in favor

Context

TL;DR

• The Federal Council proposes culls throughout the year.
• The consultation on the revision of the LCP closes today.
• Environmentalists also oppose culls in no-hunting zones.
• USC and SSEA support the revision, with different reservations.

Key facts

• Proposed → revision of the Hunting Act (LCP)
• Authority Federal → Council, mandated by Parliament
• → Year-round, including February and March
• Consultation → closes today
• Wolf status → from strictly protected to protected

A federal project still in consultation

In Bern, the Federal Council proposed a revision of the Hunting Act (LCP) that would make it easier to kill problem wolves. The project stems from a mandate from Parliament and the consultation procedure closes today. The proposal is not limited to one period of the year: it would allow the elimination of canids throughout the year, including the breeding period, indicated in the review in February and March. Felling would also be possible in areas where hunting is prohibited.

The definition used by the project defines the group concerned: wolves that attack flocks and herds or represent a danger to humans are problematic. The stated goal is to contain population growth; however, active regulatory measures since 2023 have not stopped the increase in herd numbers.

The positions in the consultation

Pro Natura, BirdLife Switzerland and the Wolf Group Switzerland presented a joint statement. In their opinion, the project is useless and hasty: they therefore ask for it to be suspended and postponed to the great revision of the LCP already announced by the government. The three NGOs recall that the renewed federal legislation on hunting and protection of mammals and wild birds has been in force since 1 February 2025. Before amending the law again, they consider it necessary to gain experience in the application of the legal bases that have just come into force. They also object to the introduction of additional possibilities to kill a protected species, particularly in areas where hunting is prohibited.

The Swiss Peasants' Union, on the other hand, particularly welcomes the possibility of intervening throughout the year, but considers the planned changes insufficient. The Swiss Society of Alpine Economics also supports the review and recalls the consequences of the hunting legislation for mountain farming. The comparison therefore remains open between the protection of the species, the management of problematic wolves and the protection of agricultural activities.

Operational details

What changes for Swiss territory

To understand the practical effects of the proposal, it is necessary to separate the proposed rule from the assessments of those who consider it too broad or too weak. The most sensitive issue is not only the possibility of culling a problematic wolf: it is the extension of the intervention to the breeding period and to areas where hunting is prohibited. For environmental NGOs, these two elements broaden the legal possibilities for killing a protected species. For USC, the direction is correct, but the result is not enough to remove the obstacles faced by interventions involving large predators.

Three scenarios to keep distinct

For mountain farming, SSEA sees the last three years as evidence of legislative gaps with serious consequences. Its position supports rapid implementation and welcomes the possibility of culling lone wolves or packs as soon as the population reaches a predetermined number of animals. SSEA therefore presents the amendment as a response to the gaps it attributes to hunting legislation, to be implemented quickly.

For USC, the requirement specified for no-hunting zones also affects the outcome: there would need to be at least two attacks on livestock in protected situations within one of these zones. The organization considers this an excessive restriction. This point helps explain why farmers’ support does not amount to unreserved approval: USC welcomes culling throughout the year, but calls for broader intervention options.

| Point of comparison | Reading of the proposal | | Period | Intervention possible throughout the year, including February and March | | Territory | Possibility extended to no-hunting zones | | USC criticism | At least two attacks in protected situations in the area concerned | | Objective | Curb the growth of the wolf population |

The revision falls between a federal law that entered into force on February 1, 2025, and a major revision of the LCP already announced by the government. This sequence explains the environmentalists’ request to halt the project in order to gain experience with the new legal frameworks, while SSEA hopes for rapid progress. The dossier also has an international dimension: according to the proposal, the relaxations comply with international conventions because the wolf’s status has changed from strictly protected to protected. The issue concerns not only the number of culls, but also how Switzerland balances species protection and mountain farming.

Key points

How to follow the dossier without confusing the proposal and the rules

For those who live or work in Switzerland and want to assess the possible impact on livestock farming, flocks, herds or mountain agriculture, the information can be read in a precise sequence. The text described is an amendment to the LCP currently under consultation. The first step is therefore to place each piece of information in the correct phase.

A practical five-step guide

1. Note the date already indicated. The renewed federal legislation on hunting and the protection of wild mammals and birds became applicable on February 1, 2025. The consultation on the amendment closes today. These are two distinct points of reference: the first concerns the law that entered into force, the second the proposal submitted for comments.

2. Separate the proposal from the measure being applied. When one reads that culling would be authorized year-round, this must be understood as referring to the Federal Council’s proposal. The same caution applies to February and March and to no-hunting zones: they are extensions provided for in the text described, not outcomes to be presented as already implemented.

3. Check the definition of a problematic wolf. The proposal uses this expression to refer to wolves responsible for attacks on flocks and herds or that pose a threat to humans. The criterion makes it possible to distinguish the case described from a generic presence of wolves.

4. Verify the requirement contested by the USC. In no-hunting zones, the Swiss Farmers’ Union considers excessive the requirement of at least two attacks on livestock in protected situations. This point must be kept separate from the USC’s support for culling throughout the year.

5. Compare the positions before drawing a conclusion. Pro Natura, BirdLife Svizzera and GLS call for suspension and inclusion in the major revision of the LCP; USC and SSEA support the revision, but USC considers it insufficient and SSEA hopes for rapid implementation. The map of positions is more precise than a generic opposition between supporters and opponents.

This framework makes it possible to follow the dossier without mixing up the 2025 law, the consultation that closes today and the proposals concerning pack populations, the breeding period and no-hunting zones. For the reader, the concrete action is always to check which of the three levels they are reading: a law in force, a proposed amendment or an organization’s position. None of the three categories should be used as a synonym for the others.

Source: tio.ch