What recreational hunting really costs Switzerland: The bill that no one presents.

What hobby hunting really costs Switzerland: The bill that no one presents.

Recreational hunters often claim to be self-financing: licensing fees, contributions to wildlife damage compensation, and volunteer work supposedly cost the state nothing. This narrative doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The external costs of recreational hunting—wildlife collisions, administrative expenses, hunting accidents, biodiversity loss due to hunting pressure, forest damage from animal displacement, police interventions, and court costs—are never fully accounted for. The Canton of Geneva has demonstrated a different approach since 1974: professional wildlife management by trained game wardens, three full-time positions, at a cost of approximately one million Swiss francs per year, including compensation for wildlife damage. This is equivalent to the cost of a cup of coffee per resident. This report exposes the hidden costs of recreational hunting and compares them to the Geneva model.

Wildlife collisions: 20,000 per year, 76 million Swiss francs in insurance costs

In Switzerland, approximately 20,000 wildlife collisions occur annually (Swiss Animal Protection). On average, one deer is killed by a car every hour. Around 100 people are injured each year. Hunting pressure increases the flight distance and activity level of wild animals, especially during the hunting season. Disturbed animals cross roads more frequently and unpredictably. The causal link between hunting pressure and the frequency of wildlife collisions is scientifically documented.

The bill for the general public

According to the insurance company Axa, a wildlife collision costs an average of around 3,800 Swiss francs , 800 francs more than ten years ago ( SRF, October 2025 ). With 20,000 wildlife collisions per year, this results in estimated insurance costs of around 76 million francs annually . These costs are borne by motorists through their comprehensive insurance premiums. Partial comprehensive insurance covers direct collisions, while full comprehensive insurance also covers evasive maneuvers. In addition, there are police operations, carcass disposal, road cleaning, and searches by game wardens – all costs that are passed on to the general public.

These 76 million francs do not appear in any hunting statistics. They are never attributed to the hunting system, even though hunting pressure demonstrably exacerbates wildlife collisions: startled animals flee uncontrollably across roads. In Geneva, where recreational hunting has been banned since 1974, wild animals behave more calmly and predictably.

The figures: 585,000 hectares of protected forest

According to the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment’s (FOEN) SilvaProtect-CH project, approximately 585,000 hectares, or 49 percent of all Swiss forests, meet the criteria for a protective forest. These forests protect settlements, roads, and railway lines from avalanches, rockfalls, landslides, and floods. The economic value of this protective effect is estimated at around 4 billion Swiss francs per year.

The federal government, cantons, and beneficiaries (municipalities, railway operators) invest approximately 150 million Swiss francs annually in protective forest management: around 60 million from the federal government and around 90 million from cantons and beneficiaries ( Waldwissen.net/BAFU ). Protective forest management is roughly ten times cheaper than technical structures (avalanche barriers, rockfall nets). For the 2025-2028 program period, the Federal Council has requested 451 million Swiss francs for the forest sector ( Message on Program Agreements 2025-2028 ).

Protection forest per canton

Canton	Protected forest (ha)	share of the forest	Estimated care needs per year
Graubünden	122,334	61%	~61 million francs
Ticino	114,596	90%	~57 million francs
Bern	88,890	50%	~44 million Swiss francs
Valais	82,162	87%	~41 million Swiss francs
St. Gallen	37,347	64%	~19 million Swiss francs
Vaud	24,169	26%	~12 million francs
Freiburg	17,588	41%	~9 million Swiss francs
Schwyz	16,346	62%	~8 million Swiss francs
Uri	11,583	68%	~6 million Swiss francs
Law	10,756	30%	~5 million Swiss francs
Glarus	10,130	55%	~5 million Swiss francs
Obwalden	10,021	51%	~5 million Swiss francs
Lucerne	7,978	19%	~4 million Swiss francs
Switzerland total	585,000	49%	~150 million francs

Source: BAFU SilvaProtect-CH . Maintenance requirements calculated on the basis of CHF 12,500/ha with a minimum maintenance cycle of 25 years ( Canton of Obwalden/BAFU ).

Browsing situation: deterioration despite recreational hunting

The 2025 Forest Report (FOEN/WSL) documents that the proportion of protective forest area with very little regeneration (less than 5 percent regeneration cover) has increased to 30 percent . The southern side of the Alps (Ticino) is most affected at 41 percent, followed by the Alps at 34 percent. According to the Swiss Forestry Association, the proportion of protective forest with manageable wildlife impact has fallen from more than two-thirds in 2015 to less than half. Silver fir and deciduous trees are particularly affected.

Recreational hunting has not prevented this deterioration, even though tens of thousands of deer, red deer, and chamois are killed annually. In Ticino, around 3,000 red deer and chamois are shot each year, almost half of all ungulates in the canton. Despite this, browsing damage is worsening. The explanation: Recreational hunting produces more births through compensatory reproduction than it takes, and the hunting pressure drives the animals into the protective forest, where they cause more damage (see the protective forest analysis on wildbeimwild.com ).

Valais: 82,000 hectares, 87 percent protected forest

The canton of Valais has 82,162 hectares of protective forest, representing 87 percent of its total forest area – the second highest percentage of all cantons after Ticino (90 percent). With average net costs of 12,500 Swiss francs per hectare (minimum maintenance cycle every 25 years, according to the Federal Office for the Environment), this results in a theoretical annual maintenance requirement of approximately 41 million Swiss francs. Over a four-year program period, this amounts to over 160 million Swiss francs. These costs are borne by the general public. At the same time, the canton of Valais spends hundreds of thousands of francs annually on wolf culls (estimated at 0.8 to 1 million Swiss francs in the winter of 2024/25), even though the wolf, as a natural regulator, demonstrably reduces browsing pressure in protective forests (see wolf policy on wildbeimwild.com ).

The hidden subsidy: Who pays for the browsing?

The 150 million Swiss francs spent annually on protective forest management is a necessary investment in natural hazard protection. However, a significant portion of these costs is attributable to measures directly related to browsing pressure: young forest maintenance, browsing protection (fencing, individual tree guards), reforestation, and stand conversion. These costs are never allocated to the hunting system, even though hunting pressure demonstrably exacerbates browsing damage. The cantons finance the consequences of recreational hunting with taxpayer money and declare it as natural hazard protection. A full cost accounting would have to allocate these costs to the volunteer hunting system.

Hunting accidents and safety costs

Hunting accidents, some fatal, occur regularly in Switzerland. The costs of rescue operations, hospital stays, investigations, and legal proceedings are borne by the public. Added to this are property damage caused by stray bullets and restrictions on recreational use of forests and fields during the hunting season—an aspect that is never assessed from an economic perspective.

Protective forest and browsing damage: 150 million francs per year

Recreational hunting claims to prevent damage to forests caused by wildlife. Numerous studies refute this: Hunting pressure drives deer and stags into the forest and at night, which increases browsing damage to young trees instead of reducing it. The red deer was originally an animal of open landscapes. Its widespread presence in mountain forests today is not natural, but a result of hunting pressure (see ” Protection Forest: Recreational Hunting Creates Problems It Claims to Solve “). Where predators such as lynx and wolf are present, browsing damage decreases because the wild animals naturally disperse and change their behavior (Landscape of Fear).

According to the Federal Office for the Environment’s (FOEN) SilvaProtect-CH project, approximately 585,000 hectares , or 49 percent of all Swiss forests, meet the criteria for a protective forest. The economic value of this protective effect is estimated at around 4 billion Swiss francs per year . The federal government, cantons, and beneficiaries invest approximately 150 million Swiss francs annually in the maintenance of these protective forests ( Waldwissen.net/FOEN ). These costs are never attributed to the hunting system, even though hunting pressure demonstrably exacerbates browsing damage.

The 2025 Forest Report (FOEN/WSL) documents that 30 percent of the protective forest area has very little regeneration. The southern side of the Alps (Ticino) is most affected, with 41 percent affected. In the canton of Valais, estimated maintenance costs of around 41 million Swiss francs per year are incurred for 82,162 hectares of protective forest (87 percent of the total forest area) (see Protective Forest Analysis ).

Hunting accidents: 300 per year, SUVA costs of 3.6 million Swiss francs

The BFU statistics document over 75 fatalities due to hunting accidents from 2000 to 2019. Statistically, a hunting accident occurs every 29 hours, and approximately every three and a half months, a person loses their life.

SUVA data: What the insured pay

An analysis of SUVA data from 2006 to 2015 shows approximately 300 recognized accidents annually during recreational hunting, resulting in about two fatalities per year, roughly two new disability pensions annually, and annual costs of around 3.6 million Swiss francs . More recent analyses for 2016 to 2020 confirm this picture: still around 300 accidents per year. These costs flow directly into non-occupational accident insurance premiums, which all employees pay through their payroll deductions. Recreational hunting is thus a leisure risk that is co-financed by the entire working population.

What SUVA statistics fail to capture is crucial: the data refers exclusively to employed individuals with mandatory accident insurance. Retired recreational hunters, the largest age group (the accident rate rises dramatically from age 45), are completely absent. Likewise, children, hikers, horseback riders, and mountain bikers injured by stray bullets or mistaken identity are missing. The actual costs are significantly higher than the 3.6 million (see statistics on fatal hunting accidents ).

Premium burden for the general public

SUVA operates on the principle of reciprocity: premiums cover the costs of accidents. Hunting accidents are classified as non-occupational accidents (NBU). The NBU premium is shared between employers and employees. This means that every employee in Switzerland contributes to financing hunting accidents among recreational hunters through their NBU premium. The 3.6 million Swiss francs annually (SUVA data) represents only a minimum, as the largest risk group (retirees) is not even included. In addition, rescue operations (helicopter, ambulance), hospital stays, investigations, and legal proceedings are also borne by the general public.

In addition, there is property damage caused by stray bullets and restrictions on recreational use in forests and fields during the hunting season—an economic aspect that is never assessed. In the canton of Graubünden alone, around 3,836 animals were wounded in just five years, resulting in fines exceeding 700,000 Swiss francs (see dossier on hunting accidents ).

Wolf management: Millions spent on an alibi

In the winter of 2024/25, wolf population control in Valais cost an estimated 0.8 to 1 million Swiss francs in taxpayer money, roughly 35,000 francs per wolf killed. This control is not paid for by recreational hunters, but by the general public. At the same time, the figures show that the number of wolf attacks is declining despite an increasing wolf population, and that 80 percent of these attacks occur in unprotected herds. The costs would be significantly lower with consistent herd protection measures.

More on this topic: Dossier: Hunting Myths

Engadine National Park: 100 years of proof without recreational hunting

The Swiss National Park in the Engadine has been hunting-free since 1914, for over 100 years. The results refute every argument of the recreational hunting lobby: The chamois population has remained constant at around 1,350 animals since 1920. Foxes are not hunted, and there is no extinction of prey animals. Biodiversity has doubled . The National Park proves that natural self-regulation also works in the Swiss high mountains, for over a century, without a single recreational hunter ( Fact check by the Zurich Cantonal Government ).

Fox hunting: 18 studies, one result

At least 18 wildlife biology studies conducted over a period of more than 30 years have reached the same conclusion: fox hunting does not regulate populations and is ineffective in controlling disease. In the canton of Zurich, around 2,000 healthy foxes are shot annually, roughly 200 per month. At the same time, the fox population is not decreasing because hunting increases the reproduction rate. In the Bernese Midlands, a single fox preys on approximately 11 fawns between May and July, thus acting as a natural regulator. The systematic killing of foxes by recreational hunters destabilizes this natural balance and promotes the spread of diseases such as Lyme disease (6,000 to 12,000 cases per year according to the Federal Office of Public Health) and tick-borne encephalitis (100 to 250 cases per year) (see facts instead of hunters’ tales and studies on wildbeimwild.com ).

Canton of Zurich: The deficit-ridden hunting administration

The hunting administration of the Canton of Zurich is operating at a loss: annual expenses amount to approximately 1.6 million Swiss francs , while revenue from leases and hunting licenses is only around 1.0 million francs . The resulting deficit of 600,000 francs is borne by taxpayers. Added to this is the renovation of hunting shooting ranges, which can cost tens of millions. In the Canton of Zurich, approximately 1,500 recreational hunters hunt in 172 hunting areas, supervised by only one game warden with a federal certificate of competence (as of 2017). The claim that a professional game warden model would cost “20 to 30 million francs” has never been substantiated by the cantonal government. This figure originates from the recreational hunting lobby and has been refuted by fact-checking . For comparison: Vaud, at 3,212 km², is almost twice the size of Zurich (1,729 km²), but has over 50 percent fewer recreational hunters and comparable levels of wildlife damage.

Graubünden: Over 1,000 advertisements per year

In the canton of Graubünden, home to the largest number of recreational hunters in Switzerland, over 1,000 charges and fines were issued annually against recreational hunters between 2012 and 2016 (2016: 1,201, 2015: 1,298, 2014: 1,102). In 2015 alone, game wardens had to conduct 1,232 searches for wounded animals shot by recreational hunters. The success rate was 57 percent, meaning that 43 percent of the wounded animals were never found and died a painful death. Over five years in Graubünden, approximately 3,836 animals were only wounded, resulting in fines exceeding 700,000 Swiss francs. These figures are never disclosed by the recreational hunting lobby (see dossier on hunting accidents and the initiative “Game Wardens Instead of Hunters “).

Political costs: How the hobby hunting lobby blocks nature conservation

The costs of recreational hunting are not merely financial. The recreational hunting lobby, led by JagdSchweiz and the cantonal recreational hunting associations, has been systematically fighting nature conservation efforts at all political levels for decades. Recreational hunters in politics overwhelmingly vote against biodiversity, national parks, and the protection of endangered species. The political costs of this obstructionist policy are enormous, but they don’t appear in any calculations.

Voting defeats due to the hobby hunting lobby

Hunting Law 2020: 51.9 Percent No. On September 27, 2020, the Swiss electorate rejected the revision of the federal hunting law by 51.9 percent ( SRF ). The proposal would have weakened wolf protection and allowed cantons to preemptively shoot protected animal species. The recreational hunting lobby had played a key role in shaping the law, but the electorate rejected it. The narrow defeat was a setback for the Federal Council and the center-right parties, which are closely intertwined with the recreational hunting lobby ( DETEC ).

Biodiversity Initiative 2024: 63 Percent No. On September 22, 2024, the Biodiversity Initiative was rejected with 63 percent voting against it ( Swiss Farmers’ Union ). The hobby hunting lobby, together with the Swiss Farmers’ Union and the FDP (Liberal Party), actively campaigned against the initiative ( Swiss Radio and Television ). The result: Switzerland still lacks a sufficient constitutional basis for the protection of biodiversity.

Adula National Park 2016: Torpedoed by Hobby Hunters. At the end of November 2016, the second Swiss national park, the Adula National Park around the Rheinwaldhorn, failed in the municipalities of the cantons of Graubünden and Ticino. The Ticino hunting association FCTI waged an aggressive campaign against the park, spreading fear and falsehoods ( SRF ). Hobby hunters feared for their hunting grounds. The result: After more than 100 years, Switzerland still has only one national park, one of the smallest in Europe.

Ticino Hunting Association FCTI: 30 years against nature

The Ticino Hunting Association (FCTI) is a prime example of the political obstructionism employed by the recreational hunting lobby. For the past 30 years, the FCTI has systematically opposed nature conservation efforts: in 2018, the FCTI fought against the creation of a second national park. In 2021, the FCTI unsuccessfully campaigned for the protection of the endangered ptarmigan in the canton of Ticino. The FCTI also opposed the biodiversity initiative. During the 2015-2019 legislative period, the former president of the FCTI and other recreational hunters in the Swiss Parliament largely pursued policies that were detrimental to the environment . In 2023, a motion by National Councillor Martina Munz to ban lead ammunition was rejected by a vote of 99 to 94, despite the active opposition of the former FCTI president. In 2025, the same former president’s motion for wolf-free zones was also defeated in Parliament ( wildbeimwild.com ).

Hunting Switzerland: Legally failed

JagdSchweiz, the umbrella organization for Swiss recreational hunters, also attempted to silence critical voices through legal means. On July 17, 2020, the criminal court of the Canton of Ticino in Bellinzona acquitted wildbeimwild.com on all counts. The court ruled that the statements cited about JagdSchweiz, such as the promotion of animal cruelty and a culture of violence, were not defamatory. David Clavadetscher (JagdSchweiz/Sandona GmbH) was unable to provide any relevant evidence. A civil case in Locarno was suspended. JagdSchweiz lost completely ( wildbeimwild.com ).

How much the blockade costs

The economic costs of this decades-long policy of obstruction cannot be quantified, but they are real: no adequate constitutional basis for biodiversity, no second national park, delayed species protection, weakened wolf protection, delayed ban on lead in ammunition. Every lost vote, every delayed conservation law means irreparable losses of biodiversity. The recreational hunting lobby is not protecting nature. It is protecting a hobby at nature’s expense.

What an honest accounting would show

No Swiss authority has ever presented a full cost accounting of volunteer hunting. Such an accounting would have to include at least the following items: Direct cantonal administrative costs for the hunting system. Costs of wildlife accidents during and after the hunting season. Forest damage costs due to hunting-related displacement effects. Costs for police, rescue services, and the justice system in the event of hunting accidents. Costs for tracking wounded animals. Costs for wolf and predator management. Biodiversity loss due to hunting endangered species (brown hares, woodcocks, ptarmigan). Economic restrictions on recreational use during the hunting season. Political costs of obstructionist policies against biodiversity, national parks, and species conservation. These costs would have to be compared with the actual revenue from hunting licenses and leases. The result would be devastating for the recreational hunting lobby.

What would need to change

Full cost accounting of militia hunting : Every canton should be required to submit a transparent overall balance sheet of its hunting system, including all external costs. Only in this way can a fact-based debate about alternatives be conducted.
The Geneva model as a benchmark : The Geneva model proves that professional wildlife management without recreational hunting not only works, but is also affordable. A cup of coffee per inhabitant. Other cantons must measure themselves against it.
Polluter pays principle for hunting damage : Costs arising from hunting pressure (wildlife accidents, forest damage due to displacement, searches for wounded game) must be attributed to the hunting system, not to the general public.
Professionalization instead of militia : The Swiss militia hunting system is an anachronism. Professional game wardens are better trained, work year-round, act according to scientific criteria, and are accountable to the public.
Livestock protection instead of wolf culling : The millions spent on wolf population control could be invested in livestock protection, which is demonstrably more effective and cheaper in the long run.

Argumentation

“Hunting is self-financing.” License fees cover only a fraction of the total costs. External costs—wildlife collisions, forest damage, administration, police, the justice system, and biodiversity loss—are never accounted for and are borne entirely by the public. A full cost accounting would show that recreational hunting costs taxpayers significantly more than professional wildlife management.

“The Geneva model is too expensive.” One million francs per year, the equivalent of a cup of coffee per inhabitant. For comparison: Wolf population control in Valais alone cost a similar amount in 2024/25. Wildlife damage in Geneva is comparable to that in cantons of the same size where recreational hunting is permitted. The Geneva model is not too expensive. It is more transparent than militia hunting.

“The Geneva model only works in an urban canton.” Geneva has vineyards, farmland, and rural areas like any other canton. Geneva has an international airport, which requires additional measures for air safety. If the model works there, there’s no structural argument against it working elsewhere. Incidentally, during hunting season, many wild animals from the surrounding cantons and France seek refuge in Geneva. This is living proof that wild animals avoid hunting areas.

“Without recreational hunting, wildlife damage would explode.” Fifty years in Geneva prove the opposite: stable wildlife populations, controlled wildlife damage, and higher biodiversity. Recreational hunting often provokes wildlife damage because hunting pressure drives animals into the forest and increases browsing. Where predators are present, browsing decreases.

“Hunting enthusiasts are performing a public service.” This narrative implies that hunting enthusiasts act selflessly. In reality, it is a hobby based on the killing of animals. The societal costs of this hobby, from hunting accidents and animal welfare issues to biodiversity loss, are borne by the public. Professional game wardens do indeed provide a public service; hunting enthusiasts are serving their hobby.

Quick links

Posts on Wild beim Wild

Related dossiers

Efficiency: 8 hours and 2 cartridges instead of 80 hours and 15 cartridges

The efficiency of the Geneva model becomes clear in a direct comparison: A professional game warden in Geneva needs an average of 8 hours and a maximum of 2 cartridges for the sanitary culling of a wild boar. A recreational hunter in the canton of Zurich needs 60 to 80 hours and up to 15 cartridges for the same cull ( fact check by the Zurich cantonal government ). This is not an increase in efficiency, this is a system change: professionals instead of recreational shooters.

Brown hare: The living proof

The European hare is living proof of the superiority of the Geneva model. In the canton of Geneva, where recreational hunting has been banned since 1974, the hare density is 17.7 animals per 100 hectares (2016), the highest in all of Switzerland. In the canton of Zurich, where around 2,000 foxes and numerous other animals are killed annually by recreational hunters, the hare density is 1.0 per 100 hectares . The European hare is listed as “vulnerable” on the Red List in Zurich. In Geneva, it thrives. Geneva is also home to one of the last remaining grey partridge populations in Switzerland (see Facts Instead of Hunters’ Tales ).

Sources

SUVA: Accident statistics UVG, 300 hunting accidents/year, CHF 3.6 million in costs ( suva.ch )
BFU: Over 75 fatalities due to hunting accidents 2000-2019
SRF/Axa: Average cost of wildlife collisions is CHF 3,800 per incident ( srf.ch, October 2025 )
Swiss Animal Protection: 20,000 wildlife collisions per year in Switzerland
BAFU SilvaProtect-CH: Protected forest area per canton, 585,000 ha of protected forest ( bafu.admin.ch )
Waldwissen.net/BAFU: 150 million Swiss francs annually for protective forest maintenance ( waldwissen.net )
Federal Council: Message on commitment credits for the environment 2025-2028, CHF 451 million for forests ( admin.ch )
BAFU/WSL: Forest Report 2025, 30% protection forest with very little regeneration
Canton of Obwalden: Net costs for protective forest maintenance 12,500 CHF/ha ( ow.ch )
Canton of Geneva, Wildlife Inspector Gottlieb Dandliker: Costs and Functioning of Geneva’s Wildlife Management
IG Wild beim Wild: Hunting statistics 2022, comparison Geneva vs. Schaffhausen
IG Wild beim Wild: Switzerland hunts, but why still? (2025)
Animal Party Switzerland: Protection of wild animals, external costs of militia hunting
IG Wild beim Wild: Arguments for professional game wardens
Bernese hunting regulations: License fees, game damage surcharges, game management contributions
Franz Weber Foundation: Geneva Model, JSG 2020 Referendum
BAFU: Wildlife accident statistics Switzerland
Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds (JSG, SR 922.0)
Canton of Valais: Wolf population control 2024/25, estimated cost 0.8–1 million CHF.
SRF: Hunting law rejected, 27.9.2020, 51.9% No ( srf.ch )
UVEK: Vote on the Hunting Law 2020 ( uvek.admin.ch )
SBV: Biodiversity initiative rejected, 22.9.2024, 63% No ( sbv-usp.ch )
SRF: Parc Adula, Skepticism in the Blenio Valley, 2016 ( srf.ch )
wildbeimwild.com: Ticino Hunting Association FCTI celebrates 30 years of mischief ( wildbeimwild.com )
wildbeimwild.com: Success – Hunting Switzerland loses, acquittal in the Bellinzona Criminal Court on July 17, 2020 ( wildbeimwild.com )

Our claim

Hobby hunters claim they cost the state nothing. This is a lie by omission: the external costs are never assessed, never accounted for, and never made public. The Geneva model shows that there is another way: transparent, professional, and affordable. One cup of coffee per inhabitant for a system that demonstrably works, promotes biodiversity, and doesn’t require hobby hunters. This dossier demands what is long overdue: an honest accounting. Anyone who conceals costs has something to hide. This dossier is continuously updated.

More on the topic of hobby hunting: In our dossier on hunting, we compile fact checks, analyses and background reports.

Costs of hobby hunting in Switzerland: The hidden bill