A policy that misses the mark – understanding the errors of regulation in Switzerland - FIRST PART

On 11 November, as part of the proactive regulation of the Mont-Tendre pack, a female wolf fitted with a GPS collar had to be put down by Vaud wildlife officers after being wounded by a first shot on the night of 5 to 6 November 2025. She was being tracked as part of the ‘Wolves and Cattles’ study project led by KORA, UNIL and the Vaud Department of the Environment (DGE). On 30 October 2024, she was anaesthetised in the territory of the Marchairuz pack and fitted with a monitoring system that could provide information on her location every four hours. Tracking showed her presence in neighbouring France, mainly in Franche-Comté, around Mouthe (Doubs), Mignovillard (Doubs) and Foncine-Le-Haut (Jura). Recently, she appeared to have returned to the Vaud Jura, to the former territory of the Risoux pack, which is now disbanded.

Her shooting, which took place on the territory of the Mont-Tendre pack and within the perimeter approved by the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN/BAFU), highlights a resurgence of errors and worrying issues, which are occurring in various forms and in several cantons. We would like to address these issues in more detail so that the public can understand the current situation in Switzerland.

Establishing and validating shooting perimeters

The black spot of this proactive regulation is undoubtedly the authorised shooting perimeters. Indeed, looking at the files and monitoring of the packs, we find that they are often far too large, taking into account the entire territory of a pack. However, we know scientifically that it is impossible to establish clear and precise boundaries for the territory of wolf packs, which are a highly mobile species and whose young sub-adults may go on exploratory excursions. It would be wise to agree that all shooting should be prohibited in buffer zones (which must be established and taken into account), peripheral areas, ridges or riverbanks that mark the boundaries between two territories. Today, the perimeters encompass these areas, which inevitably leads to the killing of individuals who have no connection with the pack, either dispersers who choose these areas to cross occupied territories, or even members of neighbouring packs, which is more serious.

After two phases of proactive regulation, we can analyse a wealth of data and facts, better understand the errors and their origins, and refine the parameters for establishing perimeters, selecting packs and individuals to be regulated, among other things. But despite numerous errors, inconsistencies and failures, to date the shooting perimeters remain the same from one year to the next, even when cubs from packs not involved in control are killed, a serious mistake that must lead to a reassessment. It is therefore incumbent upon the federal and cantonal authorities to take the necessary measures and systematically conduct a more in-depth examination of the overall data available, both before and after control.

In the case of the Vaud Jura, where the packs are almost always led by a member from neighbouring packs, the establishment of shooting areas must be analysed in even greater detail, systematically limiting the shooting areas. There is greater ‘tolerance’ in buffer zones, which can also be larger. The population must also understand that, given the behaviour of the Canis lupus species, there will always be dispersers who could lose their lives when crossing the territories of packs engaged in proactive or reactive regulation. We do not consider this to be a mistake in itself, but rather a problem that is unfortunately linked to the dynamics of dispersal, the need to find free territories and, to do so, to cross occupied territories, which poses a great risk to the integrity of the young wolf. It may die from a regulatory shot, but it may also be attacked by the local pack when passing through its vital territory.

Are there any solutions to try to avoid shooting individuals that are not genetically related to a controllable pack or members of neighbouring packs? Yes, there are at least two: ensuring thorough monitoring, in collaboration with other entities, to obtain more data/interactions and drastically restricting shooting perimeters to avoid buffer zones or areas at risk! This is quite logical, but we note, especially in 2025 in the files of certain cantons, that these solutions are not being applied or taken into account, since the FOEN/BAFU validates shooting perimeters covering the entire territories of packs, which is clearly a scientific aberration. As for monitoring, it is far from thorough enough and transparency is also far from complete with regard to the data collected. The content of the regulation application files is becoming increasingly sketchy and laconic, making it impossible to check the data to ensure its accuracy. And given the fairly high number of shooting errors and serious mistakes that have gone unnoticed, it is clear that something is not working, or is no longer working. However, when it comes to regulating a species, especially a protected species, i.e. living beings, it is imperative and mandatory to provide as much data and in-depth analysis as possible. This data should be verified by several organisations, each with their own data, rather than relying solely on a single state source operating in a closed circuit. This would make it possible to optimise our understanding of how each pack functions and to make appropriate decisions.

Taking into account all the genetic data from the last five years on several packs in Valais, we have carried out work to demonstrate how reducing the shooting perimeter could prevent a number of shooting errors. It is quite revealing and simple to apply.

Communication, evaluation and correction

In the case of this wolf, F259, it will now be necessary to analyse the data collected by KORA, thanks to the GPS collar, on the last days of her life. It is necessary to understand why the presence of an adult female, close to the territory of a pack that has lost almost all its members since August (including the breeding female) and on which the free breeding male (M351) remains, did not lead to assessments of the possible/probable evolution of the situation, emphasising the principle of caution. Indeed, there is no denying the high risk that this female wolf might be tempted to join the breeding male, who finds himself without a partner, possibly alone, in a recognised and significant dispersal phase. In Valais, some females who lost their males between September and early November took less than a month to find a new partner! This would demonstrate the effectiveness of dispersal during this autumn period, which is conducive to the formation of new packs. In view of the GPS tracking, it might have been advisable to temporarily halt the shooting in order to observe the behaviour of F259, as she is the subject of an important scientific study. Or, at the very least, to reduce the shooting perimeter in order to avoid the buffer and border areas where a lone wolf often chooses to pass through or go on exploratory excursions. This territory is now almost empty, with the vast majority of the Mont-Tendre pack now dead.

It would appear that, both upstream and downstream, the consequences of regulatory shooting (proactive or reactive) on an individual or a pack, as well as knowledge about the species, are clearly not leading to in-depth reflection and analysis. This lack of assessment by the authorities and organisations responsible for monitoring large predators is particularly reprehensible and demonstrates the extent to which they are operating almost blindly, consulting politics but not science. This is absurd when decisions concerning the management of living beings and nature, where everything is by definition evolving and must be constantly (re)evaluated, are being made!

Here are some errors observed since 2023 which, to date, have not given rise to any clear communication or modification by the cantonal or federal authorities:

 Packs that have not caused any damage, or only one loss in a protected situation, are subject to total or partial regulation (2/3 of the year's cubs).

 Breeding females are killed in the middle of summer through reactive culling. As a reminder, this is a crucial period in the feeding and rearing of cubs. These females, one in Vaud and another in Valais, were either mistaken for the breeding male, who was supposed to be the only wolf killed, or, worse still, labelled as ‘solitary individuals’ (signature of the shooting and regulation request in less than four days), even though a wealth of data from the authorities proves, beyond any doubt, that two individuals were already present in the winter of 2025 (six months before the shooting).

 Adult wolves are shot between September and October, a period when it is impossible not to see the significant difference in size between young and adult wolves. Today, this type of shooting is recognised as a violation of the law, since the Ordinance (OChP) clearly states that wolf cubs must be shot first! The statements made by certain state services therefore do not reflect reality. It is highly likely that many wolves are shot as soon as they pass in front of the rifle, without the presence of the entire pack, which is mandatory in order to differentiate between sizes and morphologies (including through ethology --> postures, facial expressions, behaviours, etc.). This is an error with potentially very negative consequences.

 Shooting permits are being issued even though some of the cantonal authorities' files (Valais) are incomplete, not to say completely empty in one case. The examination by DETEC and KORA, which is mandatory, must be equally rigorous in order to avoid flagrant errors and the absence of sufficient quality data regarding the monitoring of these packs, which is contrary to Article 11 of the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC). The latter must be respected at European level, and Switzerland is no exception.

 The shooting of individuals from neighbouring packs not affected by the regulation, wolves fitted with research equipment (F259) or other species than Canis lupus (one guard dog and three lynxes have already been collateral damage) shows that it is impossible to proceed in a safer manner with the current training and number of shots to be fired.

 Several shootings have injured wolves, requiring the use of bloodhounds to search for them, without all cases being found or explanations being provided publicly about the animal's health. In the case of F259, more than five days elapsed between the time of the shot and the death of the animal, which had to be put down due to the severity of its injuries. And this despite the fact that she was not affected by the proactive regulation! Although it is difficult, even with thermal equipment, to aim at an animal that is almost always in motion, these errors are also an issue that needs to be discussed and addressed quickly. The authorisation granted to hunters to participate in culling, when some are not trained or accustomed to hunting at night, requires further consideration and clear supervision. This should include training that is much more professional and comprehensive than what is currently offered (ethology). As a reminder, in Switzerland, a conventional hunting licence is obtained after three years of training, and in-depth knowledge of the biology and behaviour of huntable species. This is clearly not the case for wolves!

The questions that beg to be asked are: would the cantonal and federal authorities tolerate so many errors in conventional game hunting? Would they consider it normal and ethical to shoot a doe or a chamois in the middle of July/August, leaving the fawn/kid alone? Would they accept that species or individuals that cannot be hunted or that exceed the set quotas are shot anyway, without any penalty? Would it be acceptable to issue hunting licences for deer, foxes or any other animal after just three hours of accelerated “training”, which in no way enables hunters to master the necessary knowledge about a species such as the wolf, which is complex, evolving and revolves around an eminently important social dynamic that must be fully understood? The answer is obviously no, this would not be tolerated or accepted. However, all these errors or abuses, not all of which are detailed here, are very much present in wolf regulation, without this seeming to bother anyone in state and federal circles...!

The lack or absence of communication, transparency and more active collaboration gives pause for thought and shows that a number of points need to be improved urgently. The way in which wolf management has been applied in Switzerland since 2023 is contrary to certain requirements of European law, as demonstrated by the recent complaint against Switzerland for its management of wolves, validated by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature).

 

A policy that misses the mark – understanding the mistakes of regulation in Switzerland - PART 2

Article: Team Wolf Mission
Photo: KORA (F259 during the fitting of the GPS collar) & Wolf Mission