Switzerland in the spotlight
Since fall 2023, Switzerland has been the focus of particular attention at the European level. The reason: the introduction of wolf regulations that are unparalleled among countries where the species is protected.
This regulation took place at a steady pace, in three successive phases. Within twelve months, 222 wolves were killed. During the last phase, which ran from September 1, 2025, to January 31, only 10 out of 43 packs were not targeted by any form of regulation.
With the entry into force of the new Hunting Ordinance (OChP), the possibility of culling entire packs or up to two-thirds of the year's cubs has been extended to so-called “problematic” packs. However, the concept of a problematic pack does not seem to be based on objective and publicly defined criteria, referring in particular to wolves that “repeatedly circumvent protection measures.”
Yet occasional predation remains an inherent phenomenon associated with the presence of a large protected predator: the total absence of losses is not an ecologically realistic objective. In the absence of an explicit distinction between occasional predation and repeated, significant and persistent predatory pressure despite appropriate protective measures, the assessment of “problematic” status appears to be open to broad interpretation.
Some essential figures
To gauge the significance of these figures, it is necessary to recall certain contextual elements.
Since 2023, the wolf population in Switzerland has been estimated at between 300 and 350 individuals, divided into 30 to 40 packs.
The number of wolf cubs born each year is around 120 to 140, with a very high natural mortality rate during the first two years of life, between 60 and 80%, even in the absence of human regulation.
These data are essential because they show that current regulation is not marginal to the natural functioning of the species, but rather intervenes at the very heart of its demographic and social dynamics.
Reassuring federal communication... but a more contrasting reality
From the federal authorities' point of view, the communication is intended to be reassuring. Proactive regulation is presented as an effective, controlled tool that responds to the concerns of the pastoral world.
But when we examine the situation at the regional level, the picture becomes more complex, sometimes contradictory, and unconvincing. The results observed in the field do not always confirm the overall messages disseminated at the national level.
It is this discrepancy between the authorities' rhetoric and local realities that has led us to make several public statements, through articles and also by writing documents on the five packs in the French-speaking part of Valais involved in proactive regulation in one or both of the first two phases.
In these reports, which are nearly 160 pages long and which we have sent to the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Bern Convention, and the LCIE (Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe), we detail some fairly serious issues observed in the cantonal authorities' regulation requests, as well as errors in the analysis of the data collected.
The case of Valais clearly shows that there are serious discrepancies between the positive communications from the federal authorities and the reality on the ground at the regional level. They do not appear to be explicitly mentioned in public communications or accessible files, which limits the transparency of the decision-making process and the possibility of informed debate.
Time to take stock... or ask questions
After three phases of regulation, it is natural to take stock. But is it really a question of evaluating success—or, on the contrary, of questioning the collateral effects, or even the potential damage, of this policy? The question is all the more relevant given that, contrary to a conventional scientific approach, Switzerland has not proceeded with:
- pilot phases
- the establishment of control packs or regions
- a gradual implementation allowing different approaches to be compared
Proactive regulation was applied from the outset, simultaneously, across all the territories concerned, without distinction, without prior experimentation, and without a framework for isolating its specific effects.
This approach raises a key question: “Is it still possible today to clearly identify the real effects of proactive regulation?”
In other words:
how can we distinguish between what is due to regulation
and what is due to other equally decisive factors, when all these parameters are changing at the same time?
This is precisely the question raised by this article, which is deliberately questioning rather than assertive. The aim is not to hammer home a conclusion, but to highlight the structural limitations of the current system.
A study announced... but subject to possible institutional constraints
A communication from KORA indicates that a study on proactive wolf regulation in Switzerland will be conducted until 2029. The stated objective is to understand the effects of this regulation on attacks on livestock.
- Does it really work?
- Does regulation achieve its objectives?
- Does it reduce predation in the long term and promote long-term coexistence?
- Can the desired educational effect be achieved in this way? Or is everything ultimately aimed at a hypothetical digital effect that could reduce damage to livestock?
These questions are legitimate, but they appear after the implementation of a policy that is already very committed to a so-called protected species. In Switzerland, wolf management is based on three pillars operating at different levels of the process: the cantons, KORA, and the FOEN (Federal Office of the Environment), which are involved in data collection and analysis, the preparation of files, and the examination and validation of regulation requests. This organization raises a question of scientific governance: when a stakeholder is involved in both the production of expertise and the validation of regulation decisions, what institutional guarantees ensure the separation of roles, methodological transparency, and the absence of structural conflicts of interest?
Why a simple analysis would be misleading
It would be tempting to answer these questions using graphs showing the evolution of wolf populations and the number of attacks on livestock over a number of years
But such an interpretation would be scientifically insufficient. Attacks are not solely linked to the number of wolves. They result from a complex combination of many factors, which interact with each other and vary greatly depending on the local context.
Any serious analysis must take into account, at the local and regional level, all of the following parameters:
the actual status and evolution of herd protection measures.
the farming methods used.
the characteristics of the environment.
the specific functioning of wolf packs.
the concrete methods of regulation.
Each of these factors can, on its own, influence the number of attacks. Any change—even a one-off change—can alter the situation, regardless of regulation.
A complexity that is too often underestimated
The multiplicity of these parameters makes any overall analysis extremely delicate. Attributing a decline, stagnation, or increase in predation solely to proactive regulation, without taking all of these elements into account, is an oversimplification and will in no way help to determine the most appropriate and effective solutions for the future.
It is precisely this complexity, often underestimated in public debate, that explains why rigorous scientific evaluation is so difficult today.
In the second part, we will examine how this complexity clashes, in the field, with:
- data that is sometimes incomplete or inaccurate.
- data that is sometimes incomplete or inaccurate.
- a gradual implementation allowing different approaches to be compared
- an institutional framework that raises questions of transparency and independence.
Proactive wolf regulation can only be seriously evaluated on one condition: accepting the limitations of the available data, the inconsistencies in implementation, and the potential biases in the system.
To read the second part of the article, click HERE
Article: Team Mission Loup
Photos: Illustrations
Sources of figures: KORA/FOEN
BACK TO BLOG
