On 28 November 2021, Valais accepted the popular initiative «For a Valais without large predators» by 62.67%. The text writes into the cantonal constitution the goal of not encouraging the presence of the wolf, the lynx, the bear or the golden jackal.
The return of the wolf, settled in the canton since the mid-1990s, puts pressure on mountain livestock farming and Alpine pastures. In 2023, more than 400 farm animals were killed by wolves in Valais. The exasperation of the farming world carried the initiative.
Yet the whole debate rested on a paradox conceded by both camps — and even by the cantonal government, which backed the text: regulating large predators falls under federal jurisdiction. The cantonal article thus served mainly as a political «signal» to Bern.
▲ The Yes — 62.67% 87,088 votes in favour (62.67%). A clear majority, backed by the farming world, the SVP and the cantonal government, which saw the vote as a gauge of opinion to brandish in Bern. | ▼ The No — 37.33% 51,875 votes against (37.33%), on a turnout above 65%. Opponents — Greens, SP, Pro Natura, WWF — deemed the text «useless and absurd» for want of cantonal jurisdiction. |
The campaign's actors
▲ Yes camp • The initiative committee and livestock-farming circles • The SVP of Valais and the Valais Chamber of Agriculture • The cantonal government (which recommended a yes, as a «signal» to Bern) | ▼ No camp • The Greens and the Socialist Party • Pro Natura and WWF • Nature-protection circles |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) Protecting herds and mountain farming « You cannot leave the pastures defenceless. » Verdict: ✓~ The pressure is real, but effective protection came from Bern. The farmers' distress is documented: more than 400 animals killed in 2023. But it was the revision of federal law, not the cantonal article, that allowed action: proactive regulation in the winter of 2023-2024, with some thirty wolves shot in Valais. Source: KORA, 2023-2024 review; RTS, 2024 Sending a strong signal to Bern « A strong signal to the federal Parliament. » Verdict: ✓ The signal was heard. That was the explicit aim, shared by the cantonal government. Indeed, the federal Hunting Act (LChP) and its ordinance were revised (2023-2025) to allow proactive wolf regulation. The Valais vote and those of other mountain cantons weighed in that shift. Source: RTS, 2021; FOEN, 2024-2025 | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) A purely symbolic article « Useless and absurd: the jurisdiction is federal. » Verdict: ✓ Diagnosis confirmed. Opponents — like the cantonal government itself — recalled that only the Confederation and the Hunting Act decide on culls. The facts proved them right: it was the revised Act and ordinance that made the culls possible, not the article in the Valais constitution. Source: RTS, 2021; lematin.ch A text inapplicable at cantonal level « This article will change nothing on the ground. » Verdict: ✓~ No direct legal effect, and culls suspended by the courts. The article produced no legal effect of its own on the culls. And federal regulation hit limits: on appeal by protection groups, the Federal Administrative Court had the culling of several packs (Hauts-Forts, Nanz, Le Fou-Isérables) suspended over the winter of 2023-2024. Source: 24 heures, 2023-2024; KORA |
The factual record
62.67% yes to the initiative | > 400 animals killed in 2023 | Bern jurisdiction over culls | ≈ 38 wolves regulated (2023-24) |
On the legal substance the opponents were right, and everyone knew it — including the government, which backed the text anyway: a canton does not decide on wolf culls; that is Bern's business.
Politically, however, the initiative's backers prevailed. Pressure from the mountain cantons accompanied the revision of the federal Hunting Act, and the winter of 2023-2024 saw unprecedented proactive regulation — some thirty wolves shot in Valais.
The cantonal article itself produced no direct legal effect. The federal courts even suspended certain culls on appeal by nature defenders. The Valais «signal» thus counted more for its political weight than its legal reach.