The Confederation shall lay down principles on fishing and hunting and in particular on the preservation of the diversity of fish species, wild mammals and birds.
Art. 79 BV
#Overview
Art. 79 BV gives the Confederation the competence to establish principles for hunting and fishing. The main purpose is the protection of the species diversity of fish, wild mammals and birds (Schärmeli/Griffel, BSK BV, Art. 79 N. 3). The Confederation enacts the most important rules, while the cantons ensure their detailed implementation.
The word «principles» means: The Confederation sets minimum standards, but does not regulate everything exhaustively (Marti, SG Komm. BV, Art. 79 N. 9). The cantons remain responsible for many areas, such as the organisation of hunting licences or the determination of hunting seasons within federal requirements. The Confederation has implemented its competence through the Hunting Act (JSG) and the Federal Act on Fisheries (BGF).
«Species diversity» means: All fish, mammal and bird species native to Switzerland should be preserved in their natural diversity. The protection of large fish is particularly important, as they lay more eggs and are crucial for the survival of populations (BGE 147 II 186 E. 4.3).
Practical example: If a wolf pack in Valais kills too many sheep, the authorities can authorise individual wolves to be shot. However, this must be strictly proportionate and all other protective measures must have been tried first. Environmental organisations can appeal against such decisions, as they have the right of appeal by associations (Judgment 2C_1176/2013 of 17 April 2015).
The cantons must comply with federal principles in enforcement. They may ban state-of-the-art fishing technologies if these endanger species diversity – as the Federal Supreme Court confirmed for live sonar echo sounders (Judgment 2C_498/2023 of 26 August 2025). Those who violate hunting or fishing rules are punished with fines or even imprisonment.
Art. 79 FC — Fishing and Hunting
#Doctrine
#1. Legislative History
N. 1 The constitutional anchoring of fishing and hunting dates back to Art. 25 of the former Federal Constitution of 1874, which granted the Confederation only the competence to legislate on fishing and hunting in the interest of preserving livestock and wildlife populations. The new Federal Constitution of 1999 substantively refined the provision and explicitly enshrined species protection as an independent normative purpose.
N. 2 The Federal Council's dispatch of 20 November 1996 on the new Federal Constitution (BBl 1997 I 1) emphasised that Art. 25 of the former Federal Constitution was to be adopted essentially unchanged, but supplemented by an express reference to the preservation of biodiversity. The Federal Council identified biodiversity as the decisive protected interest, extending beyond mere stock management and conferring an autonomous ecological dimension (BBl 1997 I 264). Parliamentary deliberations led to no material change from the Federal Council's draft; the wording «in particular for the preservation of biodiversity» was retained as a programmatic guiding principle.
N. 3 At the statutory level, the Federal Act of 20 June 1986 on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds (Hunting Act, JSG; SR 922.0) and the Federal Act of 21 June 1991 on Fisheries (BGF; SR 923.0) are based on the Confederation's constitutional competence. Both enactments were adopted under the regime of Art. 25 of the former Federal Constitution and had their constitutional basis confirmed by Art. 79 FC; the dispatch on the JSG of 27 April 1983 (BBl 1983 II 1209) shows that the concept of nature conservation and habitat preservation had already found its way into hunting law at that time.
#2. Systematic Classification
N. 4 Art. 79 FC is systematically located in Chapter 4 of Title 3 «Confederation and Cantons» under the section «Responsibilities». It constitutes a competence norm: the Confederation is empowered to lay down principles («lays down principles») in the field of fishing and hunting. The article is not a fundamental right and does not establish subjective rights for individuals.
N. 5 The provision is closely connected systematically with → Art. 78 FC (protection of nature and cultural heritage, biotope protection), ↔ Art. 74 FC (environmental protection), and → Art. 80 FC (protection of animals). These four provisions together form the constitutional framework for the Confederation's nature and environmental protection. Art. 79 FC differs from Art. 78 FC in that it focuses on the use of wild animals (hunting, fishing), whereas Art. 78 FC aims at the protection of habitats. The boundaries are fluid: the protection of biodiversity under Art. 79 FC necessarily presupposes the protection of habitats as well (→ Art. 78 para. 4 FC).
N. 6 The Confederation's competence under Art. 79 FC is a concurrent framework legislative competence. The Confederation lays down principles (framework conditions and minimum standards); the cantons are responsible for implementation and more detailed regulation insofar as the Confederation has not enacted exhaustive rules (→ Art. 46 FC; → Art. 3 FC). The cantons may enact stricter, but not less strict, provisions where federal law establishes minimum requirements. The boundary between exhaustive federal regulation and remaining cantonal competence must be determined on a case-by-case basis (→ Art. 49 FC). The Federal Supreme Court has confirmed this dual structure on several occasions in the context of Art. 11 JSG (BGE 147 II 186 E. 4.3).
N. 7 As a competence norm, Art. 79 FC differs from fundamental rights (Art. 7–36 FC): the provision does not establish any directly judicially enforceable legal position for private individuals, but exclusively obliges the federal legislature to act. Marti describes Art. 79 FC as an «organisational competence norm with a substantive guiding mandate» (Marti, in: St. Galler Kommentar zur Schweizerischen Bundesverfassung, 3rd ed. 2014, N. 1 on Art. 79 FC). The Federal Supreme Court has confirmed this: the enforcement of the Confederation's task of animal and species protection under Art. 79 f. FC is subject to judicial review, but the provision itself does not constitute a directly applicable subjective right (Urteil 2C_1176/2013 of 17 April 2015 E. 1.3).
#3. Elements of the Provision / Normative Content
N. 8 «The Confederation lays down principles»: The constitutional element «principles» is decisive for delineating Confederation from cantonal competences. This is not an exclusive federal competence; rather, the Confederation is limited to framework provisions within which the cantons retain considerable regulatory discretion. Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax (Schweizerisches Verfassungsrecht, 3rd ed. 2016, N. 3081) distinguish in this context between framework legislation (framework competence) and full competence, the latter of which is precisely not accorded to the Confederation under Art. 79 FC. The 2020 revision of the JSG (in force from 2023, AS 2022 685) has once again tested the limits of this framework competence, notably in connection with the expanded federal competences for wolf management.
N. 9 «Exercising fishing and hunting rights»: The term «hunting» covers the systematic pursuit and killing of wild animals; the term «fishing» encompasses the catching of fish and other aquatic animals in public waters. The fishing regale (public-law entitlement to exercise fishing rights in public waters) remains with the cantons; the Confederation regulates the conditions for its exercise. The Federal Supreme Court held in Urteil 2C_498/2023 of 26 August 2025 E. 4.4 that private individuals have no constitutional claim as such to exercise fishing rights by virtue of the cantonal fishing regale, but that the constitutional limits on state regulation of fishing equipment must be observed against the standard of Art. 26 and Art. 36 FC.
N. 10 «In particular for the preservation of the biodiversity of fish, wild mammals and birds»: The «in particular» makes clear that species protection constitutes the primary normative purpose, without excluding other regulatory objectives (e.g. prevention of wildlife damage, game management, sustainable use). The term «biodiversity» corresponds to the international law concept of biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; SR 0.451.43), which Switzerland ratified in 1994. The protected animal groups are: (1) fish (including lampreys and crustaceans; cf. Art. 1 BGF), (2) wild mammals (including large carnivores such as wolves, lynx, and bears), and (3) birds. The enumeration is not exhaustive; other animal groups are protected by the Federal Act on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage (NHG; SR 451) (↔ Art. 78 FC).
N. 11 The species protection purpose operates normatively in two directions: first as a duty to protect (preservation of endangered species, prohibition of extirpation, protective measures), and second as guidance on use (regulation of permissible hunting and fishing techniques, closed seasons, quotas). The Federal Supreme Court expressly recognised Art. 79 FC (together with Art. 78 para. 4 FC) in Urteil 2C_498/2023 E. 4.5 as the constitutional basis of legitimation for state intervention to protect fish biodiversity, including the prohibition of certain fishing technologies (live sonar echo sounders on Lake Lucerne).
N. 12 The duty to protect also extends to protected species, i.e. animal species that may not be hunted or fished. Large carnivores such as wolves and lynx are protected under the JSG (Art. 2 JSG) but may be regulated under strict conditions. The Federal Supreme Court held in the context of Art. 79 FC that orders to shoot protected bird species must be characterised as administrative decisions (Verfügungen) and are subject to the right of appeal by associations under Art. 12 NHG (Urteil 2C_1176/2013 E. 4.2.4).
#4. Legal Consequences
N. 13 Art. 79 FC establishes a legislative duty of the Confederation. The federal legislature is obliged to enact statutory principles for the exercise of fishing and hunting that serve the preservation of biodiversity. This duty is fulfilled by the JSG and BGF. A failure by the legislature to act would be unconstitutional, but could not be directly enforced before the courts by private individuals, since Art. 79 FC does not confer a subjective right.
N. 14 At the level of ordinary law, Art. 79 FC has effect as a standard of interpretation: federal law provisions in the field of hunting and fishing must be interpreted in the light of the species protection objective of Art. 79 FC. The Federal Supreme Court regularly draws on Art. 79 FC as an interpretive framework when provisions of the JSG or BGF require construction.
N. 15 Art. 79 FC also establishes state duties to protect: the Confederation and, within the scope of implementation, the cantons are obliged to take active protective measures to preserve biodiversity. This duty to protect is reinforced by Switzerland's international law obligations (CBD, Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats; SR 0.455, Aarhus Convention; SR 0.814.07). The Federal Supreme Court applied the Aarhus Convention as a standard of interpretation for the right of appeal by associations in species protection measures (Urteil 2C_1176/2013 E. 4.3).
N. 16 As an enabling norm for state interference with fundamental rights, Art. 79 FC — together with Art. 78 para. 4 FC — legitimises restrictions on the guarantee of property (Art. 26 FC), freedom of economic activity (Art. 27 FC), and protection against arbitrariness (Art. 9 FC) in the service of species protection, provided that the requirements of → Art. 36 FC (statutory basis, public interest, proportionality, essential core) are satisfied. The public interest in species protection under Art. 79 FC was recognised in Urteil 2C_498/2023 E. 4.5 as a sufficient public interest to justify a minor interference with property rights (prohibition of echo sounder technology).
#5. Contested Issues
N. 17 Scope of the Confederation's competence («principles»): A contested issue is the extent to which the Confederation may, on the basis of Art. 79 FC, enact exhaustive rules going beyond mere framework legislation. Marti (St. Galler Kommentar, 3rd ed. 2014, N. 5 ff. on Art. 79 FC) takes the view that the character as a «framework competence» prohibits the Confederation from displacing the cantons in detailed regulation. By contrast, recent revisions of the JSG (notably the 2020/2023 partial revision on wolf regulation) have significantly expanded federal competences; academic literature is debating whether this remains compatible with the constitutional term «principles». Griffel (Griffel, Das Verbandsbeschwerderecht im Brennpunkt zwischen Nutz- und Schutzinteressen, URP 2006, p. 94) emphasises that where federal regulation becomes increasingly exhaustive, the residual cantonal competence (→ Art. 3 FC) must be formally preserved.
N. 18 Relationship between species protection and hunting: A core dispute concerns the question of whether and under what conditions the culling of protected animal species (wolves, lynx) is compatible with the species protection objective of Art. 79 FC. The constitutional duty to protect biodiversity and the legitimate interest in regulating populations to protect biodiversity (prevention of overpopulation) can come into tension with each other. The Federal Supreme Court applied a strict proportionality standard in the Aletsch Forest case (BGE 147 II 186 E. 4.3): culls in hunting reserves are permissible only as individual and concrete measures that withstand a comprehensive balancing of interests and are precisely defined as to the individuals concerned, time, place, and method. Aubert/Mahon (Petit commentaire de la Constitution fédérale, 2003, Art. 79 N. 5) see in this a «conservation intégrée»: use and protection must be maintained in a dynamic equilibrium without either side completely displacing the other.
N. 19 Hunting system: licence hunting versus beat hunting: The Federal Constitution leaves open which hunting system the cantons must introduce. This is a matter for the cantons; the Confederation has no constitutional mandate to establish a uniform hunting system. Rhinow/Schefer/Uebersax (op. cit., N. 3080) note that the Confederation's framework competence does not encompass the harmonisation of hunting systems. The Federal Supreme Court has confirmed this cantonal autonomy in respect of the hunting system in several decisions (cf. BGE 147 II 186 E. 4.1.4 for the Valais licence hunting system).
N. 20 Right of appeal by associations as an enforcement instrument: Academic literature discusses whether the right of appeal by associations under Art. 12 NHG constitutes a necessary correlate to the realisation of the Confederation's constitutional task under Art. 79 FC. Griffel (URP 2006, p. 94) and Marti (op. cit., N. 11) answer in the affirmative: without an effective right of scrutiny by environmental organisations, the Confederation's task of species protection would remain largely dependent on implementation and thus politically vulnerable. The Federal Supreme Court has aligned itself with this view (Urteil 2C_1176/2013 E. 4.2.3–4.3.5) and drew on the Aarhus Convention as a standard of interpretation.
#6. Practical Notes
N. 21 Implementation responsibility of the cantons: Anyone active in cantonal hunting or fishing law must always examine whether a relevant federal framework norm (JSG, BGF, JSV, FJPV) displaces the cantonal rule. The planning of culls in hunting reserves must be designed on an individual and concrete basis in accordance with the standards of BGE 147 II 186; a general opening of reserves to unrestricted hunting is impermissible under federal law.
N. 22 Form of administrative decision for cull orders: All official cull orders for protected or huntable species — regardless of whether they are directed at private individuals or subordinate administrative bodies — must be issued and notified as formal administrative decisions (Verfügungen) (Urteil 2C_1176/2013 E. 4.2.4). This applies irrespective of the quantitative scale of the order. Authorities that dispense with the form of an administrative decision risk judicial annulment of their measures and a violation of the right of appeal by associations under Art. 12 NHG.
N. 23 Proportionality review for regulatory measures: Every measure to regulate wild animal populations must satisfy the three-stage proportionality test under → Art. 36 para. 3 FC (suitability, necessity, reasonableness). The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the measure minimises the impact on the protective objectives for other species living in the area (BGE 147 II 186 E. 4.3). The same applies to regulatory measures in the field of fisheries: the prohibition of innovative fishing technologies may be justified by the species protection purpose of Art. 79 FC, provided the prohibition is suitable and necessary (Urteil 2C_498/2023 E. 4.6).
N. 24 Species protection as a public interest: Species protection under Art. 79 FC (in conjunction with Art. 78 para. 4 FC) is recognised as an established public interest capable of legitimising state interference with the guarantee of property (Art. 26 FC) and freedom of economic activity (Art. 27 FC). Authorities and courts may rely directly on Art. 79 FC to affirm the public interest requirement under Art. 36 para. 2 FC, without needing a specific statutory concretisation (Urteil 2C_498/2023 E. 4.5).
N. 25 International law embedding: When interpreting Art. 79 FC, Switzerland's international law obligations must be taken into account, in particular the CBD, the Bern Convention, and the Aarhus Convention. The Aarhus Convention requires effective legal protection against species protection-relevant state actions and omissions (Art. 9 para. 3 Aarhus Convention); this requirement feeds into the interpretation of the national right of appeal by associations (Urteil 2C_1176/2013 E. 4.3.5). → Art. 190 FC ensures that these international law requirements are given due weight by the Federal Supreme Court and the administration.
Art. 79 BV
#Case Law
#Principles of Federal Competencies
BGE 147 II 186 E. 4.3 of 25 November 2020
Federal competencies in hunting and wildlife protection are comprehensive but not exclusive. Cantons remain responsible for legal matters that the Confederation has not definitively regulated.
«According to Art. 11 para. 5 JSG, hunting is prohibited in hunting reserves. However, cantonal enforcement authorities may permit the shooting of huntable animals if this is necessary for the protection of habitats, for the conservation of biodiversity, for game management, or for the prevention of excessive wildlife damage.»
Judgment 2C_1176/2013 of 17 April 2015
Shooting orders for protected bird species are to be qualified as administrative decisions and trigger the right of appeal by associations. The federal task of animal and species protection under Art. 79 f. BV establishes comprehensive supervisory rights.
«The contested lower court judgment was rendered in application and interpretation of the JSG and thus concerns the fulfillment of a federal task (animal and species protection, Art. 79 f. BV).»
#Species Protection and Individual Shootings
Judgment 2C 975/2015 of 31 March 2016
Cost participation in wild boar damage: The federal law principles of Art. 79 BV are specified in cost allocation for wildlife damage. Cantons may oblige hunting associations to participate in costs.
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed cantonal competence for the implementation of principles established by the Confederation in the area of wildlife damage prevention.
Administrative Court St. Gallen B 2023/259 of 11 March 2024
Wolf shooting in Weisstannental: The federal principles under Art. 79 BV enable preventive regulatory measures for biodiversity conservation even for protected species when significant damage is threatened.
«The quantitative and temporal requirements for ordering the shooting of an individual wolf as stipulated in the Ordinance on Hunting and the Protection of Wild-living Mammals and Birds are fulfilled.»
Federal Administrative Court A-6740/2023 of 27 November 2023
Proactive wolf regulation in Graubünden: The federal principles under Art. 79 BV also justify proactive regulatory measures for wolf packs when ecological balance and biodiversity are endangered.
#Right of Appeal by Associations and Procedural Guarantees
Judgment 2C_1176/2013 of 17 April 2015
Environmental associations have a comprehensive right of appeal against shooting orders based on Art. 12 NHG, as these concern the constitutional federal task of species protection under Art. 79 BV.
«The contested shooting orders are to be qualified as administrative decisions within the meaning of Art. 12 para. 1 NHG. They thus trigger the right of appeal by associations of the appellant and, as a correlate, an obligation to publish or notify.»
The Federal Supreme Court established that Art. 79 BV creates a federal task whose implementation is subject to judicial review.
#Wildlife Damage Compensation
Higher Court Schaffhausen No. 60/2016/22 of 5 July 2016
Wildlife damage to agricultural crops: The federal principles under Art. 79 BV are specified in the obligation to compensate for wildlife damage. Only damage to agricultural crops is compensable, not damage to infrastructure.
«Only damage that wild boar cause to forests, agricultural crops and livestock is compensable. Agricultural crops means agricultural cultivated plants.»
#Hunting Reserves and Protected Areas
BGE 147 II 186 E. 4.1-4.3 of 25 November 2020
Federal principles for hunting reserves: In federal hunting reserves, hunting is prohibited, but individually and specifically ordered shootings may be permitted for biodiversity conservation.
«Such shooting may be permitted in a hunting reserve if it is necessary based on a balancing of all interests and proportionate overall. The measure must be designed not only in substantive, local and temporal terms but especially in personal terms, while respecting the protection objectives.»
Administrative Court Zurich VB.2014.00351 of 21 January 2015
Bird strike prevention at airport: The federal principles under Art. 79 BV allow exceptions from protection of wild birds for overriding public interests. The canton is responsible for shootings of protected species at Zurich Airport.
#Criminal Proceedings in Hunting Matters
Federal Supreme Court 6B 411/2016 of 7 June 2016
Violations of hunting regulations: The criminal provisions of cantonal hunting laws specify the federal principles under Art. 79 BV. Violations of hunting and animal protection provisions are cumulatively punished.
Higher Court Zurich SB230251 of 4 December 2023
Animal cruelty and hunting offenses: Violations of hunting regulations may be punished with summary penalty orders and are to be distinguished from animal protection violations.
#International Obligations
Judgment 2C_1176/2013 of 17 April 2015
Aarhus Convention and right of appeal by associations: The federal principles under Art. 79 BV are to be interpreted taking into account international law obligations. The Aarhus Convention establishes extended supervisory rights for environmental associations.
«The contested orders for shooting protected birds may impair protection objectives within the meaning of Art. 1 NHG and are therefore subject to the conventional right of appeal by associations since the entry into force of the Aarhus Convention.»
#Federal Division of Competencies
Case law consistently confirms that Art. 79 BV grants the Confederation comprehensive but not exclusive competence. Cantons remain responsible for implementation and detailed regulation insofar as the Confederation has not enacted definitive norms. Courts strictly review compliance with federal minimum standards in species protection.