Hunting is often portrayed as a controlled activity. “Safety” is an integral part of the hunters’ self-image. At the same time, one issue remains surprisingly quiet: hunting accidents. This isn’t just about tragic isolated incidents, but about a structural risk arising from a simple fact: hunting means firearms in public spaces.
The typical accident patterns are well-known: mistaken identity, poor visibility, unclear firing lines, distraction, hunting pressure, and miscommunication. The risks are particularly high during driven hunts because several people shoot simultaneously, wild animals move quickly across the terrain, and orientation can be lost in seconds. There is also a social factor: group dynamics in hunting parties can reduce caution. Those who don’t want to “contribute” are more likely to act impulsively.
Another risk is ricochets and stray bullets. Bullets can be deflected by branches, rocks, or frozen ground. Even with a “safe” shot, the projectile can unexpectedly cross paths. Hiking trails, forest roads, and recreational use in the woods are commonplace in Switzerland. Hunting in Switzerland, therefore, does not take place in an enclosed space, but rather where people are active.
The question of transparency is also crucial. How consistently are accidents recorded? How open is communication? How independently are investigations conducted? In many debates, it seems as if the same actors who hunt are simultaneously involved in setting the rules and enforcement. This is a classic conflict of interest. However, safety must be independently verified, not within a system that legitimizes itself.
Hunting accidents don’t just affect people. Pets can also be involved. Dogs running free are mistaken for other animals or get caught in the crossfire. Those affected are often left with a feeling of powerlessness because hunting is considered normal in society and criticism is quickly dismissed as “emotional.” But safety isn’t a matter of feeling. Safety is the minimum requirement.
If hunting is marketed as a “service to the public,” the public must be able to rely on risks being minimized and made transparent. This means clear closures, unambiguous signage, consistent information, and above all, independent oversight. It also means questioning hunting methods that systematically increase the risk.
The societal debate therefore needs a change of perspective. Not just: “Was it a mistake?”, but: “Why do we accept a system of gun ownership in which such mistakes are even regularly possible?” The more technology, the more night hunting, the more efficiency, the more important the question becomes: who sets the limits?
Call to Action:
We are collecting information about hunting accidents, dangerous situations, and missing information. Write to us with the date, location, and source.
Exposing the Big Game 