Overview of the Hasliberg attack
A rare and troubling wolf incident occurred on Monday in the Bernese municipality of Hasliberg. A single wolf is reported to have attacked a group of llamas, resulting in the deaths of three animals and another injured one. The event is notable not only for its human toll but for the unusual targeting of llamas, a species generally kept under secure fencing rather than free-ranging in pasture-like settings.
The Bernese cantonal authorities have confirmed the attack and the ensuing debate over how best to manage wolves in Switzerland’s alpine regions has intensified. While wolves are an officially protected species, livestock losses prompt difficult questions about coexistence, fencing standards, and the balance between conservation and rural livelihoods.
Farmers’ union calls for urgent action
The Bernese Farmers’ Union (Berner Bauernverband) swiftly reacted to the incident, urging the canton to request authorization from the Federal Environment Office (OFEV) to shoot the individual wolf involved. In a statement, the association argued that for farming families the ongoing threat from wolves is intolerable. “After these new attacks, an obvious conclusion follows: the canton can no longer hesitate; it must act without delay. The problem animal must be eliminated immediately before more damage is done,” the union asserted, calling the wolf a grave risk to both livestock and local residents.
The position reflects long-running tensions in Swiss agricultural communities where predator management decisions often collide with conservation objectives. The union’s stance underscores the pressure on authorities to demonstrate that practical steps are possible within the national laws designed to protect wildlife while safeguarding rural livelihoods.
Official response and the legal framework
However, the cantonal response appears more measured. In an interview with 20 Minuten, the Bern Service of Hunting and Wild Animals stated that the llamas were not adequately protected. The official noted that for New World camelids, a fence height of at least 120 centimeters is required, and the observed enclosure did not meet this standard. The agency indicated that protection lapses may have contributed to the tragedy, suggesting that better fencing could reduce future losses even without resorting to culling.
This position highlights how Swiss wildlife policy intertwines enforcement, livestock protection, and predator management. While the killing of a problem wolf is within the realm of regulatory tools, authorities often emphasize preventive measures—strict enclosures, secure enclosures, and non-lethal deterrents—as the first line of defense.
Opposing voices and the broader debate
Beyond official channels, groups advocating for wolf protection have weighed in. The Groupe Loup Suisse pointed out that the llamas involved were not sufficiently protected under current law, arguing that policy should emphasize lawful protections rather than hasty culling. The group criticized opponents of the wolf for seeking state authorization to kill without fully considering safeguards and the long-term ecological role of wolves in the landscape. This disagreement epitomizes the broader national debate: how to reconcile wildlife recovery and biodiversity with rural economic stability and safety concerns.
What happens next?
With the incident now in the public record, authorities will likely review fencing standards and enforcement protocols, while the OFEV and cantonal authorities weigh any possible shooting authorization within the legal framework. The Hasliberg case could become a touchstone for future discussions on coexistence measures, compensation schemes for livestock losses, and the geographic distribution of predator management tools in Switzerland.
Why this matters for Swiss wildlife policy
Incidents like this one test the resilience of Switzerland’s wildlife policy, which aims to protect endangered species while supporting those who rely on livestock for their livelihoods. The Hasliberg attack underscores the need for comprehensive predator management that combines habitat protection, preventive fencing, monitoring, and clear, evidence-based decision-making. As debates continue, stakeholders agree on one point: safeguarding both biodiversity and rural communities requires practical, enforceable measures grounded in the law and in pragmatic farming realities.
