Facts
The complainant Pro Natura, a nationwide nature conservation organization in Switzerland, appealed against the decision of the Office for Nature, Hunting and Fisheries (ANJF) of the Canton of St. Gallen dated 16 November 2023, which ordered the culling of a wolf from a wolf pair in the Schils and Weisstann valleys. The order deprived the appeal of suspensive effect, but was confirmed by the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen in a judgment dated 11 March 2024. Pro Natura then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
Between August and November 2023, a total of 12 sheep were killed in wolf attacks on two pastures in the Schils and Weisstann valleys. A carcass found on 3 September 2023 on the Alp "[A.] " in the Schils valley was attributed to the female wolf F35 from the wolf pair. The remaining carcasses could not be attributed to a wolf despite DNA samples. The pastures were protected by herd protection measures such as electric fences and livestock guardian dogs. The Weisstann valley is also a territory of the Calfeisental pack, whose territory overlaps with that of the wolf pair.
The ANJF ordered the culling of a wolf from the wolf pair without first checking the effectiveness of the herd protection measures taken. The complainant argued before the Administrative Court and later before the Federal Supreme Court that the factual clarification was insufficient, in particular the assessment of the herd protection measures, the weather conditions at the time of the attacks and the attribution of the damage to the wolf pair. The Federal Supreme Court exceptionally waived the requirement for a current legal interest in protection, as the issues raised were of fundamental importance and recurring.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility requirements and concluded that Pro Natura was entitled to file the appeal as an organization entitled to appeal pursuant to Art. 12 NCHA in conjunction with Art. 89 para. 2 lit. d FSCA. Although the challenged cull permit expired on 19 January 2024, the court waived the requirement for a current legal interest in protection, as the issues relating to wolf culling are of public interest and may arise again due to the growing wolf population. The appeal against the interim order of 15 January 2024, which deprived the appeal of suspensive effect, was however dismissed as inadmissible, as this order no longer had any effect at the time of the final decision.
In the matter itself, the complainant argued that the lower court had obviously established the facts incompletely and arbitrarily. In particular, it criticized the assessment of the herd protection measures, the weather conditions at the time of the attacks and the attribution of the damage to the wolf pair. The Federal Supreme Court held that the lower court had based its findings of fact on incomplete, incorrect and contradictory documents. The assessment of the herd protection measures by the cantonal contact point was based on undated, incomplete photos and an inadequately completed herd protection form that did not meet the requirements of the Herd Protection Implementation Guide. In addition, there was no evidence of the voltage at the lower end of the fence, and the assessment of the weather conditions was contradictory and insufficiently justified.
The lower court also relied solely on the canton's assertions to attribute the damage to the wolf pair without presenting objective…