Basel is examining an exit from fox hunting, prompted by a Zug report

An expert report commissioned by the canton of Zug refutes the benefit of recreational hunting of the fox. Now Basel is taking up the finding and showing itself open to examining an abandonment.

The impact of a scientific report does not stop at the cantonal border. The Cantonal Government of Basel on 30 June 2026 answered a written enquiry from cantonal councillor Brigitta Gerber, who had the scientific evidence on recreational hunting of the fox examined. The result is remarkably clear: the government states that it is «open to a more in-depth examination of abandoning the regular red fox hunt in the canton of Basel» and wishes to explore this question together with the municipalities.

This movement was set in motion in the neighbouring canton. The same petition, submitted by the Lucerne lawyer Pascal Wolf, had led the canton of Zug's Directorate of the Interior to commission an expert report from the Zurich office SWILD. This report dismantles the common justifications for fox hunting, and it is precisely on this body of evidence that the Basel enquiry now relies.

What the Basel Cantonal Government says and what it does not

Important for context: Basel has not abolished fox hunting, nor has it decided to abolish it. The Cantonal Government declares its willingness to seriously examine abandonment. This is a deliberate opening, not an endpoint.

The figures the canton itself cites are revealing. Over the past ten years, an average of five foxes per year were killed by hunting in Basel-Stadt; over the same period, an average of ten foxes died annually as roadkill through traffic and disease. There were no special culls by the canton. Even today, Basel-Stadt pursues no approach of large-scale population regulation, but intervenes on a case-by-case basis, for instance with sick or injured animals. It is precisely these interventions by the wildlife wardens that should remain possible even if the regular hunting were abandoned.

The Cantonal Executive Council also points to the urban structure of the canton and cautions that findings from large rural regions cannot be transferred unexamined. That is a legitimate reservation. It does not change the fact that the thrust of the response points towards an opening.

The Zug findings as a foundation

The Basel initiative rests on a report written not by an animal welfare organisation, but by a specialist body commissioned by the Canton of Zug itself. The core statements of the SWILD report by Dr Claudia Kistler and Dr Fabio Bontadina of May 2026 can be summarised briefly.

Recreational hunting does not regulate the fox population. As medium-sized predators, foxes compensate for losses through earlier and more fertile reproduction as well as through the immigration of dispersing juveniles. In the case of diseases, recreational hunting is ineffective to counterproductive: rabies was defeated by the oral vaccination campaign from 1978 onwards, not by the shotgun, and with the fox tapeworm a French study found the prevalence in the heavily hunted area rose from 44 to 55 per cent, while it remained stable in the control area. For the protection of livestock, fences and herd protection proved more effective than killing foxes.

The detailed account of this report and the response of the Zug authorities can be found in our article «Canton of Zug: authorities rein in fox hunting following study».

Geneva and Luxembourg as evidence

That doing without hunting works is demonstrated by two reference cases cited both in the Zug report and in the Basel enquiry. The canton of Geneva abolished recreational hunting back in 1974; there, only game wardens shoot, and yet the fox population has not grown. Luxembourg banned fox hunting in 2015, and the responsible nature administration notes that the feared problems failed to materialise and that the proportion of foxes infested with the fox tapeworm even dropped markedly after the ban. Our article shows what hunting-free wildlife management looks like in practice Geneva: abolition of recreational hunting.

The comparison between cantons reveals two patterns

Pascal Wolf has submitted his petition in more than a dozen cantons, and the reactions differ in a revealing way. On the one side stand cantons that examine the matter: Zug commissioned an expert report and drew consequences, while Basel-Stadt now shows itself open to examining a phase-out.

On the other side stand cantons that dismissed it without giving any weight to the scientific evidence. Glarus rejected it without even examining the evidence, as can be read in «Glarus rejects petition on fox hunting without examining the evidence». Basel-Landschaft, too, replied without naming a single scientific source. That the usual justifications do not stand up to the data is shown exemplarily by the canton of Zurich, where a citizen confronted the hunting authority with a million-figure balance sheet of fox hunting.

The contrast within the two Basels is remarkable. Basel-Landschaft and Basel-Stadt share the same operational specialist office in the Forestry Office of both Basels, yet the political answer is given not by the office but by the respective cantonal government. And these turned out to be opposites: the Basel-Landschaft government council dismissed the petition and defined away the question of scientific necessity, while the Basel-Stadt government council, working from the same administrative language, arrives at an opening. Same technical foundation, opposite direction.

What remains

The question behind the petition remains the same in all cantons: if no federal law compels fox hunting and science demonstrates no benefit, on what basis does Switzerland kill tens of thousands of foxes year after year? Abandoning recreational hunting does not mean that no intervention takes place at all. Sick, injured or behaviourally abnormal animals can still be removed selectively. What is in question is the routine killing of healthy foxes without any proven benefit.

Zug has begun to confront this question. Basel-Stadt is following suit. The cantonal government's response is not yet a withdrawal, but it is a crack in the matter-of-factness with which fox hunting has been defended until now.