Canton of Basel-Landschaft responds to fox-hunting petition – without a single scientific source

On 16 June 2026, the Government Council of the Canton of Basel-Landschaft responded to Pascal Wolf's petition concerning the scientific necessity of fox hunting.

The four-page letter, signed by Government President Dr Anton Lauber and Cantonal Clerk Elisabeth Heer Dietrich, sounds professional and balanced at first glance. On closer inspection, however, one thing stands out: it contains not a single scientific source reference.

Pascal Wolf had submitted the petition on 16 December 2025, demanding that the canton examine the scientific necessity of fox hunting. Six months later, the answer is, in essence: this question «cannot, from a technical standpoint, be reduced to the question of a general necessity».

The question is not answered – it is reformulated

This is a classic evasive manoeuvre. The canton defines away the original question by describing wildlife management as a complex overall assessment that goes beyond simple yes-or-no decisions. That may be true in principle. But it does not answer whether fox hunting in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft is scientifically justifiable.

Concrete data are entirely absent: no kill figures, no population surveys, no studies on the effectiveness of hunting interventions on fox populations. This is precisely what the petition had called for.

Five functions, no evidence

The Government Council lists five functions of fox hunting: limiting local conflict situations in settlement areas, dealing with habituated animals, putting sick or injured animals out of their misery, supporting animal health, and maintaining «practical capacity to act in the event of an incident».

Looking at this list more closely, one thing stands out: most of these points describe individual-case measures that do not justify a systematic, comprehensive hunting regime. Releasing sick animals from their suffering is an animal welfare task, not a justification for hunting. Epidemiological observation requires no killing. And «the ability to act in the event of an incident» remains an empty phrase devoid of substance.

Geneva as a silent counter-argument

Particularly revealing is a sentence towards the end of the letter: even in cantons with other hunting systems, «including state hunting (Geneva), interventions in wildlife populations remain part of wildlife management». That is true. What the canton does not say, however: Geneva abolished hobby hunting back in 1974 and has since demonstrated that effective wildlife management works without hobby hunting. The reference to Geneva thus unintentionally refutes the canton’s own argument.

The same pattern as in Glarus

Basel-Landschaft is not alone with this response. The canton of Glarus had likewise rejected Pascal Wolf’s petition of the same name in June 2026, also without scientific evidence. Glarus too referred to cantonal competence and «integral wildlife management». The pattern is identical: the question of scientific necessity is not answered, but defined away.

Both responses make clear how Swiss cantons deal with scientifically grounded petitions on fox hunting: not with data, but with administrative language.

A federal defence system

The Swiss hunting act grants the cantons considerable latitude in implementing wildlife management. This latitude is used, but not for scientific transparency – rather for maintaining the status quo. As long as cantons are not obliged to justify hunting interventions scientifically, they will not do so.

Pascal Wolf’s petition has at least achieved one thing: it has documented in writing that the canton of Basel-Landschaft cannot – or will not – answer the question of the scientific necessity of fox hunting.