Fox hunting without facts: How hunting in Switzerland invents problems

On November 27, 2025, JagdSchweiz published a position paper on fox hunting. The message is clear: fox hunting is "sensible and useful" and must "absolutely be maintained." Criticism from nature and animal welfare organizations is dismissed as emotional and lacking in facts.

However, anyone who looks at the actual situation in fox-hunting-free regions, at court rulings, and at official hunting statistics quickly realizes that the paper primarily defends a hunter's self-image and a bloody hobby that is hardly compatible with modern wildlife ecology and animal welfare. Luxembourg has banned all fox hunting since 2015, and Geneva has banned all recreational hunting since 1974 – and neither canton nor country experiences the catastrophes that the hunting lobby regularly conjures up. Reality refutes the position paper before a single page has even been read.

What awaits you here

JagdSchweiz defends a system that has long been on the defensive: What the position paper says, what is missing – and why both are revealing.
Luxembourg: Fox hunting banned, no problems arose: What authorities, independent reports and parliamentary inquiries have documented since 2015 – and how dramatically the opposite of lobby predictions has come true.
Canton of Geneva: Fifty years of wildlife policy without recreational hunting: How the canton shows that nature does not collapse without recreational hunting, but flourishes – with the highest density of brown hares in Switzerland.
National parks and fox-hunting-free areas: The threat remains theoretical: What long-term observations from hunting-free zones in Europe show about fox density and biodiversity.
The culture of violence in hobby hunting in court: What the legally binding verdict of the Bellinzona criminal court says about hunting in Switzerland, freedom of expression and documented facts.
Graubünden: Official figures expose the ideal image: What the official high-altitude hunting statistics reveal about misfires, unlawful killings and wounded animals.
Fox as a scapegoat for problems in agriculture: Why the decline of ground-nesting birds and hares is not due to the fox – and which factors experts and authorities actually point to.
Diseases: Success of medicine, not of the rifle: What the history of rabies control and the fox tapeworm data from Luxembourg say about the alleged disease prevention through fox hunting.
What a modern wildlife policy really needs: Three concrete priorities as an alternative to hobby hunting of foxes.
Animal welfare law versus hunting logic: Why the rhetoric of use in the position paper contradicts the spirit of the Swiss Animal Welfare Act and the Civil Code.
Argumentation: Answers to the most common justifications of the fox hunting lobby.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and dossiers.

Hunting Switzerland is defending a system that has long been on the defensive.

In its position paper from November 2025, JagdSchweiz (the Swiss hunting association) responds to the "repeated discussion initiated by nature conservation and animal welfare groups" regarding the purpose and future of fox hunting. The organization maintains that recreational fox hunting is necessary to regulate populations, prevent damage, combat diseases, and protect other wildlife species. The fox is thus indirectly portrayed as a problem figure that would spiral out of control without shotguns and rifles.

What's striking is the lack of a sober, scientific evaluation of experiences in regions where fox hunting has been prohibited for years or even decades, as well as an honest examination of the massive shortcomings of their own clientele in hunting practices. The position paper treats foxes as "ownerless public property" and as a commodity with fluctuating fur prices. What matters are hunting rights, the number of animals killed, and the market – not the animal as a sentient individual. This is the worldview of an interest group that has already outlived its usefulness – and doesn't even realize it.

More on this topic: The hunter lobby in Switzerland: How influence works and The blacklist of JagdSchweiz (

Luxembourg: Fox hunting banned, no problems arose

Luxembourg completely banned recreational fox hunting at the beginning of 2015. Before the ban, around 3,000 foxes were killed annually by recreational hunters in the Grand Duchy. Hunting associations predicted a "population explosion," a growing risk of disease, and increasing damage to ground-nesting birds and livestock. None of this has come to pass.

Environment Minister Carole Dieschbourg repeatedly confirmed in response to parliamentary inquiries from the opposition: There is no evidence of an increase in the fox population. Camera trap monitoring and censuses indicate a stable, consistent population. The findings regarding the fox tapeworm are particularly significant: While the infestation rate in foxes in a German test area increased by 15 percent due to intensified hunting, the infestation rate in Luxembourg fell by approximately 20 percent during the hunting ban. Fox hunting is therefore not only an unsuitable means of combating the fox tapeworm – it demonstrably promotes its spread. The Luxembourg Hunting Association (FSHCL) even filed a lawsuit against the ban. It was unsuccessful.

More on this: Luxembourg extends fox hunting ban and hobby hunters spread diseases

Canton of Geneva: Fifty years of wildlife policy without recreational hunting

The reality check is even more striking in Switzerland itself. In the canton of Geneva, militia hunting was abolished by popular vote in 1974. Before the vote, the hunting lobby had claimed that without hunting, the brown hare in the canton would be threatened with extinction by predators. The opposite has proven true: Geneva now has the highest brown hare density in all of Switzerland.

In the early 1970s, large wild animals in the canton of Geneva were almost eradicated due to excessive recreational hunting – only a few dozen deer remained, and red deer and wild boar had been absent for decades. After the hunting ban, populations recovered. Today, Geneva is one of the last strongholds for wild rabbits and partridges in Switzerland and is home to the country's last remaining partridge population. The number of overwintering waterfowl along the shores of Lake Geneva and the Rhône River has increased dramatically – a direct result of the absence of disturbance from recreational hunting. Fifty years of nature observation in the canton of Geneva provide the most compelling argument against the hunting lobby's alarmist population projections.

More on this topic: The game warden model: Professional wildlife management with a code of ethics and Geneva: Hunting ban since 1974

National parks and fox-hunting-free zones: The threat remains theoretical.

Besides Luxembourg and Geneva, there are other areas in Europe where foxes have not been hunted, or only very rarely, for years – including national parks such as the Bavarian Forest and Berchtesgaden, as well as larger hunting-free areas. The findings are consistent:

There are no documented "fox explosions" with subsequent collapses of ground-nesting bird or hare populations.
The fox population density adapts to the natural and man-made conditions – especially the food supply.
Where humans do not intervene with firearms, food supply, diseases and intraspecific competition regulate populations themselves.

This presents JagdSchweiz with a clear contradiction: While its position paper paints dramatic scenarios, real-world field trials on two levels – nationally in the canton of Geneva and internationally in Luxembourg – demonstrate the opposite. Fox-hunting-free zones are not ecological problem areas. They are often biodiversity hotspots.

The culture of violence in recreational hunting in court

How the hunting community surrounding JagdSchweiz operates is illustrated by a case before the criminal court in Bellinzona. JagdSchweiz had sued IG Wild beim Wild, claiming its honor had been violated by harsh criticism. The case centered on statements describing JagdSchweiz as a "militant problem organization" accused of fostering a culture of violence, showing disrespect towards wildlife, and exerting massive political pressure through intimidation and disinformation.

After hearing the evidence, Judge Siro Quadri concluded that these statements did not constitute lies and therefore were not defamatory. The lawsuit was dismissed, and the verdict is final. Legally, this means that even drastic descriptions of a "militant hunting milieu" and a "culture of violence" were deemed by the criminal court to be protected by freedom of expression and, in essence, supported by the facts and context presented. This sheds a clear light on the environment in which the current position paper originated.

More on this topic: Hunting and animal welfare: What practice does to wild animals and the psychology of hunting

Graubünden: Official figures expose the idealized image

High-altitude hunts in Graubünden are often touted by JagdSchweiz (the Swiss Hunting Association) as a prime example of responsible wildlife management. The official figures tell a different story. During the high-altitude hunting season, around 10,000 red deer, chamois, roe deer, and wild boar are killed annually in the canton. Approximately 9 percent of these kills are illegal. In the five years prior to 2016 alone, recreational hunters paid over 700,000 Swiss francs in fines – up to 177,000 francs per year.

The figures for wounded animals are particularly alarming: Between 2012 and 2016, 56,403 deer, roe deer, chamois, and wild boar were killed in Graubünden. In 3,836 cases, animals were merely wounded – and thus succumbed to the consequences of the shot or died unharmed. During the 2022 high season, the Office for Hunting and Fishing reported 790 incorrect kills out of approximately 9,200 animals killed. Wildlife biologist Lukas Walser confirmed to SRF: "This proportion is roughly the same every year." Extrapolated to all hunting cantons and over longer periods, this results in tens of thousands of animals that are either killed illegally or not in accordance with animal welfare standards. The image of the disciplined, law-abiding recreational hunter that JagdSchweiz (the Swiss hunting association) portrays to the public is a promotional brochure – not a realistic description.

More on this topic: High-altitude hunting in Switzerland: traditional ritual, zone of violence and stress test for wild animals and high-altitude hunting in Graubünden: control and consequences

Fox as a scapegoat for negative developments in agriculture

A central argument in hunting practices is that foxes decimate ground-nesting birds and hares in cultivated landscapes to such an extent that only intensive recreational hunting of these predators can protect them. However, developments in Luxembourg, Geneva, and the fox-hunting-free national parks show otherwise.

The main problem is not with the fox, but in the field. Expert articles and official reports consistently point to:

Habitat destruction through land consolidation, drainage and the loss of hedges and fallow land
the massive use of pesticides and fertilizers, which destroys insects and thus food sources.
Early and frequent mowing with heavy machinery that directly kills nests and young animals

Luxembourg's environmental policy explicitly attributes the decline of various farmland bird species to these factors – not to foxes. Where meadows are mowed later and more gently, pesticides are reduced, and refuges are created, populations recover – entirely without fox hunting. Making foxes scapegoats for the consequences of misguided agricultural policy may be politically convenient, but scientifically it's a diversionary tactic.

Diseases: Success of medicine, not of the rifle.

Another standard argument of hunting associations is disease control. The fox serves as a scapegoat for rabies, fox tapeworm, and other zoonoses. However, the history of rabies control in Europe clearly shows that the breakthrough came through widespread vaccination bait programs – not through recreational hunting. In Switzerland and its neighboring countries, millions of vaccination baits were distributed, whereupon fox rabies disappeared within a few years.

The same applies to fox tapeworm: hygiene, education, and, if necessary, targeted baiting with deworming medication in hotspots are crucial. Luxembourg data even contradicts the hunting lobby's claim: the proportion of infected foxes decreased by around 20 percent after the hunting ban – while it increased in intensively hunted areas. Disease prevention is therefore not a blank check for the general, permanent persecution of foxes. It is an argument that, upon closer examination, backfires on fox hunting.

More on this topic: Small game hunting and wildlife diseases , and how recreational hunting promotes disease

What a modern wildlife policy really needs

Instead of clinging to a poorly justified fox hunt, Switzerland could look to existing, successful models. Modern wildlife management would focus on three key areas:

Waste and feeding policies in urban areas: Secure waste management systems, clear feeding bans, and public awareness campaigns would effectively and humanely limit fox populations in cities. Foxes follow the food supply – not the moralizing rhetoric of hunting associations.

Habitat instead of lead for endangered species: mowing meadows later, reducing pesticides, promoting small-scale habitats, creating quiet zones – these measures demonstrably help ground-nesting birds and brown hares far more than a blanket hunt for predators. Geneva, with the highest brown hare density in Switzerland, has documented this.

Targeted, professional interventions instead of recreational hunting: Where there is documented, serious damage, state game wardens can intervene selectively with clear mandates and scientific monitoring. The Geneva model has demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach for fifty years. Long-term observations show that biodiversity in the canton has increased significantly since recreational hunting was banned in 1974.

Animal welfare law versus hunting logic

Swiss animal protection law clearly states that its purpose is to protect the dignity and well-being of animals. The Civil Code stipulates that animals are not things. An argument that justifies fox hunting primarily on the grounds of economic attractiveness and utilization effectively reduces the fox back to a commodity – and contradicts the spirit of Swiss animal protection law.

The position paper from JagdSchweiz (the Swiss hunting association) contains not a word about the fox's capacity to suffer, about accidental shootings and their consequences, about animal welfare during night hunts with shotguns, or about the stressful effects of hunting on family groups. What it does contain are fur prices, hunting rights, hunting quotas, and the interest in maintaining a hobby. Anyone who writes about wildlife in this way is not writing about living beings – but about resources. This is not modern wildlife management. It is a relic from a time when the rifle was considered a panacea for self-inflicted problems.

More on this topic: Wild animals, fear of death and lack of stunning , and an introduction to hunting criticism.

What would need to change

Immediate protection for foxes in Switzerland: Recreational fox hunting will be banned by federal law. Targeted, documented interventions by professional game wardens will remain possible in cases of demonstrably serious damage. Luxembourg and Geneva have proven for years that this solution works. Model initiative: Banning senseless fox hunting
Ban on fox hunting in dens and other cruel methods: Fox hunting in dens, where dogs are driven into fox dens, is one of the cruelest hunting methods and must be banned at the federal level. The same applies to live traps without daily checks and decoy hunting in winter. Model motion: Ban on cruel trapping and decoy hunting
Independent scientific population surveys instead of hunting statistics as a data basis: Swiss fox policy has so far relied on hunting quotas as a population indicator. This is methodologically inadequate. Standardized, independent population surveys based on the Luxembourg model are needed (wildlife cameras, transect counts, scat analysis).
Agricultural policy measures instead of predator persecution: Ground-nesting birds and hares are not protected by fox hunting, but by later mowing, pesticide reduction, promoting hedgerows, and creating quiet zones. These measures must be enshrined in law and funded, instead of being replaced by symbolic predator control.
Transparency requirement for JagdSchweiz position papers: Position papers from hunting associations that influence political decisions must disclose their data sources and withstand independent scrutiny. Where official data and scientific studies contradict the claims, this must be publicly documented. Model initiative: Transparent hunting statistics

Argumentation

"Without fox hunting, populations explode." Luxembourg has shown the opposite since 2015, and Geneva since 1974: stable populations, no explosions, no ecological collapses. Wildlife camera monitoring and counts confirm constant or declining fox densities in both cases. The population explosion theory is a refuted prediction.

“Foxes are destroying ground-nesting birds and hares.” The canton of Geneva has the highest hare density in Switzerland and the country’s last remaining partridge population, all without fox hunting. This exposes the argument for what it is: a distraction from the real causes – pesticides, land use, and early mowing.

"Fox hunting combats fox tapeworm and rabies." Regarding fox tapeworm, Luxembourg data shows the opposite is true. More intensive hunting increased the infestation rate by 15 percent, while the hunting ban reduced it by 20 percent. Rabies was eradicated in Europe through bait vaccinations – not by shotguns. Disease prevention is not a valid argument for fox hunting. It is a refuted one.

"Fox hunting is a necessary form of wildlife management." The Geneva model, with state game wardens and targeted, documented interventions, has been functional for fifty years, is scientifically monitored, and is demonstrably more ecologically sound than widespread recreational hunting. Management is possible – without recreational hunting.

"JagdSchweiz acts in the interest of nature." The Bellinzona Criminal Court has ruled in a legally binding judgment that criticism of a "culture of violence" within the JagdSchweiz organization does not constitute criminal defamation, but rather permissible value judgments supported by the presented facts. Those who act in the name of nature must be judged by facts – not by their own self-promotion.

Quick links

Posts on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

External sources:

Our claim

Hunting Switzerland has published a position paper that relies on scenarios long since refuted in Luxembourg and Geneva. This dossier counters these scenarios with verifiable facts: official data, court rulings, official hunting statistics, and long-term observations from fox-hunting-free areas. The fox doesn't need a hobby hunter. It needs a society that stops making it the scapegoat for misguided agricultural policies and an obsolete hunting model.

IG Wild beim Wild documents the discrepancy between hunting lobby rhetoric and reality, with sources that anyone can verify. This dossier will be updated as new Luxembourg reports, Swiss court rulings, or political developments necessitate it.

More on the topic of hobby hunting: In our dossier on hunting, we compile fact checks, analyses and background reports.