Fox hunting without facts: How JagdSchweiz 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 be «absolutely maintained». Criticism from nature conservation and animal welfare organizations is dismissed as emotional and lacking in facts.

However, anyone who examines the actual development in fox-hunting-free regions, court decisions, and official hunting practice statistics quickly recognizes: The paper primarily defends a hunting self-image and a bloody hobby that is hardly compatible with modern wildlife ecology and animal welfare. Luxembourg has foregone all fox hunting since 2015, Geneva has foregone all recreational hunting since 1974 – and neither canton nor state records the catastrophes that the hunting lobby regularly predicts. Reality refutes the position paper before even one page has been read.

What awaits you here

JagdSchweiz defends a system that is already on the defensive: What the position paper contains, what is missing – and why both are revealing.
Luxembourg: Fox hunting banned, problems absent: What authorities, independent reports and parliamentary inquiries have documented since 2015 – and how dramatically the opposite of lobby predictions has occurred.
Canton Geneva: Fifty years of wildlife policy without recreational hunting: How the canton demonstrates that nature without recreational hunting does not collapse, but flourishes – with the highest hare density in Switzerland.
National parks and fox-hunting-free areas: The threat scenario remains theory: What long-term observations from hunting-free zones in Europe show about fox density and biodiversity.
The culture of violence in recreational hunting in court: What the legally binding verdict of the Criminal Court of Bellinzona says about JagdSchweiz, freedom of expression and documented facts.
Graubünden: Official figures expose the idealized image: What official hunting statistics reveal about missed shots, unlawful killings and wounded animals.
Fox as scapegoat for failures in agriculture: Why the decline of ground-nesting birds and hares is not due to foxes – and which factors experts and authorities actually identify.
Diseases: Success of medicine, not the rifle: What the history of rabies control and fox tapeworm data from Luxembourg reveal about the claimed disease prevention through fox hunting.
What a modern wildlife policy would really need: Three concrete priorities as an alternative to recreational hunting of foxes.
Animal welfare law versus hunting logic: Why the utilitarian rhetoric of the position paper contradicts the spirit of Swiss animal welfare law and civil code.
Arguments: Responses to the most common justifications of the fox hunting lobby.
Quick links: All relevant articles, studies and dossiers.

JagdSchweiz defends a system that has long been on the defensive

In the position paper from November 2025, JagdSchweiz responds to the 'discussion repeatedly initiated by conservation and animal welfare groups' about the purpose and future of fox hunting. The organization maintains that recreational hunting of foxes is necessary to regulate populations, prevent damage, combat diseases and protect other wildlife species. The fox is indirectly constructed as a problem figure that would spiral out of control without shot and rifle.

What is conspicuously absent: a sober scientific evaluation of experiences in regions where fox hunting has not taken place for years or decades, as well as an honest examination of the massive failures of their own clientele in hunting practice. In the position paper, foxes are treated as 'ownerless public property' and as raw material with fluctuating fur prices. What matters are hunting rights, hunting quotas and market – not the animal as a sentient individual. This is the worldview of an interest group that has already outlived itself – and doesn't realize it.

More on this: Hunter lobby in Switzerland: How influence works and The blacklist of JagdSchweiz

Luxembourg: Fox hunting banned, problems failed to materialize

Luxembourg completely stopped recreational hunting of foxes in early 2015. Before the ban, around 3,000 foxes fell victim to recreational hunters' guns annually in the Grand Duchy. Hunting associations predicted a 'population explosion', growing disease risk and increasing damage to ground-nesting birds and livestock. None of this occurred.

Environment Minister Carole Dieschbourg confirmed multiple times in response to parliamentary questions from the opposition: There are no indications of an increase in the fox population. Wildlife camera controls and counts suggest a stable, consistent population. Particularly significant is the finding regarding fox tapeworm: While in a German test area the infection rate of foxes increased by 15 percent through intensified hunting, the infection rate in Luxembourg fell by around 20 percent during the hunting ban. Fox hunting is thus not only an unsuitable means of combating fox tapeworm – it demonstrably promotes its spread. The Luxembourg hunting association FSHCL even sued against the ban. It failed.

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 within Switzerland itself. In the canton of Geneva, militia hunting was abolished by popular vote in 1974. Before the vote, the hunting lobby claimed that without hunting, the brown hare in the canton would be threatened with extinction by predators. The opposite occurred: Geneva now has the highest brown hare density in all of Switzerland.

At the beginning of the 1970s, large wildlife was almost extinct in the canton of Geneva due to excessive hobby hunting – there were only a few dozen roe deer left, while red deer and wild boar had disappeared for decades. After the hunting ban, populations recovered. Geneva is now one of the last bastions for wild rabbits and partridges on Swiss soil and harbors Switzerland's last partridge population. Along the shores of Lake Geneva and the Rhône, the number of overwintering waterfowl increased spectacularly – a direct consequence of the absence of disturbance from hobby hunting. Fifty years of nature observation in the canton of Geneva provide the most convincing argument against the population catastrophe scenarios of the hunting lobby.

More on this: The Game Warden Model: Professional Wildlife Management with Code of Honor and Geneva: Hunting Ban Since 1974

National Parks and Fox-Hunting-Free Areas: The Threat Scenario Remains Theory

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

There are no documented 'fox explosions' with subsequent collapses of ground-breeding bird or brown hare populations.
Fox density adapts to natural and human-made framework conditions – primarily to the food supply.
Where humans do not intervene with firearms, food supply, diseases and intraspecific competition regulate populations themselves.

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

The Culture of Violence in Recreational Hunting Before Court

How the hunting environment of JagdSchweiz functions is demonstrated by a case before the criminal court in Bellinzona. JagdSchweiz had sued IG Wild beim Wild because it felt its honor was violated by sharp criticism. At the center were formulations describing JagdSchweiz as a 'militant problem organization' accused of having a culture of violence, disrespect toward wildlife, and massive political pressure through intimidation and propaganda lies.

After examining the evidence, Judge Siro Quadri concluded that these statements do not constitute lies and therefore have no defamatory character. The lawsuit was dismissed, and the verdict is legally binding. Legally, this means: Even drastic formulations about a 'militant hunting milieu' and a 'culture of violence' were viewed by the criminal court as covered by freedom of expression and substantially supported by the presented facts and connections. This casts a clear light on the environment in which the current position paper was created.

More on this: Hunting and Animal Protection: What Practice Does to Wildlife and Psychology of Hunting

Graubünden: Official Numbers Expose the Idealized Image

High hunts in Graubünden are gladly sold by JagdSchweiz as a prime example of responsible regulation. The official figures tell a different story. During the high hunt, around 10,000 deer, chamois, roe deer and wild boar are killed annually in the canton. Around 9 percent of these kills are unlawful. In the five years before 2016 alone, hobby hunters paid fines exceeding 700,000 francs – up to 177,000 francs per year.

The figures on wounded animals are particularly grave: 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 fell victim to the consequences of the shot or remained unrecovered. During the 2022 high hunt, the Office for Hunting and Fishing reported 790 failed shots among around 9,200 killed animals. 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 killed in accordance with animal welfare standards. The image of the disciplined, law-abiding hobby hunter that JagdSchweiz portrays in public is a marketing brochure – not a realistic description.

More on this: High hunting in Switzerland: Traditional ritual, violence zone and stress test for wildlife and High hunting in Graubünden: Control and consequences

Fox as scapegoat for agricultural misdevelopments

A central motive of hunting argumentation states that foxes decimate ground-nesting birds and hares in the cultural landscape to such an extent that only intensive hobby hunting of predators can protect these species. The development in Luxembourg, Geneva and the fox-hunting-free national parks shows something different.

The main problem lies not with the fox, but in the field. Specialist articles and authority 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, which directly kills clutches 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 retreat areas are created, populations recover – entirely without fox hunting. Making foxes scapegoats for the consequences of misguided agricultural policy may be politically convenient. Professionally, it is a diversionary tactic.

More on this: Hunting and biodiversity: Does hobby hunting really protect nature? and Hunting myths: 12 claims you should critically examine

Diseases: Success of medicine, not of the rifle

Another standard argument of hunting associations is disease control. The fox serves as a bogeyman for rabies, fox tapeworm and other zoonoses. However, the history of rabies control in Europe clearly shows: The breakthrough came through comprehensive oral vaccination programs – not through hobby hunting. In Switzerland and its neighboring countries, millions of vaccine baits were distributed, after which fox rabies disappeared within a few years.

The same applies to fox tapeworm: What matters is hygiene, education and, where appropriate, targeted baiting with deworming agents in hotspots. The Luxembourg data even proves the opposite of the hunting lobby thesis: The proportion of infected foxes dropped by around 20 percent after the hunting ban – while it increased in intensively hunted areas. Disease prevention therefore does not serve as a blank check for general, permanent persecution of the fox. It is an argument that, upon closer examination, turns against fox hunting.

More on this: Small game hunting and wildlife diseases and Recreational hunting promotes diseases

What modern wildlife policy would really need

Instead of clinging to a poorly justified fox hunt, Switzerland could orient itself towards already functioning models. A contemporary wildlife management would set three priorities:

Waste and feeding policy in settlements: Secured waste systems, clear feeding bans and awareness campaigns would effectively and animal-welfare-compliant limit fox densities in cities. Foxes follow food sources – not the moralizing rhetoric of hunting associations.

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

Targeted, professional interventions instead of hobby hunting: Where there is actually documented, serious damage, state wildlife wardens with clear mandates and scientific monitoring can intervene selectively. The Geneva model has shown for fifty years that this works. Long-term observations show that after the abolition of recreational hunting in 1974, biodiversity in the canton has greatly increased.

Animal welfare law versus hunting logic

Swiss animal welfare law clearly states that its purpose is the protection of the dignity and welfare of animals. The Civil Code stipulates that animals are not objects. An argument that justifies fox hunting primarily with economic attractiveness and utilization factually degrades the fox back to a commodity – and contradicts the spirit of Swiss animal welfare law.

In JagdSchweiz's position paper, there is not a word about the fox's capacity to suffer, about missed shots and their consequences, about animal welfare during night hunts with shot, about the stress effect of hunting on family groups. What is found are fur prices, hunting rights, hunting statistics and the interest in maintaining a hobby. Those who write about wildlife this way are 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 an all-purpose tool against self-created problems.

More on this: Wildlife, mortal fear and lack of anaesthesia and Introduction to hunting criticism

What would need to change

Immediate protection status for foxes in Switzerland: Recreational hunting of foxes is banned under federal law. Targeted, documented interventions by professional wildlife wardens remain possible when demonstrably serious damage pressure exists. Luxembourg and Geneva have proven for years that this solution works. Model motion: Ban on senseless fox hunting
Ban on den hunting and other cruel methods against foxes: Den hunting, where dogs are driven into fox dens, is one of the cruelest hunting methods and must be banned under federal law. The same applies to live traps without daily inspection and lure hunting in winter. Model motion: Ban on animal-torturing trap and lure hunting
Independent scientific population surveys instead of hunting statistics as data basis: Swiss fox policy has so far relied on shooting numbers as population indicators. This is methodologically insufficient. Standardized, independent population surveys following the Luxembourg model are needed (wildlife cameras, transect counts, scat analyses).
Agricultural policy measures instead of predator persecution: Ground-nesting birds and hares are not protected by fox hunting, but by later mowing, pesticide reduction, hedge promotion and quiet zones. These measures must be legally anchored and financed, instead of being replaced by symbolic predator control.
Transparency obligation for JagdSchweiz position papers: Position papers from hunting associations that influence political decisions must disclose their data foundations and withstand independent scrutiny. Where official data and scientific studies contradict the claims, this must be publicly documented. Model motion: Transparent Hunting Statistics

Arguments

«Without fox hunting, populations will explode.» Luxembourg since 2015 and Geneva since 1974 prove the opposite: stable populations, no explosions, no ecological collapses. Wildlife camera monitoring and counts demonstrate consistent or declining fox densities in both cases. The population explosion thesis is a refuted prediction.

«Foxes destroy ground-nesting birds and brown hares.» The canton of Geneva, without fox hunting, has the highest brown hare density in Switzerland and the country's last partridge population. This exposes the argument for what it is: deflection from the actual causes – pesticides, land consumption, early mowing.

«Fox hunting combats fox tapeworm and rabies.» Regarding fox tapeworm, Luxembourg data shows: the opposite is true. Intensive hunting increased infection rates by 15 percent, while the hunting ban reduced them by 20 percent. Rabies was defeated in Europe through bait vaccines – not through shot. Disease prevention is not a valid argument for fox hunting. It is a refuted one.

«Fox hunting is necessary wildlife management.» The Geneva model with state wildlife wardens and targeted, documented interventions has been functional for fifty years, scientifically monitored, and ecologically demonstrably better than blanket recreational hunting. Management is possible – without recreational hunting.

«JagdSchweiz acts in nature's interest.» The Criminal Court of Bellinzona established in a legally binding judgment that criticism of a «culture of violence» in JagdSchweiz's environment does not constitute punishable defamation, but rather permissible value judgments supported by presented facts. Those who act in nature's name must be measured by facts – not by their own self-representation.

Quicklinks

Articles on Wild beim Wild:

Related dossiers:

Our standards

JagdSchweiz publishes a position paper that relies on scenarios that have long been refuted in Luxembourg and Geneva. This dossier counters with verifiable facts: official data, court judgments, official hunting statistics and long-term observations from fox hunting-free areas. The fox needs no recreational hunter. It needs a society that stops making it the scapegoat for misguided agricultural policy and an obsolete hunting model.

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

More on the topic of recreational hunting: In our Hunting Dossier we compile fact-checks, analyses and background reports.