Hunting and Wildlife Diseases

For decades, recreational hunters have claimed that hunting foxes and other predators protects the population from diseases such as rabies, fox tapeworm, mange and Lyme disease. Science says the opposite: more intensive hunting destabilises population structures, increases migratory movement and spreads disease faster, not slower. What hunting associations market as health management is an empirically disproven narrative that primarily serves to legitimise a recreational activity.

What makes this legally precarious is this: under Article 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, killing an animal requires a «reasonable justification». For fox hunting, neither a legal kill quota nor a scientifically recognised need for regulation exists. For more than 30 years, at least 18 wildlife biology studies have proven that fox hunting does not regulate populations and is unsuitable for disease control. On the contrary.

What awaits you here

• Fox tapeworm: the best-known hunters' tall tale. How the Nancy study shows that intensified fox hunting raises infestation rates from 40 to 55 percent instead of lowering them.
• Lyme disease: fewer foxes, more ticks. Why hunting foxes causes mouse populations to explode and increases the risk of Lyme disease.
• Rabies: how the argument imploded. Why vaccine baits defeated rabies, not culling, and how the hunting lobby simply swapped out the legitimising argument.
• Hunting pressure promotes disease: the biological mechanism. What stress hormones, immunosuppression and destroyed social structures have to do with the spread of disease.
• Mange and distemper: counterproductive interventions. Why recreational hunting undermines the natural development of resistance and can make the problem worse.
• Forms of hunting that cause suffering and promote disease. Why earth hunting, driven hunting, trap hunting and wait hunting have a structurally disease-promoting effect.
• Hantavirus, leptospirosis, botulism: what actually protects. Why the fox as a health inspector is not just an image, but a biological mechanism.
• Argumentary. Answers to the hunting lobby's most common claims about disease control.
• Quick links. All relevant articles, studies and dossiers.

Fox tapeworm: the best-known hunters' tall tale

Fewer foxes, fewer fox tapeworms, less infection risk for humans: at first glance, this sounds plausible. On closer inspection, it is simply wrong. A study from the Nancy region scientifically examined over four years whether intensified fox hunting curbs the spread of Echinococcus multilocularis. The result: 1,700 working hours, 15’000 kilometres of night-time driving, 776 shot foxes, a 35 per cent increase in hunting pressure — and yet the fox population was not reduced.

Even more serious: the infection rate with the fox tapeworm rose from 40 to 55 per cent in the intensively hunted area, while it remained constant in the comparison area without intensified hunting. The study bears the programmatic title “Echinococcus multilocularis management by fox culling: An inappropriate paradigm”. What the hunting associations market as a health protection measure is, according to current science, not only useless but counterproductive. The alternative is evidence-based: deworming baits, which can reduce the infection rate in foxes to nearly zero per cent without killing a single animal.

More on this: Recreational hunters spread diseases and Fox hunting without facts

Lyme disease: fewer foxes, more ticks

Another recent study shows that hunting foxes increases the risk of infection with Lyme disease transmitted by ticks. The mechanism is biologically comprehensible: foxes are important mouse hunters. A fox eats around 4’000 mice per year. Where foxes are absent or decimated, mouse populations explode. But mice are the main hosts for ticks: dozens of tick larvae and nymphs can infect themselves on a single mouse simultaneously and exchange pathogens directly.

Anyone who hunts foxes is indirectly hunting their own immune system: more mice mean more ticks, more ticks mean more Lyme disease, more tick-borne encephalitis, more hantavirus. The cantons that have the most foxes killed statistically have the most problems with wildlife-related diseases. This connection is not mentioned in the official communication of the hunting authorities. It disrupts the narrative.

More on this: Studies on the impact of hunting on wild animals and Hunting and biodiversity: does recreational hunting really protect nature?

Rabies: how the argument imploded

Rabies is historically the most important argument for fox hunting. It was rabies that legitimised the mass hunting of foxes in the post-war period. The problem: rabies was not defeated through kills, but through vaccine baits. The Swiss Rabies Centre already concluded that a hunting-based reduction of fox populations was “obviously not possible, and that hunting for rabies control was in fact counterproductive”. Since 1998, terrestrial rabies has been considered eradicated in Switzerland – not thanks to hunters, but despite their fox hunting.

What is psychologically interesting is what happened afterwards: the argument of “rabies control” disappeared, but fox hunting remained. The justification was simply swapped out – first rabies, then fox tapeworm, then mange, then Lyme disease. The narrative adapts to scientific refutations, but hunting practice does not. This is how a system functions that is designed for self-perpetuation rather than truth.

More on this: Small game hunting and wildlife diseases and Hunting myths: 12 claims you should scrutinise critically

Hunting pressure promotes disease: the biological mechanism

Hunting increases disease not only indirectly via mouse populations, but also directly via stress hormones. It is known from other species, including humans, dogs and other animals, that intense hunting pressure leads to chronically elevated stress hormone levels, which cause immunosuppression: the animals become more susceptible to disease and less equipped to cope with everyday challenges of life.

On top of this comes the disruption of social structure: in undisturbed fox groups, only the highest-ranking vixen reproduces. If the community is broken apart by hunting, almost every vixen becomes pregnant, litter sizes increase, and a research team found elevated progesterone levels, indicating an unusually high proportion of reproducing females. The result: more young animals, more movement, more disease spread – exactly the opposite of what hunting associations claim.

More on this: Recreational hunting promotes disease and Hunting and Animal Welfare: What the Practice Does to Wild Animals

Mange and distemper: counterproductive interventions

Mange flares up locally and then dies out on its own. Particularly in areas where it has spread most severely, foxes develop increasing resistance to new infections. Hunting destroys this natural selective advantage: a recreational hunter cannot tell by looking at a fox whether it carries mange resistance.

Intense hunting stress can also worsen the course of the disease. The burrowing mite is transmitted through animal-to-animal contact, for example in the den or at marking sites. Whether an infected fox survives mange, however, also depends on its immune defences, and chronic stress can weaken them. In heavily hunted wolves in Canada, significantly elevated stress hormone levels were measured (Bryan et al. 2015, Overview of studies); in foxes the connection has not yet been studied specifically. Anyone who puts foxes under constant stress through wait hunting, driven hunts and trap hunting, while at the same time shooting the resistant animals, risks aggravating the very problem that is then cited as justification for further hunting.

More on this: Why recreational hunting fails as population control and Geneva and the hunting ban

Forms of hunting that cause suffering and promote disease

Not all forms of hunting are the same. Some structurally increase disease risks:

Earth hunting: Dogs that have been trained to attack are sent into fox dens to drive foxes out. This results in underground fights in which dog and fox bite into one another. Injuries increase infection risks for both animals. According to a survey by the Swiss Animal Protection organisation, 70 per cent of the population would support a ban on earth hunting.

Driven hunt: In situations of fear, hunted wild animals release harmful stress hormones, which manifest in the meat and are consumed by humans in game meat. Shot is used for the kill, contaminating the forest floor with lead, and carcasses that are never found transfer the lead into the food chain.

Trap hunting: Animals wait in the trap for hours or days under extreme stress, which has been shown to weaken the immune system and increase susceptibility to disease.

Wait hunting: Foxes and other predators are lured with bait and shot at feeding sites. The targeted killing of lead sows and lead males destroys social structures and increases migratory movements, which spreads disease.

More on this: Earth hunting and Trap hunting

Hantavirus, leptospirosis, botulism: what really protects

A fox eats around 4,000 mice per year. Mice give birth to 10 to 15 young every 30 days and reach sexual maturity after just 6 to 8 weeks. The connection is mathematically clear: where foxes are absent, mouse populations explode, and with them the risks of hantavirus, leptospirosis and Lyme disease.

Hantavirus is transmitted via mouse droppings and causes flu-like illnesses up to kidney failure. Leptospirosis survives in puddles for weeks and infects dogs and humans. Botulism develops in carcasses that accumulate in silage and hay; a fact sheet for farmers recommended mowing fields the evening before so that foxes, as scavengers, could eat the dead animals, which greatly reduces botulism risks in silage. The fox as a health inspector is not a metaphor — it is a biological mechanism.

More on this: Deterrence of wild animals and Arguments against recreational hunting and for game wardens

What needs to change

• End fox hunting: At least 18 wildlife-biological studies spanning three decades show that fox hunting does not regulate populations and promotes disease rather than containing it. Switzerland should follow Luxembourg's example and suspend fox hunting. Template motion: Template texts for hunting-critical motions
• Use deworming bait instead of kills: The Nancy study and further research show that oral deworming bait can reduce the fox tapeworm infestation rate to nearly zero without killing a single animal. This method must be funded and implemented nationwide.
• Ban earth hunting and trap hunting: Both forms of hunting cause extreme animal suffering and promote disease outbreaks through stress and immunosuppression. 70 percent of the population support a ban on earth hunting.
• Decouple wildlife disease monitoring from recreational hunting: The monitoring of wildlife diseases must not lie in the hands of those with an interest in continuing to hunt. Independent veterinary bodies must take control of the data.
• Professional wildlife management according to the Geneva model: State game wardens with veterinary support can manage wildlife diseases on an evidence-based basis, without destabilising the population structures that enable natural disease resistance. Template motion: Hunting ban modelled on Geneva

Talking points

«Without fox hunting, the fox tapeworm would become an epidemic.» The Nancy study shows the opposite: intensified fox hunting increased the infestation rate from 40 to 55 percent, while it remained constant in the comparison area without intensified hunting. The authors describe fox hunting as a means of disease control as an “inappropriate paradigm”. What actually works is deworming bait, which reduces the infestation rate to nearly zero without killing a single animal. The fox tapeworm is the argument, not the solution.

«Fewer foxes means fewer diseases for humans.» Fewer foxes means more mice, more mice means more ticks, more ticks means more Lyme disease, more TBE, more hantavirus. A fox eats 4,000 mice per year. Where foxes are absent, the populations of the main hosts for ticks and zoonotic pathogens explode. This is not an activist argument, it is food chain biology.

«Rabies control proves that fox hunting works.» Rabies was not defeated through kills, but through vaccine baits. The Swiss rabies centre itself found that population reduction through hunting was “evidently not possible” and “even counterproductive”. Since 1998, terrestrial rabies has been eradicated in Switzerland — not thanks to recreational hunting, but despite it. The rabies argument is a historical admission, not proof.

«Mangy foxes must be shot to stop the spread.» Mange flares up locally and dies out on its own. Where it spreads, foxes develop increasing resistance. Recreational hunting destroys this natural selective advantage, because a recreational hunter cannot tell by looking at a fox whether it is resistant to mange. Chronic hunting stress can also weaken the animals' defences. Anyone who shoots the resistant animals at the same time risks aggravating the very problem that is then cited as legitimation.

«Hunting is disease prevention.» Hunting is the opposite of disease prevention. Hunting destabilises social structures, increases roaming movements, suppresses immune systems through chronic stress, and destroys natural regulatory mechanisms. What would actually constitute disease prevention: stable predator populations, intact social structures, deworming baits, independent veterinary monitoring. All measures that require no recreational hunting whatsoever.

Quick links

Articles on Wild beim Wild:

• Small game hunting and wildlife diseases
• Recreational hunters spread diseases
• Recreational hunting promotes disease
• Studies on the impact of hunting on wild animals
• Why recreational hunting fails as population control
• Geneva hunting ban
• Deterrence of wild animals

Related dossiers:

• Hunting and Wildlife Diseases
• Night Hunting and High-Tech Hunting: How Thermal Imaging Cameras, Night Vision Devices, Drones and Digital Lure Calls Expose the Myth of Fair Chase
• Hunting Dogs: Use, Suffering and Animal Welfare
• Lead Ammunition and Environmental Toxins from Recreational Hunting: How a Toxic Legacy Burdens Birds of Prey, Soils and Humans
• High Hunt in Switzerland: Traditional Ritual, Zone of Violence and Stress Test for Wild Animals
• African Swine Fever: How an Animal Disease Becomes a Justification for Recreational Hunting
• Hunting Accidents in Switzerland
• Hunting and Animal Welfare: What the Practice Does to Wild Animals
• Hunting and Weapons
• Driven Hunt in Switzerland
• Wait Hunting: Waiting, Technology and Risks
• Earth hunting
• Trap hunting
• Wait hunting
• Special Hunt in Grisons

Our Standard

The claim that recreational hunting protects against wildlife diseases is not only false, it is empirically refuted. At least 18 wildlife biology studies spanning more than three decades consistently demonstrate the same thing: hunting destabilises population structures, increases roaming movements, suppresses natural immune resistance, and spreads disease faster. Whoever shoots foxes creates more mice, more ticks, more Lyme disease, more hantavirus. This is not an activist argument, it is biology.

What actually protects is the opposite: stable predator populations, intact social structures, deworming bait instead of killing, professional wildlife management instead of armed recreational pastime. The canton of Geneva has shown for 50 years that this model is cheaper, more animal-welfare-friendly and epidemiologically more effective than any militia hunting system. This dossier is continuously updated whenever new studies, figures or political developments require it.

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