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.

Legally, this is where it gets interesting: under Art. 26 of the Animal Welfare Act, killing an animal requires a “reasonable ground”. For fox hunting there is neither a statutory kill quota nor a scientifically recognised need for population control. More than 30 years of wildlife-biology research show (Baker and Harris 2006, Rushton et al. 2006, Kämmerle et al. 2019; for the canton of Zug most recently the SWILD report by Kistler and Bontadina 2026): fox hunting does not regulate populations and is no use for controlling disease. 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 kills, and how the recreational hunting lobby simply swapped out its justification.
• 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 recreational 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.

More serious still: in the intensively hunted area, the fox tapeworm infection rate rose from 40 to 55 per cent, while it remained constant in the comparison area without intensified hunting (Comte et al. 2017, Preventive Veterinary Medicine). The study bears the programmatic title “Echinococcus multilocularis management by fox culling: An inappropriate paradigm”. What the hunting associations sell as a health protection measure is, according to current science, not only useless but counterproductive. The alternative is evidence-based: deworming baits, which can bring the infection rate in foxes down to almost zero per cent without killing a single animal.

Luxembourg provides the counter-example: since the fox hunting ban in 2015, the proportion of foxes infected with fox tapeworm has, according to the Luxembourg Nature Administration, not risen but fallen from 39.7 to 10.0 per cent (Technical Report No. 8, 2020). In Switzerland, around 70 people a year on average contract alveolar echinococcosis (Lancet Infectious Diseases 2025, via SRF), despite roughly 19,000 foxes being shot every year (Swiss Hunting Statistics 2025).

More on this: Recreational hunters spread diseases, Fox hunting without facts and The fox in Switzerland

Lyme disease: fewer foxes, more ticks

Another recent study shows that hunting foxes increases the risk of contracting Lyme disease from ticks. The mechanism is biologically plausible: foxes are important mouse hunters. A single fox eats around 4,000 mice a year. Where foxes are absent or reduced in number, mouse populations explode. Mice, however, are the main hosts for ticks: dozens of tick larvae and nymphs can feed on a single mouse at the same time, becoming infected and exchanging 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. This connection is never mentioned in the official communications of the hunting authorities. It disturbs the narrative.

More on this: Hunting Fact Check and Recreational hunting and biodiversity: does it protect nature?

Rabies: how the argument imploded

Rabies is historically the most important argument for fox hunting. It was what legitimised the mass hunting of foxes in the post-war period. The problem: rabies was not defeated by kills but by vaccine baits. The Swiss rabies centre had already concluded that reducing fox populations through hunting was "obviously not possible, and hunting as a means of combating rabies was even counterproductive". Since 1998, terrestrial rabies has been considered eradicated in Switzerland, not thanks to recreational 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

Recreational hunting increases disease not only indirectly through mouse populations, but also directly through stress hormones. From other species, including humans, dogs and other animals, we know that heavy hunting pressure leads to chronically elevated stress hormone levels and thus to immunosuppression: the animals are more susceptible to disease and less equipped to cope with the 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 dies out again by itself. Particularly where it has spread most heavily, foxes develop increasing resistance to reinfection. Recreational hunting destroys this natural selective advantage: a recreational hunter cannot tell by looking at a fox whether it is resistant to mange.

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 specifically studied. Anyone who subjects foxes to constant stress through wait hunting, driven hunts and trap hunting, while at the same time shooting the resistant animals, risks aggravating precisely the problem that is then cited as justification for even more recreational 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 made aggressive are sent into fox dens to drive foxes out. Underground fights ensue in which dog and fox sink their teeth into each other. Injuries increase the risk of infection for both animals. According to a representative Demoscope survey commissioned by the Swiss Animal Protection STS (2017), 64 per cent of the population support a ban on earth hunting, while only 21 per cent want to keep it (A ban on senseless fox hunting is long overdue).

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 carrion sites. The deliberate killing of parent animals destroys social structures and increases dispersal 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: More than three decades of wildlife biology research show that fox hunting does not regulate populations and promotes disease rather than containing it. Switzerland should follow the example of Luxembourg, which abolished fox hunting in 2015. Anyone who wants to achieve this in their canton should write to the cantonal parliament: Addresses and template letter. 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. 64 per cent of the population support a ban on earth hunting (Demoscope/STS 2017).
• 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 raised the infection rate from 40 to 55 per cent, 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". In Luxembourg, the infection rate fell from 39.7 to 10.0 per cent after fox hunting ended. What actually works are deworming baits, which reduce the infection rate to almost 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.» Recreational hunting is the opposite of disease prevention. Hunting destabilises social structures, increases dispersal movements, suppresses immune systems through chronic stress and destroys natural regulatory mechanisms. What disease prevention would look like: stable predator populations, intact social structures, deworming baits, independent veterinary monitoring. All of these are measures that require no recreational hunting.

Quick links

Articles on Wild beim Wild:

• Small game hunting and wildlife diseases
• Recreational hunters spread diseases
• Recreational hunting promotes disease
• Hunting Fact Check
• Why recreational hunting fails as population control
• Geneva hunting ban
• Deterrence of wild animals
• Stop fox hunting: write to cantonal parliaments

Related dossiers:

• The fox in Switzerland: The most hunted predator without a lobby
• Night hunting and high-tech: the myth of fair hunting
• Hunting Dogs: Use, Suffering and Animal Welfare
• Lead ammunition: the toxic legacy of recreational hunting
• High hunt in Switzerland: traditional ritual and stress test
• 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. More than three decades of wildlife biology research show the same thing: hunting destabilises population structures, increases dispersal movements, suppresses natural immune resistance and spreads disease faster. Anyone who shoots foxes produces more mice, more ticks, more Lyme disease, more hantavirus. This is not an activist's argument, it is biology.

What actually protects is the opposite: stable predator populations, intact social structures, deworming baits instead of kills, professional wildlife management instead of armed leisure pursuits. For over 50 years, the canton of Geneva has shown that this model is cheaper, more animal-welfare-friendly and more epidemiologically effective than any recreational hunting. This dossier is updated on an ongoing basis 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.