End fox hunting – write to your cantonal council

Every year, around 19,000 red foxes are shot in Switzerland. The official justification: population regulation, disease control, protection of ground-nesting birds. More than 30 years of wildlife biology research consistently show no lasting regulatory effect from fox hunting. A study by the Sorbonne (Jiguet et al. 2026) has for the first time quantified the economic balance: The hunting costs amount to over 100 million euros annually – almost 64 euros per animal killed. The damage caused: only 8 to 23 million euros. Hobby hunting costs the public up to thirteen times what it supposedly prevents.

The canton of Lucerne is the only canton that systematically records the health status of foxes killed. Of 2,217 foxes killed, only 39 showed a disease finding. Over 98 percent of the animals shot were healthy. At the same time, a French study (Comte et al. 2017) shows that intensive hunting increases the prevalence of the fox tapeworm from 44 to 55 percent – because young foxes fill the gaps and carry a higher parasite load. In Luxembourg, the infection rate fell from around 40 to under 20 percent after the fox hunting ban in 2015.

Most cantons answer petitions on fox hunting without citing a single study. The canton of Zug is the only exception: in 2025 it commissioned an independent study from SWILD. The result (May 2026): fox hunting does not sustainably regulate populations, does not improve disease control and is inferior to non-lethal methods. The Zug finding is already having an effect beyond the cantonal border: Basel-Stadt is taking up the evidence and is showing itself open to examining a suspension of regular fox hunting.

You can do something – no matter which canton you live in. Write to your cantonal councillor or your National Councillor directly as a personal email. It is legal, effective and takes you five minutes.

Choose your canton

For the following cantons we have prepared complete contact lists and canton-specific background information:

👉 Canton of Lucerne – 120 cantonal councillors with email addresses; RUEK rejected petition without studies

👉 Canton of Glarus – member list by party; government rejected petition without studies

👉 Canton of Basel-Landschaft – cantonal council members with email addresses; government rejected petition without studies

👉 Canton of Zug – only canton with an independent scientific study (SWILD 2026); first consequences drawn

👉 Canton of Basel-Stadt – the cantonal government is open to an «in-depth review of a discontinuation»; relies on the Zug SWILD report

👉 Canton of Bern – cross-party motion in the Grand Council (GLP, SP, SVP, Greens, EVP, FDP); the government itself admits that fox hunting is «in fact an end in itself»

In all other cantons you can use the universal template letter below and obtain the email addresses via the website of your cantonal council.

Template letter – usable for all cantons

Copy this text into your mail programme, adapt the name, place of residence and salutation, and send it as a personal email. Please do not send it as a mass mailing – only as an individual, personal message.

Subject: Fox hunting – please take action

Dear Ms [Name] / Dear Mr [Name]

As a citizen, I am writing to you directly because the practice of fox hunting in Switzerland concerns me.

Every year, around 19’000 red foxes are shot in Switzerland. The canton of Lucerne is the only one that systematically records the state of health of foxes that have been killed: of 2’217 animals killed, only 39 had a pathological finding – more than 98 per cent were healthy. No significant contribution to disease control is discernible from this, because whoever kills almost exclusively healthy animals is not containing any disease.

More than 30 years of wildlife biology research consistently show no sustainable regulatory effect from fox hunting. Compensation effects – higher birth rates, immigration – quickly offset the kills (Baker & Harris 2006; Rushton et al. 2006; Kämmerle et al. 2019). In the case of the fox tapeworm, hunting is even counterproductive: a study from the Nancy region (Comte et al. 2017) showed that intensive hunting increased the prevalence from 44 to 55 per cent, because young foxes fill the gaps and carry a higher parasite load. In Luxembourg, the infestation rate fell from around 40 to below 20 per cent after the fox hunting ban of 2015. A study by the Sorbonne (Jiguet et al. 2026) has, for the first time, quantified the economic balance: the hunting costs amount to over 100 million euros annually – almost 64 euros per animal killed. The officially reported damages amount to only 8 to 23 million euros. Hunting costs the public up to thirteen times what it supposedly prevents.

Rabies was not defeated by hunting, but by oral vaccination programmes from 1978 onwards. Foxes are, moreover, natural protective factors against tick-borne diseases: they regulate mice and rodents, which are considered the main reservoirs for Lyme-disease-transmitting ticks. The Swiss National Park has been hunting-free since 1914 – over a hundred years without any population explosion or epidemic problems.

In 2025, the canton of Zug was the only canton to commission an independent study on fox hunting (SWILD, May 2026). The result: fox hunting shows no demonstrable regulatory effect on the population, does not improve disease control and is inferior to non-lethal protective measures. The hunting commission subsequently decided no longer to actively promote fox hunting. The canton of Geneva has managed without hobby hunting since 1974 – and thus effectively without fox hunting too: only state game wardens are permitted to intervene there, and in the last two years without a single regulatory kill. The canton of Basel-Stadt also indicated in June 2026 that it was open to examining in greater depth a possible abandonment of regular fox hunting, likewise drawing on the Zug expert report.

I ask you to advocate for a scientifically grounded review of fox hunting and to examine whether this practice – without proven benefit, causing considerable animal suffering and at the expense of taxpayers – is still appropriate and proportionate. No federal law compels the cantons to conduct fox hunting. The canton of Zug has shown that this scope for action can be used.

Kind regards
[Your name]
[Your place of residence]

Important note

Please copy the template letter into your own email program and send it as a personal email. Individual, personal messages are cleaner and politically more effective than mass mailings.

You can find the email addresses of the cantonal councillors via the official websites of your cantonal parliament – usually under «Members» or «Council members».

What the science says

More than 30 years of wildlife-biology research consistently show: intensive fox hunting does not reduce populations in a sustainable way, does not improve disease control and does not effectively protect ground-nesting birds. In 2026 the canton of Zug had this confirmed by SWILD. Cantons such as Geneva (since 1974) and countries such as Luxembourg (since 2015) demonstrate that wildlife management works without hobby hunting.

The complete overview of studies: Studies: Impact of hobby hunting on wild animals

📌 SWILD – Kistler C. & Bontadina F. (2026): Scientific principles on fox hunting. Canton of Zug.
To date the only cantonal commissioned report on fox hunting in Switzerland. No sustainable regulatory effect, no contribution to disease control, non-lethal methods superior.

📌 Jiguet F. et al. (2026): Biological Conservation.
383,299 red foxes killed per year in France – no statistical link to a reduction in damage.
The hunting costs amount to over 100 million euros annually – almost 64 euros per killed animal. The officially reported damage: only 8 to 23 million euros. The hunt costs up to thirteen times what it supposedly prevents.

📌 Deutscher Tierschutzbund (2026): New study – hunting foxes and the like is expensive and ineffective.
The Deutscher Tierschutzbund considers the Jiguet study groundbreaking and calls for a rethink towards evidence-based wildlife management. Instead of blanket hunting, prevention and deterrence are needed.

📌 Comte S. et al. (2017): Echinococcus multilocularis management by fox culling: An inappropriate paradigm.
Intensive hunting raised the fox tapeworm prevalence from 44 to 55 percent.

📌 Baker PJ et al. (2002): Effect of British hunting ban on fox numbers. Nature.
During the British hunting ban in 2001, no increase in fox populations.

📌 Brief summaries of scientific literature on the red fox (PDF)
Compilation of key study findings on the population biology, disease role and hunting impact of the red fox.

What has happened in the cantons so far

Canton of Lucerne – the canton where the petition originated and where the dispute has dragged on the longest:
📌 No to fox hunting: Lucerne motion exposes lack of facts
The original motion by the Lucerne jurist Pascal Wolf, which fundamentally questions the hunting system.
📌 Lucerne and the red fox: when politics ignores facts
The RUEK waves the petition through – Luxembourg, Geneva and Ticino have long shown the opposite.
📌 Fox hunting Lucerne: 98 percent of the killed animals healthy
The canton's own statistics refute the main justification for fox hunting.
📌 Lucerne RUEK to Wild beim Wild: «moderate the tone» instead of answers
Instead of addressing the scientific evidence, the commission admonishes the tone of the enquiry.
🧠 Psychology of hobby hunting in the Canton of Lucerne
Why fox hunting is being maintained even though the canton's own figures speak against it.

Canton of Zug – the only canton that had the evidence scientifically reviewed and drew conclusions:
📌 Canton of Zug: Authorities rein in fox hunting following study
Following the SWILD report, the hunting commission decides no longer to actively promote fox hunting.
🧠 The psychology of hobby hunting in the Canton of Zug
What it means psychologically when a canton actually has the evidence reviewed instead of fending it off.

Canton of Bern – political movement in the Grand Council, but resistance from the government and the association:
📌 Fox hunting: Bern government unwilling to review the evidence
The Bern Executive Council rejects a cross-party motion.
📌 Stop fox hunting – write to the Grand Council of Bern
Cross-party motion in the Grand Council; the Executive Council concedes that fox hunting is «in effect an end in itself». Decision expected in the autumn session of 2026.
📌 Fox hunting panel in Utzenstorf: four hobby hunters, one non-hunter and no genuine dialogue
How the debate is conducted on the ground when hobby hunting keeps to itself.
📌 Obedience test for hunting dogs during the breeding and rearing season: Bern hunting association fires into the forest
How the Bern hunting association has shooting take place in the forest of all times during the most sensitive season.
🧠 The psychology of hobby hunting in the Canton of Bern
What drives the association and government to cling to fox hunting, even though politics has long since moved on.

Canton of Glarus – rejected without any scientific review, followed by public objection:
📌 Glarus rejects fox hunting petition without reviewing the evidence
Three paragraphs, not a single study, petition rejected.
📌 Open letter to the Glarus Landammann on the rejection of the fox hunting petition
The response to the fact-free rejection: a public call to review the evidence after all.
🧠 The psychology of hobby hunting in the Canton of Glarus
What lies behind a rejection that dispenses with any scientific review.

Canton of Basel-Landschaft – the petition dismissed, while hobby hunting continues to be promoted:
📌 Canton of Basel-Landschaft responds to fox hunting petition – without a single scientific source
Four pages of administrative jargon, not a single piece of evidence from a study.
📌 Dumbing down the public in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft
While the evidence is ignored, the canton celebrates 35 new hobby hunters.
🧠 The psychology of hobby hunting in the Canton of Basel-Landschaft
What it says about an administration when it ignores evidence while celebrating new recruits.

Canton of Basel-Stadt – from the enquiry to opening up, prompted by the Zug report:
📌 After Bern and Lucerne: Basel questions the fox hunt
In the Basel Grand Council, a councillor demands a scientific review.
📌 Basel-Stadt considers ending the fox hunt, prompted by a Zug report
The cantonal government declares itself open to a thorough review of an abandonment. Five foxes killed by hunting per year, twice as much roadkill, no benefit proven.

Canton of Zurich – a citizen brings the economic balance before the hunting authority:
📌 Zurich: citizen confronts hunting authority with million-franc balance of the fox hunt
How the justifications for the fox hunt dissolve as soon as the costs are set against the alleged damage.

Cross-cantonal – the broader lines behind the individual cases:
📌 Killed millions of times – for nothing: new study exposes hunters' tall tales
Study in «Biological Conservation»: kills reduce neither populations nor damage.
📌 Hobby hunters as bogus wildlife experts
How Pascal Wolf submitted petitions in more than 12 cantons – and what the authorities made of them.