Stop Fox Hunting – Write to the Appenzell Outer Rhodes Cantonal Council
Cantonal Councillor Dölf Biasotto, responsible for construction and the economy, responded on 4 September 2026 to a citizen's enquiry about fox hunting – at length, personally, and across four and a half pages. That is more than most cantons provide. Yet the response contradicts itself: Biasotto states that fox hunting is «not actively promoted» in Appenzell Outer Rhodes, but in the same letter admits that the canton conducts no scientific survey of fox hunting, sets no kill target, and nevertheless permits foxes to be hunted eight months a year, from 1 July to 28 February.
This means he answers the citizen's three precise questions – about the concrete objective of fox hunting, about the data on whether that objective is achieved, and about the scientific basis – with, in effect, a triple no. He names no measurable target, he has no data, and he cites not a single study. Instead, he relies on «long-standing experience» and the assessment of the wildlife wardens.
The canton's own figures from the Federal Office for the Environment (BAFU) reveal the contradiction. Between 2000 and 2024, hobby hunters in Appenzell Outer Rhodes killed several hundred foxes annually in the ordinary hunt, in peak years over a thousand. The interventions by the wildlife wardens, which Biasotto describes as the careful removal of sick animals, were by contrast almost consistently in the single digits to low double digits. The vast majority of foxes killed thus do not stem from targeted wildlife warden interventions, but from regular hobby hunting.
You can do something, no matter which canton you live in. Get in touch directly with your cantonal parliament member or your National Councillor. It's legal, effective, and takes only a little time.
Important: Don't rely on email alone. We have received feedback from several cantons that messages about hobby fox hunting sometimes come back as undeliverable. Whether this is due to faulty addresses or a targeted filter cannot be determined from the outside. It is therefore better to use several channels: write a letter, make a phone call, or seek a personal conversation. You can also contact the parties and parliamentary groups directly – a message to a party or group secretariat is often more effective than one to individual council members. A phone call or letter cannot be filtered out as easily as an email and often leaves more of an impression.
Template letter – copy this text into your email programme
Subject: Fox hunting in Appenzell Outer Rhodes – please take action
Dear Ms [Name] / Dear Mr [Name]
I am writing to you directly as a citizen because I am concerned about the practice of fox hunting in our canton.
In September 2026, Cantonal Councillor Dölf Biasotto responded to a citizen's enquiry about fox hunting. His response is detailed, yet it contradicts itself. Biasotto writes that fox hunting is «not actively promoted» in Appenzell Outer Rhodes. In the same letter, he admits that the canton conducts no scientific survey of fox hunting and sets no numerical kill quota. At the same time, foxes may be hunted eight months a year, from 1 July to 28 February.
This leaves the three decisive questions unanswered: What is the concrete, measurable goal of this hunt? What data prove that it is being achieved? And what scientific basis justifies routine hunting over targeted, non-lethal measures? Anyone who collects no data cannot answer any of these questions.
A look at the federal hunting statistics sharpens the contradiction. The wildlife wardens, whom Biasotto describes as carefully removing sick animals, kill usually only a few foxes per year. The vast majority is attributable to the ordinary hobby hunt, which has killed several hundred animals per year over many years. In the canton of Lucerne, the only canton that records the health status of killed foxes, over 98 percent of the animals shot were healthy. There is no reason to assume that the situation in Appenzell Outer Rhodes is any different.
It is also notable that the Cantonal Councillor himself points to the canton of Geneva, whose wildlife-warden-based model he cites as an example. Precisely this model has operated without hobby hunting since 1974. Only state wildlife wardens intervene there, and in the past two years without a single regulatory kill. Anyone who praises Geneva is thereby arguing against regular hobby hunting of the fox, not for it.
The science is clear: more than 30 years of wildlife biology research show no sustainable regulatory effect from fox hunting. Compensatory effects through higher reproduction and immigration quickly offset kills. In the case of the fox tapeworm, hunting is even counterproductive. The canton of Zug had this confirmed by an independent study in 2026 and has since stopped actively promoting fox hunting.
I ask you to advocate in the cantonal parliament for a genuine, scientifically grounded review of fox hunting, and to work towards ensuring that the canton either substantiates the benefit of this practice with data for the first time or abandons it. No federal law obliges the canton to hunt foxes. The canton of Zug has shown that the scope for action can be used.
Kind regards
[Your name]
[Your place of residence]
What Cantonal Councillor Biasotto answered
The response of 4 September 2026 is an attempt to portray fox hunting as measured and responsible. Biasotto emphasises prevention, advice for homeowners, and non-lethal self-help measures such as the «heron scarer». He portrays the wildlife wardens as a conscientious specialist body that puts down sick animals under difficult conditions.
Yet the decisive sentence is there: «We conduct no scientific survey of our fox hunting.» And further: «No numerical target or kill quota is set by the canton.» The canton acts on the basis of long-standing experience. In doing so, Biasotto confirms exactly what the citizen had criticised: there is no verifiable goal and no data basis.
His justification for hobby hunting rests on the claim that high fox densities increase the risk of diseases such as mange. He cites no evidence for this. This is precisely where the circular reasoning lies: without a survey, neither the density nor the health status of the population, nor the effect of hobby hunting on either, can be assessed.
The contradiction Biasotto himself supplies
«Not actively promoted» – yet eight months of hunting season without any survey whatsoever. A canton that permits foxes to be shot from July to February, without a target, without a numerical quota and without any monitoring of success, is not running a restrained exception. It is letting a regular hobby hunt run its course and forgoing any examination of its benefit.
Geneva as a model – against his own case. Biasotto writes that most conflicts are resolved by the wildlife wardens, as is also the case in the canton of Geneva. This is remarkable, because Geneva abolished hobby hunting in 1974 and leaves interventions exclusively to state wildlife wardens. Anyone who cites this model as exemplary is arguing against the regular fox hunt that he defends in the same letter.
Fear of disease instead of disease data. The Cantonal Councillor points to public fears of mange, distemper and fox tapeworm, and to the workload of the wildlife wardens. Yet he himself admits that the real problem is how people deal with the fox, not the fox itself. The logical consequence of this would be public education, not the killing of healthy animals.
Numerical targets for game people want to eat – none for the fox. The very same hunting regulation that permits foxes to be shot sets precise kill numbers per hunting district for roe deer, red deer and chamois. For the fox, no such specification exists at all. The canton thus plans with figures where it concerns the use of sought-after species, and refrains from doing so precisely where it justifies hunting on grounds of disease prevention. This confirms Biasotto's own admission that, in the case of the fox, there is neither a target nor a survey.
What the federal figures show
Biasotto justifies fox hunting with the risk of disease and with the careful approach of the wildlife wardens towards sick animals. The federal hunting statistics for Appenzell Outer Rhodes, maintained by the Federal Office for the Environment, paint a different picture.
The ordinary hunt kills the vast majority. In the regular hobby hunt, several hundred foxes were killed per year over many years, in individual years over a thousand. Only more recently has the number fallen to a few hundred animals annually.
The wildlife wardens play barely any role in numerical terms. The special kills carried out by the wildlife wardens – precisely the channel that Biasotto describes as the animal-welfare-oriented removal of sick animals – lay almost consistently in the single digits to low double digits. Only a single year deviates strongly upwards.
Disease is a matter for fallen game, not for hunting. Where the canton breaks down the causes of death of fallen game, the largest share is attributable to road traffic as well as to age, illness and weakness. Sick and weak animals thus predominantly die on their own and are recorded as fallen game. They are no evidence of any necessity to shoot hundreds of animals every year.
Adding to this is an inconsistency in the official data itself. The Appenzell Outer Rhodes hunting regulation explicitly treats badger, fox and wild boar the same, assigning them the same hunting period and thus the same closed season. Yet in the closed-season overview of the Federal Office for the Environment, Appenzell Outer Rhodes shows three different closed-season lengths for precisely these three species, none of which matches cleanly with the period set out in the cantonal ordinance. Which presentation is accurate in detail cannot be clarified from the outside. But the fact that the canton's own ordinance and the federal statistics diverge on something as fundamental as the closed season fits the overall picture: a canton that admits to keeping no scientific record of fox hunting also fails to provide a reliable basis for its baseline data.
If one applies the only solid Swiss reference figure to these numbers, the discrepancy becomes fully apparent: in the canton of Lucerne, the only one that systematically records the health status of killed foxes, over 98 percent of the animals shot were healthy. There is no reason to assume that foxes in Appenzell Outer Rhodes are healthier or sicker than those in Lucerne. This means the vast majority of foxes killed in Appenzell Outer Rhodes were probably healthy. Biasotto's portrayal of hunting as disease prevention does not hold up against the canton's own statistics.
The figures can be verified in the federal hunting statistics of the FOEN: Federal Hunting Statistics.
What Science Says
Population regulation: Compensation mechanisms – higher fertility, better survival rates, immigration – offset losses. Even culling three-quarters of a population is compensated for again within the following year (Baker & Harris 2006; Rushton et al. 2006; Kämmerle et al. 2019).
Health status: The canton of Lucerne is the only one that records the health status of killed foxes. Of 2,217 animals killed, only 39 showed signs of disease – over 98 percent were healthy. Anyone who kills almost exclusively healthy animals is not containing disease.
Fox tapeworm: In a French study from the Nancy region (Comte et al. 2017), prevalence rose from 44 to 55 percent despite heavy hunting pressure – because young foxes filling the gaps carry a higher worm burden. In Luxembourg, the proportion dropped from around 40 to under 10 percent after the fox hunting ban of 2015.
Geneva: Without hobby hunting since 1974, with no population explosion and no worse disease situation. Exactly the model that Biasotto cites as an example.
Full overview of studies: Studies: The Impact of Hobby Hunting on Wild Animals
Why writing in is worth it
The cantonal government has ventured far out on a limb argumentatively, making itself vulnerable in the process. Unlike cantons that merely refer to federal law, Biasotto has made concrete claims that can be checked. The cantonal parliament can demand exactly that: that the canton provide, for the first time, data-based evidence for the benefit of fox hunting. The more council members this one unanswered question reaches, the harder it becomes to ignore: what scientifically substantiated purpose justifies the eight-month hunting period for foxes in Appenzell Outer Rhodes, when the canton itself admits it collects no data on this, and the wildlife wardens only remove a fraction of the animals?
The Zug SWILD report
The canton of Zug is so far the only Swiss canton to have responded to Pascal Wolf's fox hunting petition with a genuine scientific study. In autumn 2025, the Department of the Interior commissioned SWILD – Urban Ecology, Wildlife Research, Communication – to produce an expert report. The second version appeared in May 2026 and was presented to the hunting commission on 16 June 2026.
The result is unambiguous: the fox hunting currently practised cannot sustainably regulate populations, does not improve disease control and is inferior to non-lethal methods when it comes to protecting livestock. The experience from Geneva (since 1974) and Luxembourg (since 2015) confirms that wildlife management works without hobby hunting of the red fox.
The full study is publicly accessible: Scientific Basis for Fox Hunting
Where to find the contact details
The cantonal parliament of Appenzell Outer Rhodes has 65 members. The full list of members can be found on the official website at ar.ch.
Unlike in other cantons, Appenzell Outer Rhodes has no uniform email pattern. Viele Ratsmitglieder nutzen private Adressen oder sind über ihre Partei erreichbar. Verifiziere die konkrete Adresse deshalb immer auf der offiziellen Liste oder über die Fraktionen. Für allgemeine Anliegen steht die Sammeladresse kantonsrat@ar.ch zur Verfügung.
The responsible member of the cantonal government is Dölf Biasotto (Department of Construction and Economic Affairs), and the hunting administrator is Andres Scholl. Both can be reached via the department pages at ar.ch.
What has happened in Switzerland so far
📌 Fox hunting in Zug: study proves it is pointless – act now
The only canton with a genuine scientific study. No regulatory effect, no contribution to disease control, non-lethal methods superior.
📌 Fox hunting in Lucerne: 98 percent of the killed animals were healthy
The canton's own statistics contradict the main justification for fox hunting.
📌 Hobby Hunters as False Wildlife Experts
How Pascal Wolf submitted petitions in over 12 cantons – and how authorities and media adopt the hunting lobby's narratives.
📌 Abolition of hobby hunting following the example of the canton of Geneva
Why Geneva has managed without hobby hunting since 1974 – exactly the model that Biasotto cites.