Stop fox hunting – write to the Glarus cantonal council

In June 2026, the canton of Glarus rejected the petition for a scientific review of fox hunting — citing federal jurisdiction, without naming a single study. The reply from Landammann Dr Markus Heer runs to three paragraphs. The open letter from IG Wild beim Wild, with seven concrete questions and a two-week deadline, received no answer. Cantonal council elections were held on 14 June 2026; the new members' list for 2026–2030 will be published in the coming weeks.

You can do something, no matter which canton you live in. Contact your cantonal councillor or your National Council representative directly. It is legal, effective and takes only a little time.

Important: do not rely on email alone. We have received feedback from several cantons that messages about the hobby hunting of foxes sometimes bounce back as undeliverable. Whether this is due to faulty addresses or a deliberate filter cannot be determined from the outside. So it is better to use several channels: write a letter, call, or seek a personal conversation. You can also contact the parties and parliamentary groups directly — often a message to the party or group secretariat is more effective than one to individual council members. A phone call or a 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 program

Subject: Fox hunting Glarus — please take action

Dear Ms [Name] / Dear Mr [Name]

As a citizen, I am contacting you directly because the practice of fox hunting in our canton concerns me.

In June 2026, the Glarus cantonal government rejected the petition for a scientific review of fox hunting in three paragraphs and did not cite a single study. The reference to federal law answers the wrong question: no federal law compels the canton of Glarus to shoot foxes. The petition did not ask whether it is permitted, but whether it is necessary and appropriate.

The research is unambiguous: compensation effects rapidly offset kills – higher birth rates, immigration (Baker & Harris 2006; Rushton et al. 2006; Kämmerle et al. 2019). The canton of Lucerne, the only canton to record disease data on the shot fox, shows: of 2,217 killed foxes, only 39 had a disease finding – over 98 per cent were healthy. In the case of the fox tapeworm, hunting is even counterproductive: a French study from the Nancy area (Comte et al. 2017) shows that intensive hunting increased prevalence from 44 to 55 per cent. In Luxembourg, following the hunting ban in 2015, it fell from around 40 to under 10 per cent.

Foxes also protect against tick-borne diseases: they regulate rodents as reservoirs of Lyme disease. Whoever shoots foxes weakens this protective barrier. The Swiss National Park has been hunting-free since 1914 – over a hundred years, no population explosion, no epidemic problems. The canton of Geneva has managed without hobby hunting since 1974, spending around one million francs per year on wildlife management.

In 2025, the canton of Zug became the only canton to commission an independent study by SWILD. The result (May 2026): fox hunting regulates nothing, does not improve disease control, and non-lethal methods are superior. Glarus could take the same path.

The canton of Geneva has managed without hobby hunting since 1974 – and thus in effect also without fox hunting: only state game wardens are allowed to intervene there, with not a single regulatory kill in the last two years.

I ask you to advocate in the Landrat for a scientifically sound review of fox hunting – instead of pointing to federal competence when the Confederation itself leaves room for action.

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

What was decided in the canton of Glarus

Landammann Dr Markus Heer responded to Pascal Wolf's petition in June 2026 with three paragraphs. The core message: the Confederation permits hunting, so everything is in order. Scientific studies were not mentioned. IG Wild beim Wild then sent an open letter with seven concrete questions to Landammann Heer and set a deadline of two weeks. No reply was forthcoming.

The canton of Zug used the same room for action and commissioned an independent study. The result: fox hunting cannot be scientifically justified. Glarus has not taken this path – and remains silent when asked.

The seven questions to the Glarus cantonal government

The open letter from IG Wild beim Wild to Landammann Heer posed the following questions, which went unanswered:

1. «No indications» – but no source: On what data is the assertion based that fox hunting does not contradict sustainability? Has the canton ever reviewed the scientific literature?

2. «May» is not «must»: Federal law permits fox hunting. It does not oblige it. Why does the cantonal government answer a question that no one asked – and leave the question actually posed unanswered?

3. The scientific evidence: Compensation effects in fox hunting have been documented for decades. Lucerne shows: over 98 per cent of the foxes killed were healthy. Luxembourg: the prevalence of the fox tapeworm fell after a ban from around 40 to below 10 per cent. Was the cantonal government aware of this evidence?

4. Hunting-free areas as a practical test: Canton of Geneva – without hobby hunting since 1974, one million francs per year, none of the predicted problems. Swiss National Park – hunting-free since 1914, documented for over a hundred years. Did the cantonal government take these experiences into account?

5. Voices from the hunting community: Zurich hobby hunter Franz Balmer: «We harm the reputation of hunting more than we benefit it.» Wildlife biologist Sandra Gloor: killing a fox achieves ºbsolutely nothing». Former president of the Grisons hunting community Robert Brunold: «Low hunting is not necessary.» On what does the Glarus cantonal government base its opposite certainty?

6. Animal Welfare Act: Art. 4 para. 2 of the Animal Welfare Act prohibits inflicting unjustified suffering on animals. How does the canton justify the annual killing of foxes when it expressly refuses to examine this benefit?

7. Health risk: Foxes regulate rodents as tick reservoirs and thereby protect against Lyme disease. According to research, intensive fox hunting increases the prevalence of the fox tapeworm. Rabies was defeated through vaccine baits, not through hunting. Anyone who claims that fox hunting serves health protection must therefore explain why the same hunting could not contain rabies, whereas the vaccine baits could.

The full letter in its exact wording: Open letter to the Glarus Landammann

What science says

Population regulation: Compensation effects quickly offset kills (Baker et al. 2002; Kämmerle et al. 2019; Rushton et al. 2006). Even killing three quarters of a population is offset the following year.

Rabies: It was not hunting but oral vaccine bait programmes from 1978 onwards that defeated rabies. Lethal methods can intensify epidemics.

Fox tapeworm: Intensive hunting increases prevalence (a French study from the Nancy region, Comte et al. 2017). In Luxembourg it fell after the 2015 ban from around 40 to under 10 per cent.

Lyme disease: Foxes regulate rodents as tick reservoirs. In areas with higher predator activity, 10–20 per cent fewer tick-carrying rodents occur (Hofmeester et al., Proc. Royal Soc. B).

National Park / Geneva: Hunting-free since 1914 and 1974 respectively – no population explosions, no worse disease situation.

Full overview of studies: Studies: The impact of hobby hunting on wild 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 the autumn of 2025 the Department of the Interior commissioned an expert report from SWILD – Urban Ecology, Wildlife Research, Communication. The second version was published in May 2026 and presented to the hunting commission on 16 June 2026.

The result is unequivocal: the fox hunting currently practised cannot regulate populations sustainably, does not improve epidemic control and is inferior to non-lethal methods when it comes to protecting livestock. The experiences from Geneva (since 1974) and Luxembourg (since 2015) confirm it: wildlife management works without hobby hunting of the red fox.

The complete study is publicly available: Scientific foundations on fox hunting

Where to find the contact details

The Glarus Landrat (60 members) does not publish email addresses in its official membership list. You can find the current composition at gl.ch/parlament/landrat. The contact details of individual members of the Landrat generally run through their respective parties; the easiest way to reach them is via the parliamentary group or party secretariats.