Stop fox hunting – write to the Lucerne cantonal council
The canton of Lucerne provides the sharpest argument against fox hunting – from its own data. As the only Swiss canton, Lucerne systematically records the health status of the foxes killed. The result from the 2018/19 hunting year: of 2,217 foxes killed, only 39 had a diagnosis of disease. Over 98 per cent of the animals shot were healthy.
Nevertheless, the RUEK of the Lucerne cantonal council rejected the petition for a scientific review of fox hunting in spring 2026 – without citing a single study, without hearing the petitioner. The only body consulted was the Department of Construction, Environment and Economic Affairs, that is, precisely the administration whose status quo the petition criticises.
You can do something, no matter which canton you live in. Contact your cantonal councillor or your National Council member directly. This 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 hobby hunting of foxes sometimes come back as undeliverable. Whether this is due to faulty addresses or a targeted 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 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 Lucerne – 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.
Lucerne is the only canton that systematically records the health status of the foxes killed. The result is unequivocal: of 2,217 foxes killed, only 39 had a diagnosis of disease. Over 98 per cent were healthy. This causes the main argument for fox hunting – disease control – to collapse, on the basis of the canton's own data.
More than 30 years of wildlife biology research confirm: fox hunting does not regulate populations sustainably. Compensation effects – higher birth rates, immigration – quickly offset kills again (Baker & Harris 2006; Rushton et al. 2006; Kämmerle et al. 2019). Even in the case of the fox tapeworm, hunting is counterproductive: a French study from the Nancy region (Comte et al. 2017) shows that intensive hunting increased prevalence from 44 to 55 per cent – because young foxes fill the gaps and carry a higher parasite load. In Luxembourg, by contrast, the infection rate fell from around 40 to below 10 per cent after the fox hunting ban of 2015.
Foxes are also natural disease fighters: they regulate mice and rodents, which are regarded as the main reservoirs for Lyme-disease-transmitting ticks. Anyone who shoots foxes weakens this protective barrier. Rabies was not defeated by hunting, but by oral vaccination bait programmes from 1978 onwards.
The canton of Zug was the only canton to commission an independent study in 2025 (SWILD, May 2026). The result confirms what the Lucerne data have long shown: fox hunting cannot be justified scientifically. Lucerne could take the same path – with its own figures as a starting point.
The canton of Geneva has managed without hobby hunting since 1974 – and thus effectively without fox hunting too: only state game wardens are allowed to intervene there, with not a single regulatory kill in the last two years.
I ask you to reject the RUEK recommendation for acknowledgement and instead to call for a serious, scientifically grounded review of fox hunting – with a hearing of independent experts and an open data basis.
Kind regards
[Your name]
[Your place of residence]
What was decided in the canton of Lucerne
In spring 2026 the RUEK moved for the petition to be acknowledged – without mentioning a single wildlife biology study, without hearing the petitioner, and with reference to the Department of Construction, Environment and Economic Affairs as the only body consulted. The IG Wild beim Wild then addressed an open letter to committee president Michael Kurmann, calling for the withdrawal of the report, a hearing of the petitioner and of independent experts. No reply was forthcoming.
The canton of Zug took a different path: in 2025 it commissioned an independent study from SWILD. Lucerne could make the same decision – and, with its own data, would even have the stronger starting point.
What the science says
Population regulation: Compensation effects rapidly offset kills. Even intensive, coordinated hunting across large areas shows no sustainable effect (Baker et al. 2002; Kämmerle et al. 2019; Rushton et al. 2006).
Rabies: It was not hunting but oral vaccination bait programmes from 1978 onwards that defeated rabies. Lethal methods can amplify epidemics, because hunted animals become more mobile.
Fox tapeworm: Intensive hunting increases prevalence (Comte et al. 2017). In Luxembourg it fell from around 40 to below 10 per cent after the ban in 2015.
Lyme disease: Foxes regulate rodents that serve as tick reservoirs. Studies show that in areas with higher predator activity, 10–20 per cent fewer tick-carrying rodents occur (Hofmeester et al., Proc. Royal Soc. B).
Geneva / national park: Geneva has managed without hobby hunting since 1974, the Swiss National Park since 1914. No population explosions, no worse disease situation.
Complete overview of studies: Studies: 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 autumn 2025 the Department of the Interior commissioned an expert report from SWILD – Urban Ecology, Wildlife Research, Communication. 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 regulate populations sustainably, does not improve disease control and is inferior to non-lethal methods for the protection of livestock. Experience from Geneva (since 1974) and Luxembourg (since 2015) confirms it: wildlife management works without hobby hunting of the red fox.
The complete study is publicly accessible: Scientific foundations on fox hunting
Where to find the contact details
You can find the email addresses of all 120 Lucerne cantonal councillors on the official membership list of the cantonal council at lu.ch/kr/mitglieder_und_organe/mitglieder, filterbar nach Wahlkreis und Fraktion. Dort steht auch eine vollständige Adressliste als Download bereit. Das E-Mail-Muster lautet einheitlich vorname.nachname@lu.ch.
What has happened so far in the canton of Lucerne
📌 No to fox hunting: Lucerne motion exposes lack of facts
The original motion by the Lucerne lawyer Pascal Wolf, which fundamentally questions the hunting system.
📌 Lucerne and the red fox: when politics ignores the facts
The RUEK waves the petition through – Luxembourg, Geneva and Ticino have long shown the opposite.
📌 Fox hunting Lucerne: 98 per cent of animals killed were healthy
The canton's own statistics disprove the main justification for fox hunting – and the IG demands the withdrawal of the RUEK report. Includes the open letter to committee chairman Michael Kurmann.
📌 Lucerne RUEK to Wild beim Wild: «moderate your tone» instead of answers
Rather than addressing the scientific evidence, the committee reproves the tone of the enquiry.
📌 RUEK Lucerne embarrasses itself with its own figures
The committee moves for mere acknowledgement without any serious examination – and contradicts its own statistics.
🧠 The psychology of hobby hunting in the canton of Lucerne
Why fox hunting is being maintained even though the canton's own figures argue against it.