Fox hunting without facts: Hunting Switzerland invents problems

On November 27, 2025, the militant association JagdSchweiz published a position paper full of hatred regarding fox hunting.

The message is clear: fox hunting is "sensible and useful" and must "absolutely be maintained." Criticism from nature and animal welfare organizations is dismissed as emotional and lacking in facts.

However, anyone who takes a look at the actual developments in fox-hunting-free regions, at court rulings and at the official figures on hunting practice quickly realizes: The document primarily defends a hunting self-image and a bloody hobby that is hardly compatible with modern wildlife ecology and animal welfare.

Hunting Switzerland is defending a system that has long been on the defensive.

In its position paper, JagdSchweiz (the Swiss hunting association) responds to the "repeated discussion initiated by nature conservation and animal welfare groups" regarding the purpose and future of fox hunting. The organization maintains that recreational fox hunting is necessary to regulate populations, prevent damage, combat diseases, and protect other wildlife species. The fox is thus indirectly portrayed as a problem figure that would spiral out of control without shotguns and rifles.

What is striking is the lack of a sober, scientific evaluation of experiences in regions where fox hunting has not taken place for years or decades, as well as an honest examination of the massive failings of those involved in the practice. We will address precisely this reality below.

Luxembourg: Fox hunting banned, no problems arose

Luxembourg completely banned recreational fox hunting at the beginning of 2015. Hunting associations predicted a "population explosion," a growing risk of disease, and increasing damage at the time. None of this has come to pass.

Analyses by the Luxembourg authorities and independent reports show:

• The fox population has not exploded since the ban, but has remained largely stable.
• There was no increase in wildlife diseases.
• The proportion of animals infected with fox tapeworm roughly halved between 2014 and 2020.

In other words, a country in the heart of Europe has completely refrained from fox hunting for years, thus refuting in practice the alarmist rhetoric with which hunting associations seek to legitimize their fox campaigns.

Canton of Geneva: Fifty years of wildlife policy without recreational hunting

The reality check is even more striking in Switzerland itself. In the canton of Geneva, militia hunting was abolished by popular vote in 1974. Since then, recreational hunting has been prohibited, and wildlife management is the responsibility of state game wardens.

Geneva is now considered an example of modern wildlife management:

• Wildlife populations are controlled in a targeted and economical manner by professional game wardens when this is necessary for agriculture, traffic or safety.
• Studies and reports from the canton show that wildlife populations can be better regulated on their own or managed with minimal intervention without recreational hunting.

Despite the absence of widespread fox hunting, neither ecological disasters nor epidemic outbreaks have been reported. On the contrary, the Geneva model is now being discussed in other cantons as a viable alternative to traditional recreational hunting.

National parks and fox-hunting-free zones: The threat remains theoretical.

Besides Luxembourg and Geneva, there are other areas in Europe where foxes have not been hunted or have hardly been hunted for years, including national parks such as the Bavarian Forest and Berchtesgaden, as well as larger fox-hunting-free areas.

The findings from these areas can be summarized as follows:

• There are no documented "fox explosions" with subsequent collapses of ground-nesting bird or hare populations.
• The fox population density adapts to the natural and man-made conditions.
• Where humans do not intervene with guns, the populations are regulated by food supply, diseases, and competition among foxes.

This presents JagdSchweiz with a clear contradiction: While yet another completely incompetent position paper paints dramatic scenarios, real-world field trials prove the opposite. Fox-hunting-free zones are not ecological problem areas, but often biodiversity hotspots.

The culture of violence in recreational hunting in court

How the hunting environment of JagdSchweiz operates is illustrated by a case before the criminal court in Bellinzona. The association had sued IG Wild beim Wild because it felt its honor had been violated by harsh criticism.

The focus was on statements describing JagdSchweiz, among other things, as a "militant problem association" accused of a culture of violence, disrespect towards wild animals and massive political pressure through intimidation and propaganda lies.

After hearing the evidence, Judge Siro Quadri concluded that these statements did not constitute lies and therefore were not defamatory. The lawsuit was dismissed, and the judgment is final.

Legally, this means that even drastic formulations about a "militant hunting milieu" and a "culture of violence" were deemed by the criminal court to be protected by freedom of expression and, in their essence, supported by the facts and context presented. This sheds a clear light on the environment in which the current position paper was created.

In a case between JagdSchweiz (the Swiss hunting association) and IG Wild beim Wild (the association for wildlife conservation), the Ticino Criminal Court ruled that strong opinions, such as criticism of a "culture of violence" within JagdSchweiz, are protected by freedom of expression. Legally, this means the court did not consider these drastic statements to be criminal defamation, but rather permissible value judgments supported by the facts presented.

Graubünden: Official figures on hunting practices expose the ideal image

The gap between the hunting community's self-portrayal and reality becomes even more apparent when looking at the canton of Graubünden. There, high-altitude hunts are often touted as a prime example of responsible management. The official figures, however, tell a different story.

According to the Graubünden Office for Hunting and Fishing and an SRF report:

• During the high season for hunting, around 10,000 deer, chamois, roe deer and wild boar are shot every year in the canton of Graubünden.
• Approximately nine to almost ten percent of these kills are illegal. In the five years prior to 2016 alone, recreational hunters paid over 700,000 Swiss francs in fines for incorrect kills.

The figures for wounded animals are particularly alarming:

• Between 2012 and 2016, 56,403 deer, roe deer, chamois and wild boar were killed in Graubünden.
• In 3,836 cases, animals were only wounded. These figures come from official data on bloodhounds, which were disclosed to the SRF program " Rundschau ".

IG Wild beim Wild and other animal welfare organizations have taken up and analyzed this data. They show that this is not an isolated incident, but a structural problem: hundreds of illegal shootings per year in a single canton, plus thousands of injured animals within just a few years.

Extrapolating to all hunting cantons and over longer periods, this results in tens of thousands of animals that are either illegally killed or killed in a manner inconsistent with animal welfare standards. Against this backdrop, the image of the disciplined, law-abiding, and animal-welfare-conscious recreational hunter that JagdSchweiz portrays to the public seems more like a promotional brochure than a realistic description.

Fox hunting as a scapegoat for problems in agriculture

A central tenet of hunting arguments is that foxes decimate ground-nesting birds and hares in the cultivated landscape to such an extent that only intensive recreational hunting of predators can protect these species.

Developments in Luxembourg, Geneva, and the fox-hunting-free national parks suggest that the main problem lies not with the fox, but with the fields. Expert articles and official reports repeatedly point to this:

• Habitat destruction through land consolidation, drainage and the loss of hedges and fallow land
• the massive use of pesticides and fertilizers, which destroys insects and thus food sources.
• Early and frequent mowing with heavy machinery directly kills nests and young animals.

Luxembourg's environmental policy, for example, explicitly attributes the decline of various farmland bird species to these factors, not to foxes. Where meadows are mowed later and more gently, pesticides are reduced, and refuges are created, populations recover – entirely without fox hunting.

Making foxes scapegoats for the consequences of misguided agricultural policies may be politically convenient. From a scientific perspective, it's a diversionary tactic.

Diseases: Success of medicine, not of the rifle.

Another standard argument used by hunting associations is disease control. The fox serves as a scapegoat for rabies, fox tapeworm, and other zoonoses.

However, the history of rabies control in Europe clearly shows that the breakthrough came through widespread vaccination bait programs, not through recreational hunting. In Switzerland and its neighboring countries, millions of vaccination baits were distributed, whereupon fox rabies disappeared within a few years.

The same applies to fox tapeworm: hygiene, education, and, if necessary, targeted baiting with deworming medication in hotspots are crucial. Despite the fox hunting ban, Luxembourg does not have an increased risk; on the contrary, the proportion of infected foxes has decreased.

Disease prevention is therefore not a blank check for a general, permanent persecution of foxes.

What a modern wildlife policy really needs

Instead of clinging to a poorly justified fox hunt, Switzerland could look to existing, successful models. Modern wildlife management would focus on three key areas:

1. Waste and feeding policies in settlements
   Secure waste management systems, clear feeding bans, and public awareness campaigns would effectively and humanely limit fox populations in cities. Foxes follow the food supply, not the moralizing rhetoric of hunting associations.
2. Habitat instead of lead for endangered species
   Mowing meadows later, reducing pesticides, promoting small-scale structures, creating quiet zones: These measures demonstrably help ground-nesting birds and hares far more than a blanket declaration of enemy status against foxes.
3. Targeted, professional interventions instead of hobby hunting
   Where there is documented, serious damage, state game wardens can intervene with clear mandates and monitoring. The Geneva model has demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach for five decades. Long-term studies by the canton show that biodiversity has increased significantly since recreational hunting was banned in 1974. Geneva also has the highest density of brown hares in Switzerland.

A position paper from the past

The position paper from JagdSchweiz (the Swiss hunting association) on fox hunting aims to give the impression that it speaks in the name of reason and facts. Reality paints a different picture:

• Countries and cantons without fox hunting will not experience the predicted problems.
• National parks and fox-hunting-free areas refute the threat of population collapses and epidemics.
• A legally binding ruling in Bellinzona confirms that criticism of a culture of violence in the vicinity of JagdSchweiz cannot be considered defamation.
• Official figures from Graubünden document hundreds of illegal shootings and thousands of wounded animals in one canton alone each year.

Against this background, fox hunting does not appear to be an indispensable instrument of modern wildlife policy, but rather a relic from a time when the rifle was considered an all-purpose tool against self-created problems.

Anyone who is seriously interested in species and animal protection will not look to JagdSchweiz for guidance, but rather to Luxembourg , Geneva and other regions where it has been shown that nature functions – and even better – without recreational hunting.

The Swiss Animal Welfare Act clearly states that its purpose is to protect the dignity and well-being of animals, and the Civil Code stipulates that animals are not things. An argument that justifies fox hunting primarily on the grounds of economic attractiveness and utilization effectively reduces the fox back to a commodity and contradicts the spirit of animal welfare law. Where in this document is the respect for animal dignity that transcends the interests of the hunting lobby?

• Federal Hunting Statistics Link
• Scientific literature: Studies on the red fox
• Hunters spread diseases: Study
• Hunting promotes diseases: Study
• Amateur hunters in crime: The list
• A ban on senseless fox hunting is long overdue: Article
• Luxembourg extends fox hunting ban: Article
• Small game hunting and wildlife diseases: Article
• Deterring wild animals: Article