Glarus rejects fox hunting petition without examining the evidence

The Glarus cantonal government has rejected the petition «Examination of the scientific evidence regarding fox hunting».

The justification comprises three paragraphs, cites not a single study and thereby unintentionally confirms precisely what the petition criticised: fox hunting is being continued without anyone ever having examined its effectiveness.

On 4 March 2026, the Lucerne lawyer Pascal Wolf submitted the petition «Examination of the scientific evidence regarding fox hunting» to the canton of Glarus. It did not call for a hunting ban, but merely for a report by the cantonal government on the scientific necessity and appropriateness of fox hunting. On 9 June 2026, the reply came (Ref. 2026-93/SKGEKO.5191), signed by Landammann Dr Markus Heer and Council Clerk Arpad Baranyi: the petition is rejected. Neither the requested reporting nor a change to current practice was deemed «warranted».

A factual claim without evidence

What is striking is the central justification: there are «no indications that this hunting contradicts sustainability or endangers the fox population. Nor are any other problems known that might possibly be caused by fox hunting.»

Anyone who finds no indications should be able to say where they looked. The cantonal government's reply cites no survey, no report, no study. It refers solely to the hunting prerogative and the federal hunting act of 1986, that is, to the finding that fox hunting is legal. No one disputed that. The petition asked whether it can be scientifically justified. On this question the government says not a word. The rejection of an examination of the evidence thus itself becomes proof: an evidential basis on which the Glarus practice could rely is not even claimed to exist.

The claim that «no other problems are known» also contradicts published research. Wildlife biology has documented compensatory effects for years: predators such as the fox offset kills through higher reproduction and immigration, which is why hobby hunting does not permanently regulate the population at all. There is no scientific evidence for the claim that hunting reduces the infestation rate with the fox tapeworm, and in the case of rabies only vaccine-bait campaigns proved successful, while fox hunting turned out to be counterproductive in studies. An overview can be found in our article «Anyone still hunting foxes now is not hunting in accordance with good practice» as well as in the dossier Hunting myths.

«May» is not «must»

Yet the decisive point lies plainly on the table, and the cantonal government inadvertently supplies it itself: the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds, on which Glarus relies, grants the cantons the hunting prerogative. But it does not oblige them to exercise it. Huntable species «may» be hunted, that is what the law says and that is how the Glarus reply itself quotes it. «May» is not «must». Under federal law, no canton is forced to shoot foxes.

The cantonal government is therefore answering a question that no one asked: whether fox hunting is permitted. The question raised by the petition was whether it is necessary and expedient. It is precisely on that point that the canton would have to provide reasons, for anyone who makes use of a right that means the killing of thousands of wild animals every year ought to be able to say why.

That the answer can also turn out differently is shown by the canton of Geneva: it has effectively abolished hobby hunting of foxes, for over fifty years. The ecosystem has not collapsed; the opposite is the case. Luxembourg too has refrained from fox hunting since 2015, without the prophesied problems. Across Switzerland, around 20’000 foxes were nonetheless shot in the 2024 hunting year, killed by hobby hunters with no demonstrable ecological benefit.

Without benefit there is no justification

This also brings the Animal Welfare Act into focus. Art. 4 para. 2 TSchG prohibits inflicting unjustified pain, suffering or harm on animals, or causing them anxiety. The justification for hunting foxes traditionally rests on its supposed benefits: population regulation, disease prevention, protection of small game. If research does not confirm these benefits and the cantonal government itself cannot or will not provide evidence, then the annual killing of around 20’000 foxes stands without any sound justification. A government that refuses to examine the evidence thereby also refuses to examine whether the suffering that hobby hunting inflicts on predators is justified at all in the sense of the Animal Welfare Act.

That leaves the argument of tradition. But anyone who invokes it should know what they are invoking. Cruelty to animals is no tradition, and shooting an animal pointlessly even less so. Hunting, as indigenous peoples have always practised it, served survival and sustenance, borne by respect for the animal killed. The shooting of healthy foxes that no one eats and whose death serves no demonstrable purpose has nothing in common with that. What is defended here as custom is killing for the sake of killing.

A pattern runs through the cantons

Glarus is no isolated case. Pascal Wolf has submitted the petition in more than twelve cantons, and the reactions follow a pattern: on 6 May 2026 the Bern cantonal government rejected a cross-party motion for a scientifically monitored suspension of fox hunting; the Grand Council is expected to decide in the autumn 2026 session. In the canton of Lucerne the responsible committee dismissed the petition without a hearing. In Basel, member of the Grand Council Brigitta Gerber is calling for an examination of the evidence; the response of the office of both Basel cantons is announced for June 2026. We have documented the developments in «After Bern and Lucerne: Basel questions fox hunting» , and how administrations and the media adopt the narratives of the hunting lobby is shown in our analysis «The wrong expert».

The Glarus answer fits the pattern: cantonal governments defend hobby hunting of predators by pointing to its legality and refuse to engage with the research. The question that Pascal Wolf put to twelve cantons thus remains unanswered, and it will not go away: if no federal law obliges the cantons to hunt foxes, then on what scientific basis does Switzerland kill 20,000 foxes every year?