Killed by the millions — for nothing: New study exposes hunters’ tall tales

A new study in the journal «Biological Conservation» shows that France has 1.7 million foxes, martens, and corvids killed annually as “pests,” even though control costs exceed reported damages by a factor of eight and the culling neither regulates populations nor protects crops.

Control costs eight times higher than the damages

The research team led by Frédéric Jiguet of the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle in Paris systematically analyzed seven hunting seasons between 2015 and 2022. The analysis was based on official data from the French Ministry of the Environment covering 92 departments. During this period, 12’394’885 animals were killed, including red foxes, stone martens, pine martens, polecats, weasels, carrion crows, rooks, magpies, jays, and starlings.

The economic balance sheet is devastating: the team estimates annual control costs at 103 to 123 million euros. The officially reported damages caused by these species during the same period amount to 8 to 23 million euros per year. Over seven years, the cumulative cost of culling totals 791 million euros, while the total reported damages amount to 96 million euros. Even if the working time of hobby hunters is unpaid and travel costs are halved, control costs still exceed damages by a factor of 1.66.

Culling reduces neither populations nor damages

Central finding of the generalized mixed models: There is no statistical relationship between the effort invested in killing and a reduction in reported damages the following year. Neither a higher kill rate reduces damages, nor does a decline or suspension of hunting lead to higher damages. The authors state plainly that increasing controls has no effect and that lifting them causes no additional damages.

The result is even clearer for population dynamics. Data from the French breeding bird monitoring program show that for the Eurasian jay, the common starling, and all five bird species combined, higher kill numbers correlate with higher spring populations. The team explains this through compensatory reproduction: reduced competition for food increases the breeding success and survival rate of the remaining individuals. For the red fox, parallel studies (Pépin et al. 2025) show the same pattern. The hobby hunters' claim that these species would “get out of hand” without intensive hunting finds no empirical support in seven years of French data.

454 Million Euros in Destroyed Ecosystem Services

Particularly striking is the calculation regarding Eurasian jays: during the study period alone, 62’278 jays were killed. Earlier studies (Hougner et al. 2006) estimate the seed dispersal services this species provides for oak forests at 3,200 to 14,600 euros per breeding pair. Extrapolated, this corresponds to a potential loss of 100 to 454 million euros in ecosystem services. Additional services such as rodent regulation by foxes and martens are not yet included in this calculation.

Directly Applicable to Switzerland

Switzerland has no formal “pest” classification like France, but regulates the same species under the Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds (JSG, SR 922.0). Red fox, stone marten, carrion crow, magpie, and Eurasian jay are huntable species under Art. 5 JSG. In the patent hunting cantons, which cover roughly two-thirds of Switzerland's surface area, tens of thousands of foxes are killed annually by hobby hunters. A systematic economic impact assessment of the kind Jiguet and his team have produced for France does not exist for any canton.

The Geneva model has demonstrated since 1974 that a complete hobby hunting ban works without any increase in wildlife damage. State-employed game wardens intervene only in a targeted, evidence-based manner. The French study now provides the most robust evidence to date that large-scale hunting of so-called “pest species” cannot be justified on economic grounds. France’s environmental inspectorate IGEDD has already recommended not renewing the triennial “pest” hunting decree in 2026.

Further reading on wildbeimwild.com:

• France and the Fox: How a Neighboring Country Exposes Hunting Myths
• Fox Hunting Is Organized Animal Cruelty
• Dossier on Hunters: Role, Power, Training, and Criticism

Sources

• Jiguet, F., Morin, A., Courtines, H., Robert, A., Fontaine, B., Levrel, H., Princé, K. (2026): Ecological and economic assessments of native vertebrate pest control in France. Biological Conservation. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111719
• Pépin, D., Feuvrier, P., Powolny, T., Giraudoux, P. (2025): Investigating the effects of red fox management on poultry beyond the controversy, Jura Massif France. Scientific Reports 15: 26238.
• Comte, S., Umhang, G., Raton, V. et al. (2017): Echinococcus multilocularis management by fox culling. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 147: 178-185.
• Hougner, C., Colding, J., Söderqvist, T. (2006): Economic valuation of a seed dispersal service in the Stockholm National Urban Park, Sweden. Ecological Economics 59: 364-374.
• Federal Act on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds (JSG), SR 922.0, Art. 5.
• Inspection générale de l’environnement et du développement durable (IGEDD, 2024): Parangonnage sur les espèces susceptibles d’occasionner des dégâts. Rapport n° 015518-01.