Open Letter to Cantonal Councillor Dölf Biasotto on Fox Hunting

Following his response to a citizen's enquiry on fox hunting, IG Wild beim Wild is addressing an open letter to Appenzell Outer Rhodes Cantonal Councillor Dölf Biasotto.

Seven questions, a two-week deadline, and the announcement that the response will be publicly documented. We are publishing the letter in full below.

On 4 September 2026, Councillor Dölf Biasotto, responsible for construction and economic affairs, responded to a citizen's enquiry about fox hunting. Unlike most cantons, he replied personally and in detail, across four and a half pages. Precisely because the response contains concrete statements, it can be measured against its own standards.

Several of these statements raise questions: the canton states that it conducts no scientific survey of fox hunting and sets no numerical target or kill quota. At the same time, foxes may be hunted in the 2026/2027 hunting year from 1 July to 28 February. We examined the facts in our article «Stop Fox Hunting – Write to the Appenzell Outer Rhodes Cantonal Parliament», including figures from the Federal Office for the Environment and a template letter to members of the cantonal parliament.

This open letter follows the same approach as our letters to Lucerne committee chair Michael Kurmann, to Glarus Landammann Markus Heer and to the Uri Department of Security: factual, with concrete questions and the expectation of a verifiable response.

The following open letter was sent to Councillor Dölf Biasotto on 14.9.2026. It is documented here in full; the subheadings correspond to the version sent.

Open Letter to Councillor Dölf Biasotto

Dear Councillor

We have read with interest your response of 4 September 2026 to a citizen's enquiry about fox hunting. Unlike most cantons, you took the trouble to reply personally and in detail, across four and a half pages. We acknowledge this. All the more significant, then, that your response raises questions on several central points that, in our view, require clarification. We ask you to comment on the following points.

1. "Not proactively promoted", yet eight months of hunting season with no survey whatsoever

You write that fox hunting in Appenzell Outer Rhodes is "not proactively promoted". In the same letter, you acknowledge that the canton conducts "no scientific survey of our fox hunting" and sets "no numerical target or kill quota". At the same time, foxes may be hunted in the canton for eight months of the year, from 1 July to 28 February. This hunting season is not a polemical exaggeration but the canton's own official specification: according to the hunting regulations published on ar.ch for the 2026/2027 hunting year, "the hunting season for badger, fox and wild boar is set from 1 July to a maximum of 28 February".

A regular hunting season of eight months with no measurable target, no numerical specification and no success monitoring is not an isolated exceptional measure. How can this practice be reconciled with the statement that fox hunting is not proactively promoted?

2. Three questions remain unanswered

The citizen asked about the concrete, measurable objective of fox hunting, about the data on whether that objective is being achieved, and about its scientific basis. Your response names no measurable objective, refers to no data on success monitoring, and cites no scientific source. Instead, you refer to "years of experience" and the assessment made by the wildlife wardens.

Without its own data collection and without naming any external evidence, the canton can neither verify whether its objective is being achieved nor demonstrate any site-specific benefit of regular fox hunting. Can you provide the requested proof of benefit?

3. The example of Geneva and the question of transferability

You yourself refer to the canton of Geneva, whose wildlife-warden-based model you cite as exemplary. This very model has managed without hobby-hunting of foxes since 1974. Only state wildlife wardens intervene there, and in the past two years not a single kill has been recorded as a regulatory measure. A reference example you have chosen yourself thus does not support the necessity of regular fox hunting — rather, it shows that a canton can manage without it. How do you assess the transferability of the Geneva model to Appenzell Outer Rhodes?

4. Wildlife wardens kill a fraction, regular hunting the vast majority

You describe the wildlife wardens as a careful specialist body that puts sick animals out of their misery under difficult conditions. The cantonal mortality statistics clearly show the proportions involved: in the 2024/2025 hunting year, 388 foxes were killed through hunting and 14 by wildlife wardens; in the previous year, 346 versus 10. Wildlife wardens thus accounted for around three percent of the foxes killed by hunting and wardens combined.

If wildlife wardens intervene specifically with sick or conflict-causing animals, while the far greater number of foxes are killed in regular licence hunting, the question arises as to the independent, measurable purpose of this regular hunt. How does the canton justify this scale, when the animal-welfare-oriented share you cite carries hardly any numerical weight?

5. Disease risks and data basis

You justify fox hunting by referring to the risk of diseases such as mange, as well as public concerns. You do not cite any evidence of a link between regular hunting and a reduction in disease incidence. Without a survey, it is impossible to assess either the health status and dynamics of the local fox population or the effect of hunting on it.

A particularly telling Swiss comparative figure is available from the Canton of Lucerne. There, in the 2018/2019 hunting year, 39 disease findings were recorded among 2,217 foxes killed, corresponding to 1.76 percent. In this survey, over 98 percent of the animals killed had no documented disease finding. The Cantonal Council cites no data suggesting a different health situation in Appenzell Outer Rhodes. On what data does the canton base its assumption that hunting reduces a disease risk?

6. The scientific evidence

The scientific evidence indicates that the currently common, spatially uncoordinated fox hunting does not sustainably regulate populations. Compensation through higher reproduction, better survival rates and immigration can quickly offset kills (Baker and Harris 2006, Rushton et al. 2006, Kämmerle et al. 2019). The current SWILD expert report for the canton of Zug concludes that the hunting currently practised achieves neither sustainable population regulation nor a reduction in infection risk.

For fox tapeworm, Comte et al. (2017) reported from a French study area near Nancy that prevalence rose from 44 to 55 percent despite high hunting pressure. The SWILD report also notes that prevalence in Luxembourg declined after the 2015 hunting ban; at the same time, it states that no scientifically published data on population development are available for Luxembourg. Was this body of evidence known to the Cantonal Council before it based the Outer Rhodes fox hunt essentially on "years of experience"?

7. The Zug SWILD report is available

The canton of Zug is, to date, the only Swiss canton to have responded to this very question with a genuine scientific study. The expert report by SWILD, presented to the Zug hunting commission on 16 June 2026, concludes that the fox hunting currently practised cannot sustainably regulate populations, does not improve disease control, and is inferior to non-lethal measures when it comes to protecting livestock. Has the Outer Rhodes cantonal government taken note of this publicly accessible report?

The question your letter fails to answer remains: what scientifically substantiated and measurable purpose, applicable to Appenzell Outer Rhodes, justifies the eight-month regular fox hunt in force for the 2026/2027 hunting year, when the canton itself states that it conducts no scientific survey, sets no numerical target or kill quota, and the wildlife wardens only remove a fraction of the animals? Federal law lists the fox as a huntable species and sets the framework for cantonal hunting regulation. However, it does not oblige the canton to conduct a general regular fox hunt.

We ask you for a statement within two weeks. This letter and any statement you may provide will be published on wildbeimwild.com.

Yours sincerely
IG Wild beim Wild

What happens next

If the cantonal government responds within the deadline, we will publish and comment on its statement. If no response is received, we will note that too. Appenzell Outer Rhodes thus joins a growing series of cantonal disputes over fox hunting. In Lucerne, Glarus and Uri, IG Wild beim Wild has confronted authorities with questions about the objectives, data basis and effectiveness of fox hunting.

The case of Appenzell Outer Rhodes is particularly revealing, however: Government Councillor Biasotto did not respond evasively, but in detail. His answer at the same time confirms that the canton conducts no scientific survey on fox hunting and sets no numerical target or kill quota. This leaves one question unanswered: on what scientific basis does the canton justify the eight-month fox hunt in force for the 2026/2027 hunting year, during which several hundred foxes are killed every year?

Anyone wishing to take action themselves can find the factual analysis, the FOEN figures and a template letter for members of the cantonal council in our article «Stop Fox Hunting – Write to the Appenzell Outer Rhodes Cantonal Parliament». Background information is provided in the overview End fox hunting, on the Geneva model as an example in the article Abolition of recreational hunting following the example of the canton of Geneva and on the psychological dimension of the Outer Rhodes hunt in the article Psychology of recreational hunting in the canton of Appenzell Outer Rhodes.