Zug: fact check on Charly Keiser's references to studies and Geneva figures

On 15 October 2026, Charly Keiser from Zug responds in the “Zuger Zeitung”, also published in the “Badener Tagblatt”, to a letter to the editor by the Lucerne lawyer Pascal Wolf on fox hunting from early October. Keiser cites four studies, speaks of a “professionally orchestrated political campaign” and states that even Geneva cannot manage without hunting. What the letter does not mention: Keiser is a fellow campaigner and spokesperson for the six recreational hunters who are taking action before the Federal Supreme Court against the Zug requirement to carry out a follow-up search after every shot that does not result in a kill.

The sender

The exchange began with the group of six taking their case to Lausanne. They are challenging the Zug hunting operation regulations for 2026/27, specifically the end of bounties for foxes and crows killed, and Paragraph 17, which requires an immediate follow-up search with a certified dog after every shot that does not result in a kill (Zug recreational hunters challenge follow-up search obligation and abolition of fox bounties before Federal Supreme Court). The group opposes the follow-up search duty even where the hunter assumes they missed. The canton counters that where no kill results, it cannot be reliably ruled out that an animal was nevertheless hit and wounded.

Keiser declared himself «stunned» at the time, called the Zug expert report by SWILD «nonsense» and the comparison with Geneva «pointless». The Zug cantonal licence hunters' association expressly distanced itself from the statements in the press release, including the demand for a relaxation of the follow-up search duty.

On 5 October, the Federal Supreme Court rejected the request for suspensive effect. The regulations remain in force during the proceedings; the court considers the follow-up search duty to be in keeping with animal welfare (Zug: Federal Supreme Court rejects urgent application, follow-up search obligation remains for now). The complaint itself has not yet been decided.

Pascal Wolf, whose petition had triggered the Zug expert report, countered in his reader's letter that Keiser had not named a single study, and pointed to Geneva, Luxembourg and the National Park. Keiser's reply followed two weeks later.

The four studies and their transferability

Keiser cites Marcström et al. (1988), Tapper et al. (1996), Baines et al. (2004) and Lindström et al. (1994). The studies deal with the effects of predation, or of reducing predators, on other animal species: grouse on two Baltic islands after foxes and martens were removed, grey partridges on Salisbury Plain after intensive predator control, capercaillie in Scotland in relation to fox and crow density, and hares and gamebirds in Sweden after mange caused the fox population to collapse drastically.

It does not follow that conventional fox hunting in the canton of Zug lastingly reduces the fox population, or that kill bounties have any measurable benefit for endangered species. For that, Keiser would have to show that the conditions studied are transferable to Zug. The Zug SWILD study reaches the opposite conclusion for precisely this practice: fox hunting does not regulate the population lastingly, because incoming animals, higher reproduction and better survival rates fill the gaps (Canton of Zug stops promoting fox hunting). Lindström et al. also show that it took a disease-driven collapse of the fox population by more than half before prey animals increased; a scale that licence hunting with a few hundred kills a year does not come close to reaching.

On provenance: Tapper, Potts and Brockless (1996), like Baines, Moss and Dugan (2004), come from the British Game Conservancy Trust, now the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, a research foundation that emerged from British hunting and is sustained by it; the aim of the Salisbury Plain trials was a larger grey partridge population for hunting. This does not invalidate the data, but it belongs in any assessment. IG Wild beim Wild has repeatedly documented the entanglement of hunting associations and hunting research (Hunting Fact Check).

On the French field study with 776 kills and no population decline, on the Zug SWILD study and on Luxembourg, all of which Wolf had cited, Keiser writes not a word.

There is dissent from within the recreational hunting community itself. Franz Balmer, a recreational hunter in the canton of Zurich for 13 years, refuses to shoot healthy foxes and described his association's approach to the Tages-Anzeiger as "stupid": "This harms the reputation of hunting more than it helps it" (Recreational Hunter Franz Balmer on the Pointless Fox Hunt). Keiser, who dismisses the Zug expert report as "nonsense", has so far shown just as little interest in engaging with this criticism from his own ranks.

Geneva in the federal figures

Keiser claims that the Geneva game wardens shoot "around 200 foxes" a year, have increased the roe deer kill fivefold, and that "even hares are hunted or relocated". The Federal Hunting Statistics of the FOEN (canton of Geneva, special kill category, 2010 to 2025, accessed on 15 October 2026) show:

• Red fox: between 0 and 18 per year; not a single kill in 2020, 2021, 2024 and 2025.
• European hare: no kill since 2011. Relocations are not recorded in the statistics.
• Roe deer: between 0 and 36 per year. In 2025, the Zug recreational hunters shot around 345 roe deer, including more than 80 fawns.
• Wild boar: between 169 and 491 per year; carrion crow: between 180 and 1’226.

The roughly 200 foxes cited by Keiser cannot be traced in the series of special kills. In the separate category of fallen game, i.e. foxes that die in traffic or from disease, the Geneva figures for the same years lie between 82 and 209.

The IG has never denied that Geneva regulates wild boars and crows in a targeted way; it is the core of the model: around a dozen professional environmental wardens who share barely three full-time positions for these tasks, with no hobby, no trophy, no bounty (Geneva: no recreational hunting since 1974). Without fox hunting, the Geneva government counts the canton's European hare density among the highest in Switzerland; in 2016, 17.7 animals per 100 hectares were recorded. Keiser's argument that in Geneva "state employees work at the taxpayers' expense", while Zug recreational hunters do "the same work for free", overlooks the fact that until this summer the Zug recreational hunters received ten francs per fox tail and five per crow, and are now going to the Federal Supreme Court over this money. A long-term study by the canton of Geneva also documents a strong increase in biodiversity since the hunting ban of 1974 (Tages-Anzeiger, 2018); the canton attributes this to the ban combined with targeted habitat promotion.

The campaign

Keiser writes that Pascal Wolf submitted petitions in 13 cantons and that 'only Zug' took them up. The facts are these: Zug had the question reviewed by wildlife researchers; other cantons rejected the petition, relying on a position paper from JagdSchweiz (End fox hunting). IG Wild beim Wild has disclosed the campaign on its website, including template texts, reply letters and a list of studies. The IG is funded by donations, not by associations, authorities or manufacturers.

Commentary by IG Wild beim Wild

Anyone who demands scientific evidence, transparency and a decent tone must be measured by the same standard. Charly Keiser cites four studies without demonstrating that their findings apply to Zug, and in the Wildbretdelirium he circulates Geneva kill figures that the official statistics do not support. And he fails to mention that he is the spokesman of a group fighting before the Federal Supreme Court against the obligation to conduct a follow-up search after every shot that does not result in a kill.

The follow-up search is the central animal welfare measure after the shot. Wounded roe deer, foxes and hares often flee without any visible sign and die hours or days later. Anyone who regards searching for a possibly injured animal as an imposition on themselves, in the view of IG Wild beim Wild, lacks the authority to explain science to others. Legally, the canton can only revoke a licence for violations, not because of an attitude. All the more reason for the IG to demand that hunting ethics and animal welfare be made a binding part of the Zug hunting examination, and that the Directorate of the Interior rigorously monitor compliance with the existing follow-up search obligation this season. That the cantonal association itself distances itself from the militant group around Charly Keiser speaks for itself.

Why enjoying killing is not a harmless hobby motive

From a psychological perspective, people who take pleasure in killing living creatures and pay to do so are not displaying normal leisure behaviour. This behaviour contradicts the fundamental mechanisms of empathy, compassion and moral inhibition present in the majority of psychologically healthy people. Psychologically speaking, this constitutes deviant violent behaviour, even if it is politically or culturally tolerated.

Enjoyment of killing is a classic feature of pleasure-based violence. The act of violence itself is rewarding: not the outcome, not some claimed necessity, but the killing itself. This is not a marginal phenomenon — it is clearly described in the psychology of violence.

Not everyone who hunts will experience the act of killing in the same way, or openly describe it as enjoyment. But anyone who experiences recreational hunting precisely as the pleasure of the kill, as adrenaline, triumph or personal gratification, displays a psychologically problematic motivation for violence. Historically and structurally, this is closely related to authoritarian and dehumanising ways of thinking, because it turns the killed creature into a means of one's own gratification.

In the view of IG Wild beim Wild, recreational hunters require annual medical-psychological fitness assessments modelled on the Netherlands, as well as a binding upper age limit. Today, the largest age group among recreational hunters is 65+. Within this group, age-related limitations such as declining eyesight, slower reaction times, reduced concentration and cognitive deficits increase significantly, statistically speaking. At the same time, accident analyses show that the number of serious hunting accidents involving injuries and fatalities rises significantly from middle age onwards.

The regular reports of hunting accidents, fatal mistakes and the misuse of hunting weapons highlight a structural problem. Private ownership and use of lethal firearms for leisure purposes largely escapes continuous oversight. In the view of IG Wild beim Wild, this is no longer justifiable. A practice based on voluntary killing, which at the same time poses considerable risks to people and animals, loses its societal legitimacy.

Hobby Hunting is also based on speciesism. Speciesism describes the systematic devaluation of non-human animals purely on the basis of their species. It is comparable to racism or sexism and cannot be justified either culturally or ethically. Tradition is no substitute for moral scrutiny.

Critical scrutiny is particularly essential in the field of recreational hunting. Hardly any other area is so shaped by sugar-coated narratives, half-truths and targeted disinformation. Where violence is normalised, narratives often serve to justify it. Transparency, verifiable facts and an open societal debate are therefore indispensable.