Zurich: Citizen confronts hunting authority with multi-million balance sheet of fox hunting

When Reto Muggler, co-head of the Zurich fisheries and hunting administration, replied to a citizen's enquiry about fox hunting earlier this week, he summarily dismissed the scientific source cited: it was «surely not reputable».

That was another mistake, and Ursula Alayan-Ricklin from Effretikon corrected it precisely.

The study

The source in question is a peer-reviewed original publication, published in the renowned journal Biological Conservation (Elsevier):

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, 316, 111719. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111719

For the first time, the study has quantified the economic balance of state-organised vertebrate hunting in France. The result is sobering: the estimated annual costs of the hunting amount to 103 to 123 million euros, while the officially reported damage costs come to only 8 to 23 million euros. The average expenditure is around 64 euros per animal killed – with roughly 1.7 million animals killed annually in France. The public thus pays for a practice whose costs exceed the supposedly prevented damages many times over.

The authority's response

In his reply, Muggler had argued that the Zurich hunting community provides important services: wildlife accidents, carcass recovery, the reduction of wildlife damage. If these tasks were to pass to the canton, additional costs of over 10 million francs per year would allegedly arise.

This figure is not new — and it is unsubstantiated. It already appears in the Government Council report of 2017, drafted in the department of the then hobby hunter Markus Kägi, and has since been repeated by hunting circles as if it were a fact. It has never withstood an independent review. The IG Wild beim Wild subjected this claim to a fact check back in 2017 — with a sobering result: much in the Government Council report does not stand up to scrutiny. That Muggler invokes the same unsubstantiated cost estimate again in 2026 shows how little the line of argument of the Zurich hunting authority has been renewed in nine years.

The initiative «Game wardens instead of hunters» had already demonstrated that professionally trained game wardens could take over the tasks of hobby hunting — without shotguns, without club logic, without unsubstantiated cost projections.

The SWILD study: what the canton of Zug has long known

What Muggler also leaves unmentioned in his reply: since May 2026 an independent Swiss study on fox hunting has been available — commissioned not by an animal welfare organisation, but by the canton of Zug itself. The result of the SWILD study is unequivocal: fox hunting does not regulate populations sustainably, does not improve disease control and is inferior to non-lethal protective measures. The Zug hunting commission consequently decided on 16 June 2026 to no longer actively promote fox hunting.

This is not the position of an animal welfare organisation. This is the decision of a cantonal hunting commission, based on an officially commissioned study. More on the subject: Canton of Zug: authorities curb fox hunting after study.

Alayan-Ricklin's rejoinder

In her reply this Friday, Alayan-Ricklin factually refutes Muggler's argumentation. Under animal welfare law, chicken runs must be secured against all predators — that is the responsibility of the animal keeper, not the hobby hunter. At playgrounds, foxes could be kept at a distance through deterrence rather than killing.

She also describes what she personally observed at the carcass collection point in Weisslingen: hobby hunters who disposed of healthy foxes and boasted that they «shoot at anything that moves». A «sustainable use of wildlife populations» looks different.

Access to files demanded

Specifically, Alayan-Ricklin is now demanding two things: firstly, the documents from the information event held by the Zurich hunters, at which SWILD zoologist and lead study author Claudia Kistler gave a presentation. The fact that this very researcher, whose study prompted the canton of Zug to make a U-turn, spoke internally before the Zurich hunters — without a public announcement and without any minutes — makes this request particularly explosive: what did Kistler say there? Did she present the same conclusions that led to the decision in Zug? And why was the public kept out?

Secondly, she is requesting access to the hunting administration's electronic game register, in which the hunters record their kills. Muggler himself had pointed out that this reporting obligation exists. On the basis of the principle of public access, refusing such access is hard to justify.

Muggler has since responded to the request for access to the files. Regarding the Kistler event, he states that the Fisheries and Hunting Administration did not organise it and therefore has no documents. Alayan-Ricklin would have to contact Claudia Kistler directly.

The event is not publicly documented. Who invited Kistler, under what conditions did she present, and who was in the audience? That an event with the lead author of the only independent Swiss study on fox hunting should leave no trace, while the canton of Zug takes the same study as grounds for a change of course, calls for an explanation.

On the electronic game register, Muggler at least signals openness: the matter will be examined with the legal department. Bünzli, head of Law and Services, is said to be getting in touch with Alayan-Ricklin.

Whether the Zurich authority draws different conclusions from the same SWILD study than the canton of Zug will become clear. The response to the game register request will show how transparently the Zurich Fisheries and Hunting Administration deals with its own figures.