Control methods are applied worldwide to reduce predation on livestock by European red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Lethal methods are intended to kill foxes and can inflict suffering. Non-lethal methods can also inflict suffering and can unintentionally lead to death. Moral debate about the animal welfare and ethical consequences of both methods is lacking. The aim of this research was to investigate the animal welfare consequences, the level of humaneness and the ethical and moral implications of the global use of fox control methods. Tom Regan’s animal rights view and Peter Singer’s utilitarian view were each considered. According to Regan, lethal or potentially harmful non-lethal methods ought not to be used because one should not interfere with wild animals and because the use of such methods violates the right of foxes not to be harmed or killed. According to Singer, if and only if the use of fox control methods can prevent suffering and death in livestock in a manner and with a magnitude that outweighs comparable suffering and death in foxes is one morally obligated to use them. It is clear that lethal fox control methods and some non-lethal methods are inhumane.