9 month old twins attacked by fox

electrofrog

I know your not supposed to keep em as pets but I know someone who had a pet fox (tamed) acted pretty much like a very cowardly dog family pets have been know to attack babies out of jealosy not sure about this wild fox story though

Donkey Oaty

Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: »

Why don't you believe the downstairs windows were not locked?

In fact that's all irrelevant as:

It is thought the fox may have entered through a door which had been left open because of the warm weather.

(from the BBC report).

karlog

There's only one solution. We have to kill every fox within a 50 mile radius.

martyboy48

Calibos wrote: »

T-Minus 24 hours before we hear that the twins uncle moved to a mates house with his pet Staffie minutes before the Police arrived.

Another ignorant misguided post regarding a staffie... It's people like you that breeds fear and ignorance...
Unless it was a poor attempt at humour:mad:

Noreen1

I'm keeping an open mind on this!
Whereas I would agree with the general consensus that foxes are generally very wary of Humans, I can't completely discount the Mothers story without proof.

The fact is, urban foxes are likely to be less shy than their rural "cousins", and I have to take my own personal experience into account:

I remember walking into an outhouse some years ago, and finding a fox curled comfortably in the corner. I expected it to make a dash for the door (there was plenty of room) - but instead it just lay there staring back at me - it didn't seem in the least concerned.

I'll be the first person to say that this this is unusual behaviour, especially in a rural area. Having said that, there was a problem with overpopulation in the area at the time, and we had just had a severe winter.

If you consider that -
A: People increasingly feeding foxes in urban areas is likely to make them less wary.
B: We have just experienced a severe winter (hence wildlife is likely to be in poor condition, generally).
C: Foxes are currently feeding their young, hence there is at least some strain on available food sources -

Then, it is just possible that an old, or sick animal might have been desperate enough to attack a young child.

I can't say with any degree of certainty that a fox attacked the children - but I suspect that someone trying to concoct a story about an animal attack would be more likely to accuse a stray dog, than a fox.

JMO.

Noreen

Calibos

martyboy48 wrote: »

Another ignorant misguided post regarding a staffie... It's people like you that breeds fear and ignorance...
Unless it was a poor attempt at humour:mad:

Yes, we all know that Staffies and Pitbulls etc are no worse than any other kind of Dog in terms of temperment but the fact is that these breeds are more likely to be owned by the very type of person who will turn it into an animal capable of this kind of thing. Unfortunate as it may be for this breed, the fact remains that most attacks you read about are by Staffies and pitbulls owned by scumbagy people. Most staffies do not attack people like this but most attacks like this are by staffies.

However, in terms of this case, it may not be as clear cut as I thought. The next door neighbours have told the media that they themselves have had to chase local foxes out of their house and throw household objects at them to get them out.

martyboy48

Calibos wrote: »

Yes, we all know that Staffies and Pitbulls etc are no worse than any other kind of Dog in terms of temperment but the fact is that these breeds are more likely to be owned by the very type of person who will turn it into an animal capable of this kind of thing. Unfortunate as it may be for this breed, the fact remains that most attacks you read about are by Staffies and pitbulls owned by scumbagy people. Most staffies do not attack people like this but most attacks like this are by staffies.

However, in terms of this case, it may not be as clear cut as I thought. The next door neighbours have told the media that they themselves have had to chase local foxes out of their house and throw household objects at them to get them out.

True, you read bad reports from time to time, but this is media driven.Fact remains,as you said, staffies not bad tempered unless owned by scumbags ect. On bold subject, source?? Not true, although you may read about it more(media driven). Sorry rant over, just hate staffies/owners being tarred with one brush, you know what I mean..
Back to topic, On first reading this thread, I got a vision of a fox tip-toeing up the stairs and saying SSSHHHH to the twins before 'mauling' them:D

silverharp

BBC did a piece on this, apparently the foxes have lost their fear of people in the area so it seems the family were just bloody unlucky. To be honest any normal parent would be out of their minds with worry and wouldnt be able to come up with elaborate stories about foxes if it wasnt true.

Dudess

Strange - I was just saying the other day I've spotted a few foxes around where I live of late (urban area).

445279.ie

445279.ie wrote: »

Why does the report say "two baby twin sisters". As opposed to how many?? Anyone ever heard of 3 twins or 4 twins, this bugs me alot :mad:

Well...

As for the article, a fox in a house? Sounds unlikely

Aids By Google

Lucky none of them died, other wise this would be an RIP thread and the funny people banned.

:pac:

stupidusername

I thought there was something a little odd about this story. On Sky it was said that twins were attacked in their beds. I thought, if they're 9 months old, why would they be in beds? But obviously that could just be Sky News being Sky News. So assuming they were actually in cots, and the idea of a cot is to be secure, so the child can't roll / fall out, and so are fairly high up at the sides.

Another thing that's odd about this is, why would one fox attack one child, then go to attack the other? This just seems weird to me. If he was looking for food (sorry to be gross but..) why wouldn't he just continue trying to eat the first one, rather than trying to eat the second one?

So whatever about them getting attacked, it's not nice, unfortunate etc etc. But now on Sky News they're talking about getting the councils to take control of the fox population. A journalist on there a little while ago was saying it's been a problem for a while, and obviously needs to be sorted. They need to be treated like vermin, cause they're pests etc etc. This attitude pisses me off. Why do humans not get how things work?
-There's too many of us, and we're the ones that create these problems
-We don't own the world, so why is it our right to kill off any animal / species when it becomes inconvenient to deal with?

The human population is what needs to be controlled not that of other animals...! When will they get it!?

The Mad Hatter

Some points.

1. "Mauled" means "wounded by an animal," so yes, a fox could maul you. So could your cat. Whether it's serious or not is a different matter.

2. Sky News has the dubious honour of being the most reliable news source in the Murdoch machine, a little like being the most talented Spice Girl.

3. I'm inclined to think it's very unlikely that a fox snuck into the upstairs bedroom of an urban house, attacked two small children and then vanished without a trace. For any animal, that would be damn odd behaviour, especially for a wild animal.

4. "I have heard of people been bitten by foxes before, but not like this." Being! I have heard of people being bitten! Present bloody continuous!

K-9

While I'd love to think a relative of the most beautiful animal in the world could not do this, I think they could:

Arctic Fox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are a wild animal and if mad enough, it can happen.

As for Sky News, I thought they'd have enough paedophile stories to scarify at this stage.

flowerific

Aren't fox's supposed to be nocternal? If so then how did it get into the house at night time. I haven't read all the posts but does it mention the time of day it happened. If it was during the day and a fox came into the house then how did an adult not notice it. If it was at night and the parents were asleep do they leave their downstairs doors or windows open at night. Doen't add up to me.

johngalway

Foxes are seen in the day time, especially when the weather is warmer. Though their most active time is dusk through to dawn.

A fox is quite capable of jumping, and can climb to around eight feet with something in it's mouth. It's not unheard of for foxes to get into some trees.

If it's the same guy the Beeb interviewed, John Bryant, then he certainly knows his stuff when it comes to foxes as I know the man.

Urban foxes are around people all of the time. It's quite believable some of them have learned to temper their fear of us. As for the size of foxes, they're a fair bit bigger than cats as someone said. The heaviest one I've heard of shot was 36 lbs weight, in Wales, though that is far far from normal.

Did a fox do it? I haven't a clue, and honestly I could care less as it still leaves the kids hurt, which isn't the story for the media whores.

Ridley

karlog wrote: »

There's only one solution. We have to kill every fox within a 50 mile radius.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4jM6OdbW9g

---

Follow up story.

up for anything

Seems like it was true

tallaghtoutlaws

up for anything wrote: »

Seems like it was true

Taken from the piece you just linked:

It is not clear whether the fox captured was the animal involved in the attack, which apparently entered the girls' home through a ground-floor door which had been left open because of the heat.

Association by location.

silverharp

stupidusername wrote: »

I thought there was something a little odd about this story. On Sky it was said that twins were attacked in their beds. I thought, if they're 9 months old, why would they be in beds? But obviously that could just be Sky News being Sky News. So assuming they were actually in cots, and the idea of a cot is to be secure, so the child can't roll / fall out, and so are fairly high up at the sides.

Another thing that's odd about this is, why would one fox attack one child, then go to attack the other? This just seems weird to me. If he was looking for food (sorry to be gross but..) why wouldn't he just continue trying to eat the first one, rather than trying to eat the second one?

So whatever about them getting attacked, it's not nice, unfortunate etc etc. But now on Sky News they're talking about getting the councils to take control of the fox population. A journalist on there a little while ago was saying it's been a problem for a while, and obviously needs to be sorted. They need to be treated like vermin, cause they're pests etc etc. This attitude pisses me off. Why do humans not get how things work?
-There's too many of us, and we're the ones that create these problems
-We don't own the world, so why is it our right to kill off any animal / species when it becomes inconvenient to deal with?

The human population is what needs to be controlled not that of other animals...! When will they get it!?

and your an expert on fox behaviour how? ring up one of country cousins if you have and ask them what happens if a fox gets into a hen house. The last thing a fox will do is select the tastiest hen and head off into the night

Forest Master

silverharp wrote: »

it seems the family were just bloody unlucky.

They left the door wide open because of the warm weather - that's not "unlucky".

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Forest Master wrote: »

They left the door wide open because of the warm weather - that's not "unlucky".

The fact that a fox went into their house, up the stairs and mauled their two offspring, is pretty fcuking unlucky. Don't you think?

Some people live very very sheltered lives it seems. I mean, thinking a fox can't get into a coth is laughable...

General Zod

the pro-hunting lobby will have a field day with this.

Amalgam

johngalway wrote: »

Urban foxes are around people all of the time.

We have a few near us. A high pitched whistle will cause a very nosey head to appear from behind a wall soon after.

Great timekeepers too, you could set your watch to a fox. One comes to visit us at 9.50pm on the dot.

ceadaoin.

silverharp wrote: »

and your an expert on fox behaviour how? ring up one of country cousins if you have and ask them what happens if a fox gets into a hen house. The last thing a fox will do is select the tastiest hen and head off into the night

Apparently they do this with the intention of burying the excess for later when food might be scarce. They don't hunt for sport.

If this story is true, obviously it's terrible that children were hurt but it's just one of those freak things. I mean, who leaves their door open at night with children in the house anyway? The scaremongering going on about this is disgraceful but to be expected from the likes of Sky News et al. The Daily Mail is practically giving a guide of how to kill one without getting into trouble with the law. Disgusting imo

I live in London and do see foxes at night quite regularly but they certainly aren't 'fearless' as some sections of the media are reporting. They always run away if approached. I would have thought if they were to venture into someones house they would make sure to stay near an exit so they could bolt easily if disturbed? I do think there's more to this story

Banned Account

They should have listened to Rilo Kiley.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

General Zod wrote: »

the pro-hunting lobby will have a field day with this.

Why?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently they do this with the intention of burying the excess for later when food might be scarce. They don't hunt for sport.

If this story is true, obviously it's terrible that children were hurt but it's just one of those freak things. I mean, who leaves their door open at night with children in the house anyway? The scaremongering going on about this is disgraceful but to be expected from the likes of Sky News et al. The Daily Mail is practically giving a guide of how to kill one without getting into trouble with the law. Disgusting imo

I live in London and do see foxes at night quite regularly but they certainly aren't 'fearless' as some sections of the media are reporting. They always run away if approached. I would have thought if they were to venture into someones house they would make sure to stay near an exit so they could bolt easily if disturbed? I do think there's more to this story

Why? The story doesn't suit your agenda?


Also, how can you get in trouble with the law for killing a fox???

Banned Account

Has anyone verified the whereabouts of Gerry and Kate McCann?

Just interested.

ceadaoin.

Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: »

Why? The story doesn't suit your agenda?


Also, how can you get in trouble with the law for killing a fox???

Just because I think that this story seems very strange and there is possibly more to it I have an agenda?

According to said article on the Daily Mail site (I know, not the most reliable source), it is an offence to subject a fox to abuse or ill-treatment. I think certain methods of killing are not allowed

The Daily Mail wrote:

But legislation brought in by Labour and aimed at foxhunting enthusiasts makes it an offence to subject the animals to abuse or ill-treatment, which includes pursuing and finishing them off with dogs

You can still shoot, snare and catch foxes in cage traps, but caution must be exercised to stay within the law. You can shoot foxes only with firearms, not crossbows for example, and neither live nor dead livestock can be used to bait traps, to avoid spreading diseases or further cruelty.
The poisoning and gassing of foxes is also illegal.

Of course, it's all Labours fault :rolleyes:

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Has anyone verified the whereabouts of Gerry and Kate McCann?

Just interested.

WTF?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Just because I think that this story seems very strange and there is possibly more to it I have an agenda?

According to said article on the Daily Mail site (I know, not the most reliable source), it is an offence to subject a fox to abuse or ill-treatment. I think certain methods of killing are not allowed

I think that law would extend to most animals.

Well you have been given the actual facts and reasons, you have been told what has happened but refuse to believe it as you have your own thoughts and opinions on the matter, which hold no weight as what happened... happened.

The story is strange, but a lot of things are strange, doesn't mean there is more to it.

Truley

Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: »

Well you have been given the actual facts and reasons, you have been told what has happened but refuse to believe it as you have your own thoughts and opinions on the matter, which hold no weight as what happened... happened.

The story is strange, but a lot of things are strange, doesn't mean there is more to it.

Sky News is not a source for actual facts and reasons, it is not a reliable or honest news source and should never be treated as such.

Yes the story is strange, very strange. Even a person with the most vague knowledge of foxes and how they live would agree this is a very unlikely thing to happen.

There is always more to a story than what you are told. People should never stop questioning the news that is fed to them.

ceadaoin.

Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: »

WTF?



I think that law would extend to most animals.

Well you have been given the actual facts and reasons, you have been told what has happened but refuse to believe it as you have your own thoughts and opinions on the matter, which hold no weight as what happened... happened.

The story is strange, but a lot of things are strange, doesn't mean there is more to it.

Well in fairness unless you were actually there then you don't know that what happened happened really. The same goes for any story you hear about in the news. There might be more to it, there might not be. Everyone is entitled to form an opinion based on the details available.

In this case, most of the facts available outside the tabloids provided by people who are experts in the field suggest that this is not normal behaviour for foxes. I'm not refusing to believe it, just keeping an open mind.

doctor evil

The problem is with muppets who insist on feeding foxes and thinking they are their 'pets'

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Truley wrote: »

Sky News is not a source for actual facts and reasons, it is not a reliable or honest news source and should never be treated as such.

Yes the story is strange, very strange. Even a person with the most vague knowledge of foxes and how they live would agree this is a very unlikely thing to happen.

There is always more to a story than what you are told. People should never stop questioning the news that is fed to them.

What about the facts comming straight from an eyewitnesses mouth? Lets ignore them, shall we? That way we can make up our own stories and begin the witch hunt as soon as possble.

Again, nobody is saying it is common, but doesn't mean it cannot happen.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well in fairness unless you were actually there then you don't know that what happened happened really. The same goes for any story you hear about in the news. There might be more to it, there might not be. Everyone is entitled to form an opinion based on the details available.

In this case, most of the facts available outside the tabloids provided by people who are experts in the field suggest that this is not normal behaviour for foxes.

An opinion? You mean conspiracy theory, right?

Nobody said this is normal, but just because it is not normal does not mean it is not true.

ceadaoin.

Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: »

What about the facts comming straight from an eyewitnesses mouth? Lets ignore them, shall we? That way we can make up our own stories and begin the witch hunt as soon as possble.

Again, nobody is saying it is common, but doesn't mean it cannot happen.



An opinion? You mean conspiracy theory, right?

Nobody said this is normal, but just because it is not normal does not mean it is not true.

Conspiracy theory? Eh....no! All I'm saying is I'm keeping an open mind, I never said it cannot happen just that my feeling is there's more to this.

Slightly off topic but eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Just look at some of the eye witness descriptions in the Jean Charles de Menezes case.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Conspiracy theory? Eh....no! All I'm saying is I'm keeping an open mind, I never said it cannot happen just that my feeling is there's more to this.

Slightly off topic but eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Just look at some of the eye witness descriptions in the Jean Charles de Menezes case.

Yet cases are won and lost on accounts of eye witnesses.

The mother of the children, and father said they spotted the fox in the room. That cuts out the accusations of the family dog attacking the children, it also debunks any "child abuse" accusations, which were absurd to begin with.

Truley

Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: »

Yet cases are won and lost on accounts of eye witnesses.

The mother of the children, and father said they spotted the fox in the room. That cuts out the accusations of the family dog attacking the children, it also debunks any "child abuse" accusations, which were absurd to begin with.

How does that cut it out? Do you not think it's possible the parents lied to cover up an accident with the family pet or even deliberate child abuse? When they did a post-mortem on baby P they found dog bite marks, it can happen. I'm not saying it did happen, it's just a (conspiricy :P) theory. You don't have to mock people who don't automatically believe everything they see and hear on tv. If foresnic evidence can prove it was a fox then I'll be a little more accepting, 'eye witness' accounts don't cut it for me.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Truley wrote: »

How does that cut it out? Do you not think it's possible the parents lied to cover up an accident with the family pet or even deliberate child abuse? When they did a post-mortem on baby P they found dog bite marks, it can happen. I'm not saying it did happen, it's just a (conspiricy :P) theory. You don't have to mock people who don't automatically believe everything they see and hear on tv. If foresnic evidence can prove it was a fox then I'll be a little more accepting, 'eye witness' accounts don't cut it for me.

Your opinion doesn't matter though, not in court.

How exactly can you equate it to family abuse? Bite marks from a fox. Think about it.

It's quite possible that it was a dog, but the parents said they seen the fox in the room, why would they say otherwise? To protect the family pet of course, but I seriously doubt it. "Our children just got mauled by our pet dog, what will we say to make sure our dog isn't put down..." Yea, I can see it happening... :rolleyes:

Who did I put down? I challanged peoples lack of knowledge of foxes, stating opinions as fact, scare mongering and talking utter rubbish. This is exactly how rumours start and how ignorance grows. It wouldn't be difficult to prove it was a fox if any hairs were left, which is quite possible. Depending on the bite marks, they can check that also.

Standard Toaster

Jayus, only 9 month old.
Very very unusual attack. Was the fox destroyed?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Standard Toaster wrote: »

Jayus, only 9 month old.
Very very unusual attack. Was the fox destroyed?

No, but another fox was caught in a trap close to the house. They don't know if it's the same fox or not.

Forest Master

Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: »

The fact that a fox went into their house, up the stairs and mauled their two offspring, is pretty fcuking unlucky. Don't you think?

Statistically & logically, leaving their door opened increased the chances of this happening to them ahead of anyone else.
So while it's still unlucky that it happened, it's not just 100% 'unlucky' - some of it is opportunity that they created themselves by leaving the front door wide open. The fact that it was a fox is somewhat unlucky - but it could also easily have been a burglar or kidnapper. They left the opportunity there for 'something' to happen. Without that opportunity, it wouldn't have been possible for the fox to enter the house.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Forest Master wrote: »

Statistically & logically, leaving their door opened increased the chances of this happening to them ahead of anyone else.
So while it's still unlucky that it happened, it's not just 100% 'unlucky' - some of it is opportunity that they created themselves by leaving the front door wide open. The fact that it was a fox is somewhat unlucky - but it could also easily have been a burglar or kidnapper. They left the opportunity there for 'something' to happen. Without that opportunity, it wouldn't have been possible for the fox to enter the house.

What do you suggest people do in future? Never leave a window or door open?

This is a very very unlucky thing to happen. Regardless of what you may think. Take into account the amount of similar occurances, and yes, this is exceptionally unlucky.

Hannibal Smith

Stetson Putrid Sailor wrote: »

You seen a fox up close? That makes you an expert on the subject? Ever see a foxes perly whites? Daunting to say the least. How can you guarantee what an animal will or will not do, especially an animal you know nothing about?

They won't put themselves into a situation where they can be cornered? You mean they would never go into an enclosed pheasant or chicken pen? They don't live in a den (a hole in the ground)?



Child abuse? How? Quite possible that it was a dog, but I wonder why they chose to place the blame on such an unlikely animal? No way it was a fox? How so?



So, beacuse it has not happened before, it will never happen? WTF is that logic?

It's quite plausable.



Fox hairs, smell etc etc. Quite different to that of a dog.

Lots of people have doubts about it, that's fair enough, but at least base your doubts of some sort of facts, and don't make crap up.

Anybody even know anything about foxes? Highly doubt it. You will find that foxes live quite close to humans, and they are not as timid as you may think. Those that live in the countryside are different.

Think of a pigeon in Dublin city, and a pigeon in the country.

are you the fox? :eek:

Yes foxes are all over cities, you only have to see some of the roads in the morning with their remains splattered all over them But I don't think you have to be an expert on foxes to offer a thought on the matter, nor would I think it was 'making crap up'.

It does sound very dodgy. Maybe it is true, but the reason it has made headlines is because it's a very irregular occurence and it's definitely the first time I've heard of it. Maybe if the fox was starving and was desperate for food it would seem plausible but i can't imagine a fox doing something like that.

Standard Toaster

Why do they kill the animal? It was just doing what comes natural to it. It's a wild animal.

Hank Scorpio

Standard Toaster wrote: »

Why do they kill the animal? It was just doing what comes natural to it. It's a wild animal.

To stop it happening again? Theres no animal prison

johngalway

Amalgam wrote: »

We have a few near us. A high pitched whistle will cause a very nosey head to appear from behind a wall soon after.

Great timekeepers too, you could set your watch to a fox. One comes to visit us at 9.50pm on the dot.

They are indeed, I remove problem foxes from sheep farms. Got the one doing the damage and watched another coming across the hill at 7.30pm (this was ages ago). I didn't go back for six weeks, but guess who was coming across the hill at 7.30 again

A lot of the calls used to bring foxes in don't sound dissimilar to a babys cry. A lot of them make aWah! aWah! aWah! type noises. I would be interested to know if one of the twins was actually crying before the fox go in.

stupidusername

silverharp wrote: »

and your an expert on fox behaviour how? ring up one of country cousins if you have and ask them what happens if a fox gets into a hen house. The last thing a fox will do is select the tastiest hen and head off into the night

What did I say to make out I was some kind of expert? I'm not, and don't think I said anything to imply that. I was giving my opinion. Is that allowed?

Forest Master

nuxxx wrote: »

To stop it happening again? Theres no animal prison

Or maybe they could just, y'know, close their front door while living in an area "known" to have lots of foxes. An animal shouldn't have to die for doing what it does naturally - it's disgusting to blame or kill any foxes because of this.

This is a very very unlucky thing to happen. Regardless of what you may think. Take into account the amount of similar occurances, and yes, this is exceptionally unlucky.

They admitted that there are a lot of foxes around the locality, and they had even complained to the council about it before - so how much of it is "unlucky" if a) you live in an area with lots of foxes, and b) you leave your door open all night?

I'm not saying it's not unlucky it happened - I'm saying it's only partially unlucky. They didn't exactly make it hard for the fox to get it & snoop around. They created the opportunity for it to happen.
If I live in an area with a lot of lions, do I allow my pet gnu to wander around all night in my unfenced garden? And if he gets eaten, is it a case of "wow - that was so unlucky!", or partial negligence, since it's an area known to have lions?

pickarooney

Standard Toaster wrote: »

Was the fox destroyed?

Ugly as sin, apparently.

Truley

Standard Toaster wrote: »

Why do they kill the animal? It was just doing what comes natural to it. It's a wild animal.

It's not natural for a fox to go after a human being. A fox would never try to go after something so much bigger than themselves, it would be a suicide mission. They're not stupid. Even for something like a hen they wouldn't do it unless they were absolutely starving and as a last resort.