Babies hurt in fox attack?

morganafay

goat2 wrote: »

do people still leave doors open, i have never heard of that, especially in a built up area, and leaving babies in a different room with the house open to all, those babies could have been snatched very easily,

Well if it was a backdoor, then I would imagine people might leave the door open. I would here but I'm in a small town . . . and I might close it in the evening with babies upstairs.

And I was thinking, wouldn't the babies have been crying and screaming when getting bitten? And the parents would have gone upstairs to see what was wrong . . . so how did they not see the fox? Unless it went and hid and they were too busy looking after the babies and then it got out . . .

Discodog

Frances144 wrote: »

How absolutely fascinating.

Please could you tell me whereabouts in Shetland this takes place or took place? If you have any names of folk hand-feeding otters, I would be most interested.

I was there many years ago but according to this weeks Shetland Times it still goes on:

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/05/21/area-guide-unst

"Today only the breastworks of the associated piers remain and the harbour is home to otters living along its north shoreline. One otter is not too shy to come out looking for offerings from local fishermen unloading their boats."

ISDW

Panorama, BBC1 Thursday at 7pm are doing a special on this. The parents are being interviewed.

Discodog

It's all over Sky News. The parents say that they are being filmed to answer the critics but the husband works for a film company. The real story would be discover if a dog has been in the house.

Already this "attack" is being used by the pro hunt lobby - even Matty McGrath mentioned it. Hopefully the BBC will present a balanced view.

ngoyvaerts

I'm probably going to be smacked over the back of the hand for this but if a fox (or any animal) is being a pain, wouldn't it be in our nature to kill it? Like, if it's in there nature to hunt to live, well isn't it in our nature to do the same? Probably finished talking about it, but i only scanned through the first page.

Personally, I wouldn't do it. I'd drive it out to the bog arse of no where and leave it there, but like if your a farmer and they're eating your hens and chickens, wouldn't you want to just get rid of the problem? It's not like there becoming extinct, increasing if anything!

The hospital which my mother works at is like a reserve for foxes and they've a problem with them getting aggressive with residence if they don't feed them cause they're so used to it. So now they're feeding them all the time with patients left over dinners.

Discodog

ngoyvaerts wrote: »

The hospital which my mother works at is like a reserve for foxes and they've a problem with them getting aggressive with residence if they don't feed them cause they're so used to it. So now they're feeding them all the time with patients left over dinners.

Getting aggressive ?. I find that unbelievable. Channel 4 aired a pretty balance documentary & no one in London spoke of aggressive foxes. I have personally rescued many foxes some of which had been injured in RTA's. Even though they were often in great pain I never encountered aggression. Any attempt to bite me was defensive not aggressive.

Shenshen

Discodog wrote: »

Now a pile of people are appearing who all claim to have been "attacked" by urban foxes. One woman said that a fox had crept into her house & bitten her foot !. The "outcry" may even influence the Tories into trying to repeal the hunting ban even though the Liberals oppose hunting.

I'm having this mental image of droves of British gentry on horseback in those silly red costumes charging through London housing estates....

Indubitable

morganafay wrote: »

I think a fox would do it, because a baby is defenseless. Any big enough carnivore would. And it was just an accident that it happened. Foxes aren't exactly dangerous animals, like a wolf or bear or tiger or something.

The fox did it because it was urbanised. People fed it and it was no longer afraid of people. If it had not have been fed, the accident more than likely would never have happened. In this case I would not describe the fox being 100% wild.

Indubitable

morganafay wrote: »

Ok maybe mink are very fearless hunters, I just don't think vicious is the right word. Because wild carnivores are just hunting. It's like if a dog killed a rat or something, I wouldn't call that vicious, but if it bit a person, then that could be vicious. Otherwise it is just hunting. And a mink or fox doesn't know that a baby human is any different to a rabbit or rat or anything, you know?

A mink attacked me 4 years ago and I don't think I was its prey weighing in at about 160 lbs. It wasn't serious or anything, it just went for my hand. Perhaps it was protecting its territory but regardless I would still classify the Mink as vicious.

Indubitable

morganafay wrote: »

Ok so feeding them far enough away from the house is ok according to that . . . not that I'm planning to feed foxes, I have bunnies

Also, while we're on the subject, I heard somewhere that foxes are instinctively scared of dogs and won't go into a garden where they can smell dogs, or if you tie bits of dog hair around your fence they'll stay away. Does anyone know if that's true or a myth? Or any other way of keeping foxes away? We've never had any foxes around here luckily.

I have three dogs and the fox still goes for the lambs. So I am not sure if it works well. The fox does run from the sight of me even at 70 yards away.

Discodog

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm having this mental image of droves of British gentry on horseback in those silly red costumes charging through London housing estates....

Well the mayor Balmy Boris is calling for action. The pest controllers are bigging up the chances of being attacked as they hope to make a fortune shooting foxes.

I wonder how long it will be before a dog bites a child & a fox gets the blame ?.

Graces7

Discodog wrote: »

Getting aggressive ?. I find that unbelievable. Channel 4 aired a pretty balance documentary & no one in London spoke of aggressive foxes. I have personally rescued many foxes some of which had been injured in RTA's. Even though they were often in great pain I never encountered aggression. Any attempt to bite me was defensive not aggressive.

Attack is attack, be it interpreted in whatever way. Attack is per se and by definiton aggressive also.

Discodog

Graces7 wrote: »

Attack is attack, be it interpreted in whatever way. Attack is per se and by definiton aggressive also.

I disagree. If for example the fox was attracted to a non moving babies arm through the bars of a cot, went to sniff it & the baby moved, the fox could interpret this as a threat - at very least it would be surprised. If it bit defensively or out of curiosity/taste & the child struggled it might then bite harder. When I discussed the incident, with fox experts that I would trust, this was our most favoured scenario.

Aggression would be a fox that deliberately sought out a confrontation. In other words, when faced by a man, it chooses to attack rather than flee. I have never heard of or seen aggressive behaviour with foxes.

One could argue that the media chose the wrong word in "Attack".

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

Well the mayor Balmy Boris is calling for action. The pest controllers are bigging up the chances of being attacked as they hope to make a fortune shooting foxes.

I wonder how long it will be before a dog bites a child & a fox gets the blame ?.

I wonder how much J Bryant will make from this?
At the end of the day there are 2 small kids who have been mauled and scared. The sooner people living in built up areas stop treating wildlife as pets and making them tame to humans the better. We can all enjoy wildlife for what it is meant to be, not a feel good factor that we can brag to our friends or have a selfish feel good factor that we have tamed something enough to pet it.

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

I wonder how much J Bryant will make from this?

John's fees are hardly excessive at £20 per hour & infinitely preferable to a man with a rifle in a built up area.

We can all go on about the feeding of foxes but it will not stop people feeding them so we need to live with it & adapt. Even if you made fox feeding a criminal offence it would still carry on. The only way to reduce it long term would be by teaching children how to live with wildlife.

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

John's fees are hardly excessive at £20 per hour.

Johns fees are more than £20....At UK£80 - £90 per 90 min. call-out, with UK£20 per Hour thereafter, and a £30 charge for a written report
So, for a two hour visit with report, John would get say around UK£130, i.e. £65 per Hour or in our money €78 per Hour. That's roughly equivalent of a €97.5K annual income.

The only way to reduce it long term would be by teaching children how to live with wildlife.

yes and the best way to teach childern is follow the guidelines of nearly every wildlife organisation that cares about keeping wildlife exactle the way it is meant to be.....wild, and they will all say that it is not advised to feed wild animals in such a way that they get used to humans as a source of food.

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

Johns fees are more than £20....At UK£80 - £90 per 90 min. call-out, with UK£20 per Hour thereafter, and a £30 charge for a written report
So, for a two hour visit with report, John would get say around UK£130, i.e. £65 per Hour or in our money €78 per Hour. That's roughly equivalent of a €97.5K annual income.

Would you expect someone to call out & drive across London for less !. I wonder how much a shooter charges. To shoot the foxes one has to regularly feed them as bait - kinda defeats the purpose.

We can all preach as to the right & wrong way of interacting with wildlife but the feeding of city wildlife has always been supported by people & that is not going to stop.

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

The pest controllers are bigging up the chances of being attacked as they hope to make a fortune shooting foxes.

Discodog wrote: »

Would you expect someone to call out & drive across London for less !. I wonder how much a shooter charges. To shoot the foxes one has to regularly feed them as bait - kinda defeats the purpose.

Very double standard of you there, its ok for John to charge the fees he does knowing that there are people who will pay that money to have a fox kept alive and relocated, yet it is not ok for pest control companies to do their work.
Its very tabloidesque to refer to them as "shooters" and "man with a rifle" yet the majority of people have no qualms in hiring these companies when there are infestations of rats.

Discodog wrote: »

We can all preach as to the right & wrong way of interacting with wildlife but the feeding of city wildlife has always been supported by people & that is not going to stop.

correct and there will always be people who dont want foxes in their yard and will pay pest control companies to remove them any way they can

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

yet the majority of people have no qualms in hiring these companies when there are infestations of rats.

Kill the foxes & you will end with more rats.

The surveys have shown that people in London have big qualms about anyone harming the foxes.

Graces7

Discodog wrote: »

I disagree. If for example the fox was attracted to a non moving babies arm through the bars of a cot, went to sniff it & the baby moved, the fox could interpret this as a threat - at very least it would be surprised. If it bit defensively or out of curiosity/taste & the child struggled it might then bite harder. When I discussed the incident, with fox experts that I would trust, this was our most favoured scenario.

Aggression would be a fox that deliberately sought out a confrontation. In other words, when faced by a man, it chooses to attack rather than flee. I have never heard of or seen aggressive behaviour with foxes.

One could argue that the media chose the wrong word in "Attack".

Not at all; your whole argument is fox-friendly rather than human oriented. If a dog or cat bites and draws blood, rather than a play-nip, then that IS aggression and attack. Defensive action is to flee not bite.

A huge difference of course between that play-nip and a real and damaging bite. Our collie; we were told she had bitten a neighbour before we had her. Emerged that in fact she had tried in her untrained way to round her up by nipping at her ankle. Lady had panicked and dog had taken a firmer hold.

It still classes as attack of course. And rightly so.
Damage was done, blood spilled.

We are humans not dogs or foxes.NB read the thread on the "aggressive" eleven week old puppy!!

Discodog

Graces7 wrote: »

Not at all; your whole argument is fox-friendly rather than human oriented. If a dog or cat bites and draws blood, rather than a play-nip, then that IS aggression and attack. Defensive action is to flee not bite.

A huge difference of course between that play-nip and a real and damaging bite. Our collie; we were told she had bitten a neighbour before we had her. Emerged that in fact she had tried in her untrained way to round her up by nipping at her ankle. Lady had panicked and dog had taken a firmer hold.

It still classes as attack of course. And rightly so.
Damage was done, blood spilled.

We are humans not dogs or foxes.NB read the thread on the "aggressive" eleven week old puppy!!

A fox is a wild animal not a domestic dog. It does not know whether the action of a human is a threat but survival dictates that, if in doubt, it defends itself. Foxes have learned how to live with us & we need to learn how to live with them. If foxes showed aggression to humans then we would kill them which would prejudice their survival. Real aggression is very rare in the animal world. An animal can only be aggressive if it is sure of winning the fight. The natural instinct is to flee.

Yes my view is very pro fox because I have never experienced or heard of an aggressive fox. I have handled many foxes that were either in extreme pain or a least very scared & non have shown aggression.

If a dog is aggressive it will invariably be the fault of a negligent human. The same applies to a fox. The dog has the benefit of being raised by us, the fox doesn't.

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

If a dog is aggressive it will invariably be the fault of a negligent human.

You come out with some doozies at times, animals have their own traits and moods, I know dogs that I wouldnt turn my back on yet they have never been abused in any way.

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

You come out with some doozies at times, animals have their own traits and moods, I know dogs that I wouldnt turn my back on yet they have never been abused in any way.

Well you won't be surprised to know that I have never experienced a dog that was not aggressive without a reason. Dogs get a huge amount of sensory feedback from the people they meet. Maybe the dogs that you wouldn't trust know more about you than you think.

homerhop

Well concidering I have spent all my life around dogs I will go with my own instincts on what ones i will or will not trust, kinda like some people