Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

'Fox Problem' in apartment development

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Feargal as Luimneach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,139 ✭✭✭Feargal as Luimneach


    jap gt wrote: »
    the op asked what would happen to the fox, he was told they would be trapped and released which is a lie or else illegal, im sure the op would like to know where he stands, if it was me i would stop feeding him and hope he fecks off before he gets trapped
    Well IMO the management company should stop being pricks and leave the foxes where they are.


  • Options
    #33
    wetdogsmell
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭wetdogsmell


    jap gt wrote: »
    the op asked what would happen to the fox, he was told they would be trapped and released which is a lie or else illegal, im sure the op would like to know where he stands, if it was me i would stop feeding him and hope he fecks off before he gets trapped

    i've seen a program about pest controllers in london, and they released trapped foxes if the client asked them to,, i think its only illegal to release non native specis, mink of grey squirrel


  • Options
    #34
    jap gt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭jap gt


    Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »
    Well IMO the management company should stop being pricks and leave the foxes where they are.

    some of the residents must have complained about them, and as they have to live with them around its understandable, i wouldnt want them tearing through my bins etc either,

    foxes dont belong there in the first place


  • Options
    #35
    jap gt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭jap gt


    wetdogsmell wrote: »
    i've seen a program about pest controllers in london, and they released trapped foxes if the client asked them to,, i think its only illegal to release non native specis, mink of grey squirrel

    afaik its illegal to trap and release any wild animal


  • Options
    #36
    wetdogsmell
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭wetdogsmell


    jap gt wrote: »
    afaik its illegal to trap and release any wild animal

    i don't think it is mate, but can see anything you trap would'nt be released


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,899 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    jap gt wrote: »
    afaik its illegal to trap and release any wild animal

    Wrong again. Perfectly legal with a license & some wild animals do not need a license.


  • Options
    #38
    jap gt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭jap gt


    Discodog wrote: »
    Wrong again. Perfectly legal with a license & some wild animals do not need a license.

    i stand corrected, assuming the company has a licence to release foxes


  • Options
    #39
    Cooper07
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭Cooper07


    Thank you all for your replies.

    Firstly Foxes aren't classified as vermin under the Wildlife Act, it's a common misperception that they are.

    My management company did receive complaints from the residents, I asked on what grounds and they said becuase there were children in the estate and the parents were worried. The case in the UK really has caused so much damage to the reputation of foxes and nobody seems to understand it was an isolated incident.

    The fox(es) in my development only come out at night/early in the morning and are causing no harm to anybody. Removing them is futile anyway as foxes are like wild/feral cats and once these foxes are removed more will appear.

    The pest control company have laid traps - I've deactivated one and stopped feeding Freddie in the hope he will move on somewhere else. He is skinny but healthy and I hope all those cans of tuna I fed him help him evade capture!


  • Options
    #40
    wetdogsmell
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭wetdogsmell


    i hope so mate, and if i come across any skiny foxes this season i'll call them freddie ;)


  • Options
    #41
    meathstevie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    Folks, check with the NPWS if you want but until proven wrong I'll stick to my opinion that in the jurisdiction of Ireland you can not trap and relocate/release wild animals without a licence.

    The only exception I can think of is when a legitimately used live trap ( for exampe squirrell trap catches red instead of grey or a proper stopper snare catches a badger instead of the fox it was intended for ) has the "wrong" catch in it and the trapper is legally obliged to release the trapped animal.

    If I went for example catching rabbits with a live trap ( I specifically use rabbits as their status under the wildlife acts would be very similar to foxes ) and released them in another location I would find myself in trouble in no time. First of all with farmers for introducing crop destroyers on their land and if the farmer wanted to pursue the matter with the local wildlife ranger.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    doctor evil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,114 ✭✭✭doctor evil


    Foxes can cause damage not just to livestock but they can spread mange to peoples pet dogs.

    Foxes have their own territories so I don't understand why people would relocate them, esp from an urban environment to a more rural one. It could be spreading mange and disease.


  • Options
    #43
    jap gt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,896 ✭✭✭jap gt


    Cooper07 wrote: »

    Firstly Foxes aren't classified as vermin under the Wildlife Act, it's a common misperception that they are.

    any link for this


  • Options
    #44
    Feargal as Luimneach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,139 ✭✭✭Feargal as Luimneach


    doctor evil wrote: »
    Foxes can cause damage not just to livestock but they can spread mange to peoples pet dogs.

    Foxes have their own territories so I don't understand why people would relocate them, esp from an urban environment to a more rural one. It could be spreading mange and disease.
    Scaremongering:mad: Your dog is more likely to get mange from other dogs. Even if the dog gets mange it is easily treated.


  • Options
    #45
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,899 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    Cooper07 wrote: »
    Thank you all for your replies.

    Firstly Foxes aren't classified as vermin under the Wildlife Act, it's a common misperception that they are.

    From memory the Wildlife Act does not refer to vermin. Foxes have no protection from being killed. However any trapping/killing must be humane & not cause unnecessary suffering. What types of traps are they ?. If they are live trapping then they must inspect the traps at very regular intervals.

    Anyone shooting foxes should bear in mind that if they "wing" the fox, it runs off & then they kill it, they have committed an offence of cruelty.

    The Wildlife Act does allow for the removal, treatment & relocation of animals, even those on the protected list, provided it is for welfare reasons.

    I suspect that all that is needed to relocate a fox is the permission of the landowner where it is going to be released. Of course it is preferable to release in the fox's original territory but not if it subjects the fox to additional risk. For example we would never release in an area used for hunting or shooting.


  • Options
    #46
    homerhop
    Registered Users Posts: 1,953 ✭✭✭homerhop


    Can you post a link to that please?


  • Options
    #47
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    wetdogsmell wrote: »
    i think your wrong there, there was another attack a couple of weeks later
    wetdogsmell wrote: »
    sorry mate, i can't find the link but it was a 13 year old girl,,,

    how can an unprovoked attack be unheard of if it attacked babys out of curiosity (is that not unpovoked ?)

    You've fallen for the scaremongering. Sure there was the failed attack (they're wild animals, that's what they do) on those twins recently, but then some tabloid rag dragged up an incident from 4/5 years ago and spun it as if such attacks are a regular thing. They're not, they're very rare but foxes are a good target for bad press. I'd be far more worried about kids falling off horses or having allergenic reactions to stings and the like which cause many deaths every year. Deaths due to foxes are more in the order of once a decade, if even that.


  • Options
    #48
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,899 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    homerhop wrote: »
    Can you post a link to that please?

    Wildlife Act 1976 available online.


  • Options
    #49
    wetdogsmell
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭wetdogsmell


    tricky D wrote: »
    You've fallen for the scaremongering. Sure there was the failed attack (they're wild animals, that's what they do) on those twins recently, but then some tabloid rag dragged up an incident from 4/5 years ago and spun it as if such attacks are a regular thing. They're not, they're very rare but foxes are a good target for bad press. I'd be far more worried about kids falling off horses or having allergenic reactions to stings and the like which cause many deaths every year. Deaths due to foxes are more in the order of once a decade, if even that.

    thats fair enough about it being an old attack, i'll take your word for it as i don't know when it happened, don't get me wrong i think there is a nearly non exsistant chance of being attacked by a fox, but people saying foolish things like "the babys provoked the fox into defending its self" and your own statement of "failed attack" that gets to me, by the way would the attack have to have been fatal for you to consider it a real attack?????


  • Options
    #50
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,899 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    wetdogsmell wrote: »
    but people saying foolish things like "the babys provoked the fox into defending its self"

    The definition of attack is the begining/instigating of hostilities. If you are a fox & something touches you or grabs you then you are the one who is under attack.

    Foxes don't instigate aggression towards humans so they do not attack.


  • Options
    #51
    tricky D
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭tricky D


    Sure the "babys provoked the fox into defending its self" is stupid, people tend to say stupid things.

    However your note on me calling it a failed attack is just pointlessly playing semantics. The fox was looking for food, didn't get it, and therefore failed in it's attack. If you want, it was a real attack that failed. This arguing semantics distracts from the real point that foxes are disproportionately demonised when compared to the real dangers of wildlife.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,899 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    tricky D wrote: »
    Sure the "babys provoked the fox into defending its self" is stupid, people tend to say stupid things.

    So strange when every fox expert says one thing & two posters here say the opposite - gosh so hard to know who to believe. I guess that the people who have dedicated many years of research into fox behaviour & all the others that have worked with foxes must be stupid.


  • Options
    #53
    wetdogsmell
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭wetdogsmell


    Discodog wrote: »
    The definition of attack is the begining/instigating of hostilities. If you are a fox & something touches you or grabs you then you are the one who is under attack.

    Foxes don't instigate aggression towards humans so they do not attack.

    a fox repeatedly bit 2 sleeping babys, sorry if the word ATTACK is not the correct way of describing that


  • Options
    #54
    homerhop
    Registered Users Posts: 1,953 ✭✭✭homerhop


    Discodog wrote: »
    Wildlife Act 1976 available online.
    I have read the wildlife act and can not find where you are refering to "The Wildlife Act does allow for the removal, treatment & relocation of animals, even those on the protected list, provided it is for welfare reasons". As you have posted that the act covers such things can you post the relevant section stating so?


  • Options
    #55
    wetdogsmell
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭wetdogsmell


    Discodog wrote: »
    So strange when every fox expert says one thing & two posters here say the opposite - gosh so hard to know who to believe. I guess that the people who have dedicated many years of research into fox behaviour & all the others that have worked with foxes must be stupid.

    WHAT?????????? all i've said was the fox attacked the twins in london, i've not said anything against any fox experts, if you think i have read the thread again (maybe slowly this time) i have plenty of experiance with foxes but i'm defenatly not an expert,


  • Options
    #56
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,899 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    homerhop wrote: »
    I have read the wildlife act and can not find where you are refering to "The Wildlife Act does allow for the removal, treatment & relocation of animals, even those on the protected list, provided it is for welfare reasons". As you have posted that the act covers such things can you post the relevant section stating so?

    Section 23(7) “Notwithstanding section (5) of this section, it shall not be an offence for a person -

    to capture an injured or disabled wild animal for the purpose of killing it humanely, or tending it and later releasing it.

    From the ISPCA legal handbook.


  • Options
    #57
    homerhop
    Registered Users Posts: 1,953 ✭✭✭homerhop


    ( d ) to capture an injured or disabled protected wild animal for the purpose of killing it humanely or with the intention of tending it and of later releasing it,

    The wildlife act refers to protected species and foxes do not fall under that catagory


  • Options
    #58
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,899 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    homerhop wrote: »
    ( d ) to capture an injured or disabled protected wild animal for the purpose of killing it humanely or with the intention of tending it and of later releasing it,
    The wildlife act refers to protected species and foxes do not fall under that catagory

    Are you suggesting that it is illegal to remove an injured fox for treatment ?. It is not a protected animal so provided you do not inflict unnecessary suffering you can pretty much do as you like.


  • Options
    #59
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,899 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    wetdogsmell wrote: »
    WHAT?????????? all i've said was the fox attacked the twins in london, i've not said anything against any fox experts, if you think i have read the thread again (maybe slowly this time) i have plenty of experiance with foxes but i'm defenatly not an expert,

    You stated twice that anyone who believes that the fox bit the babies in self defence is stupid. Well many of the experts believe this.


  • Options
    #60
    homerhop
    Registered Users Posts: 1,953 ✭✭✭homerhop


    Discodog wrote: »
    Section 23(7) “Notwithstanding section (5) of this section, it shall not be an offence for a person -

    to capture an injured or disabled wild animal for the purpose of killing it humanely, or tending it and later releasing it.

    From the ISPCA legal handbook.
    Discodog wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that it is illegal to remove an injured fox for treatment ?. It is not a protected animal so provided you do not inflict unnecessary suffering you can pretty much do as you like.
    I am not suggesting anything so please dont try to imply that I am. You stated that the wildlife act allows the relocation of wild animals , I asked you where it said this and you posted a quote from it without the word protected. The wildlife act is only relevant to protected species. You said it was on line so why quote from an different source?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,899 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    :confused:


Advertisement