'Fox Problem' in apartment development

wetdogsmell

Discodog wrote: »

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.

please show me were a scientist said that, i'm not counting anything said by some spca moron that thinks there an expert,

i'll say it one more time,, HOW CAN A PAIR OF SLEEPING BABYS FORCE A FOX INTO DEFENDING ITS SELF BY REPEATEDLY BITTING THEM??? all it had to do was turn around and walk out,

homerhop

Dave Wall is a postgraduate researcher in zoology at UCD. He has studied otters, marine mammals and Alpine badgers as well studying Dublin's urban foxes for the past few years. He is a Director of the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group.

From his Fox fact sheet.

"One solution often offered by some welfare groups is to re-locate the foxes to the countryside. This may sound like a good idea, but it is cruel to the fox. A relocated fox will find itself in an alien environment, without a territory and will probably die as a result of the relocation."

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

Dave Wall is a postgraduate researcher in zoology at UCD. He has studied otters, marine mammals and Alpine badgers as well studying Dublin's urban foxes for the past few years. He is a Director of the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group.

From his Fox fact sheet.

"One solution often offered by some welfare groups is to re-locate the foxes to the countryside. This may sound like a good idea, but it is cruel to the fox. A relocated fox will find itself in an alien environment, without a territory and will probably die as a result of the relocation."

That why we relocated London foxes to Clapham Common. There are plenty of green spaces around most cities. I have never suggested relocating an urban fox to a rural environment or vice versa. I don't know what welfare groups he is referring to as there are very few Wildlife rescue's in Ireland.

If you want to read the definitive books on fox behaviour, rescue etc they are:

The Complete Fox & Practical Wildlife Care both by Les Stocker.

Discodog

wetdogsmell wrote: »

please show me were a scientist said that, i'm not counting anything said by some spca moron that thinks there an expert,

i'll say it one more time,, HOW CAN A PAIR OF SLEEPING BABYS FORCE A FOX INTO DEFENDING ITS SELF BY REPEATEDLY BITTING THEM??? all it had to do was turn around and walk out,

You can google just as well as me - there are pages of expert comment.

I will answer for the last time. If it walks out it misses a chance of dinner. It did not know they were babies. It either saw a meal or was investigating & got startled or touched.

The only other possible answer is that man eating foxes have started to realise that we taste good. Jackie Healey Rae apparently said that White Tailed Eagles were known to swoop down & take babies from mother's arms. Maybe the foxes have been talking to them.

homerhop

but this is not england. In this country it is illegal to catch a wild animal unless it falls under the wildlife act and relocate it, and we have our own experts here too such as Dave Wall who has also studied urban foxes. So as you posted earlier about shooters winging animals, it can also be argued in a court that it is both cruel and illegal to trap and relocate wild animals unless they fall under the Irish Wildlife Act of 1976.

wetdogsmell

Discodog wrote: »

You can google just as well as me - there are pages of expert comment.

I will answer for the last time. If it walks out it misses a chance of dinner. It did not know they were babies. It either saw a meal or was investigating & got startled or touched.

The only other possible answer is that man eating foxes have started to realise that we taste good. Jackie Healey Rae apparently said that White Tailed Eagles were known to swoop down & take babies from mother's arms. Maybe the foxes have been talking to them.

firstly jackie healy rae is a moron, but i don't see what it has to do with this

i said from the start it was looking for food, i belive it was you who said it was just defending its self

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

but this is not england. In this country it is illegal to catch a wild animal unless it falls under the wildlife act and relocate it, and we have our own experts here too such as Dave Wall who has also studied urban foxes. So as you posted earlier about shooters winging animals, it can also be argued in a court that it is both cruel and illegal to trap and relocate wild animals unless they fall under the Irish Wildlife Act of 1976.

Can you link to the relevant legislation that would make relocating a fox illegal or state which act covers this ?. I will be meeting with the NPWS next week over a different issue & I would like their view on the legislation.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

If the fox sniffed a baby & the baby grasped the fox then it may of bit out of self defence. It may of just seen the baby as dinner. Either way foxes do not leap out of the undergrowth & attack us.

This is what I said. You will note the use of words like "if" & "maybe". I don't know the real reason, you don't know & none of the experts know. The only thing that we all know is it was a unique event in a city where millions of people share the city with thousands of foxes.

john kinsella

Oh dear......

meathstevie

Discodog wrote: »

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.

Your cruelty statement is flawed...there's no garantee ever that every shot fired will always be a killer shot although a proper hunter worth the name will always try to achieve one shot one kill and when in doubt about a shot to be taken will not squeeze the trigger.

If it happens that a shot does not kill instantly the hunter is obliged to make a follow up shot or take other measures as swiftly as possible to stop an animal sustaining needless pain. It's only when no effort is being made to stop a hunted wounded animal suffering pain or discomfort that you can argue cruelty.

Cavehill Red

OP, have you informed your neighbours or management company that you are attracting vermin into the development?
They have a right to know.

Discodog

I had a conversation today with the NPWS. They are not aware of any law that prevents the relocation of foxes. However they are going to investigate further & report back. The point was made that if it were illegal to release vermin then that would have to include the pigeon with the repaired wing etc. Anyway if we don't repair & release you lads will be denied the pleasure that you derive from killing them.

They suspect & so do I, that all one needs is the permission of the land owner where the release would take place. We agreed that, with increasing urban foxes & new development, a legal definition should be applied.

If there are specific laws relating to vermin then I would again ask that people post links as neither the NPWS or I are aware of them.

As to attracting vermin could someone show me the legislation that defines vermin. Feeding birds on a bird table attracts rats & mice so does keeping a rabbit or hens etc. Maybe we should have vermin police ?. Heathrow Airport welcomed fox releases because ..... they keep down vermin such as rats & rabbits !

Graces7

I can hardly believe some of what is written here.

Babies, defenceless human children,were harmed.

To protect young is the most basic human instinct there is, whatever it takes to do so.

To argue any rational reason that negates the fact that babies were harmed by what are wild animals is less than human. "Science" gone berserk.

Every parent has the right and the need to ensure total safety for their children. Period.

To argue that the foxes should not be put down if that is what it takes is to put children at risk and leave parents in fear.

Foxes have teeth; tiny babies do not.

This is wild life protection gone crazy.

Babies were harmed; once is too often.

Cavehill Red

So you haven't told them? Why not? Don't you think they've a right to know what you're doing?

doctor evil

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

Scaremongering:mad: Your dog is more likely to get mange from other dogs. Even if the dog gets mange it is easily treated.

Spreading mange and disease within the fox population is the jist of my second point, which kind of goes against the point of relocating the animal in the first place.

Graces7

Discodog wrote: »

You can google just as well as me - there are pages of expert comment.

I will answer for the last time. If it walks out it misses a chance of dinner. It did not know they were babies. It either saw a meal or was investigating & got startled or touched.

The only other possible answer is that man eating foxes have started to realise that we taste good. Jackie Healey Rae apparently said that White Tailed Eagles were known to swoop down & take babies from mother's arms. Maybe the foxes have been talking to them.

All the more reason to ensure that this is not allowed to happen ever again. A widl unreasoning animal has no place in a baby's bedroom. They need exterminating there. Period

Discodog

Grace

Like many others I find your contradictions to be baffling. So now you wish to eradicate the fox population because of one incident ?. What happens when someone gets bitten by a dog or cat - do we kill them all ?.

There was a prophetic tale on Mooney today. Mao ordered that every sparrow be killed as they were eating grain. It caused famine as the sparrows also ate insects !.

I know a chap who caught psittacosis from pigeons - better kill all of them as well. This will be a very long extermination list.

Discodog

doctor evil wrote: »

Spreading mange and disease within the fox population is the jist of my second point, which kind of goes against the point of relocating the animal in the first place.

Before any fox is released/relocated it is treated for any infectious conditions/diseases. That is a basic of Wildlife Rescue.

Wolfe Tone

Cavehill Red wrote: »

So you haven't told them? Why not? Don't you think they've a right to know what you're doing?

Its a fox. I have a bird feeder, do I need to inform people of that?

Feargal as Luimneach

Discodog wrote: »

Grace

Like many others I find your contradictions to be baffling. So now you wish to eradicate the fox population because of one incident ?. What happens when someone gets bitten by a dog or cat - do we kill them all ?.

x2 You are more likely to get bitten/attacked by somebodies dog or scratched by somebodies cat. How many children get bitten by domestic dogs compared to foxes? Alot more. There is more reason to get rid of all dogs/ pet cats first rather than foxes.

Graces7

Discodog wrote: »

Grace

Like many others I find your contradictions to be baffling. So now you wish to eradicate the fox population because of one incident ?. What happens when someone gets bitten by a dog or cat - do we kill them all ?.

That is not what is meant as you know fine well.

And why resort to personal invective?

There is absolutely no contradiction here.

Steps need to be taken to ensure that foxes are kept out of homes. Babies must be protected; period.

Discodog

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Its a fox. I have a bird feeder, do I need to inform people of that?

Not if you allow the local popgun brigade to come along & kill it along with any magpies, crows, pigeons that might be on the bird table.

Thank god that the residents of London have some sense.

Graces7

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

x2 You are more likely to get bitten/attacked by somebodies dog or scratched by somebodies cat. How many children get bitten by domestic dogs compared to foxes? Alot more. There is more reason to get rid of all dogs/ pet cats first rather than foxes.

No; you keep them under proper control and ensure that a baby is safe from them.

Wild life belongs in the wild.

Feargal as Luimneach

Graces7 wrote: »

No; you keep them under proper control and ensure that a baby is safe from them.

Wild life belongs in the wild.

Most people that get bitten are bitten from their own pets in the family home. Domestic pets are more of a risk to babies than foxes are!

Discodog

Graces7 wrote: »

Steps need to be taken to ensure that foxes are kept out of homes. Babies must be protected; period.

So how do you do that when thousands of foxes mix with millions of people ?. If you shoot, trap & poison you pose a far greater threat to children's health.

Do you think that the Londoners who continue to support the fox are irresponsible to their children ?. I don't. There is no "wild". There are houses everywhere. I am surrounded by foxes but my neighbours, many of whom have children, are not concerned. The local farmers here make no effort to kill the foxes. None of us perceive the fox as a threat.

You will recall a recent thread here where I spoke of the difficulty in showing restraint in the presence of cruelty. You agreed. I would feel the same if someone was needlessly killing foxes.

Feargal as Luimneach

Graces7 wrote: »

No; you keep them under proper control and ensure that a baby is safe from them.

Wild life belongs in the wild.

In theory babies could get a transmitable disease from the birds/animals in my garden. By your logic I should go out and kill all the robins, blackbird, wrens, thrushes, frogs, newts, goldfinches, sparrowhawk, jackdaws etc in my garden.

wetdogsmell

Discodog wrote: »

So how do you do that when thousands of foxes mix with millions of people ?. If you shoot, trap & poison you pose a far greater threat to children's health.

Do you think that the Londoners who continue to support the fox are irresponsible to their children ?. I don't. There is no "wild". There are houses everywhere. I am surrounded by foxes but my neighbours, many of whom have children, are not concerned. The local farmers here make no effort to kill the foxes. None of us perceive the fox as a threat.

You will recall a recent thread here where I spoke of the difficulty in showing restraint in the presence of cruelty. You agreed. I would feel the same if someone was needlessly killing foxes.

i don't think everyone in london loves foxes as much as you seem to think , as the have a many pest control companys making a good living from killing foxes,,

i do alot of fox hunting myself and am yet to meet a farmer that is happy to see them about,

wetdogsmell

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

In theory babies could get a transmitable disease from the birds/animals in my garden. By your logic I should go out and kill all the robins, blackbird, wrens, thrushes, frogs, newts, goldfinches, sparrowhawk, jackdaws etc in my garden.

how mant of the above could seriously damage a sleeping baby?

Feargal as Luimneach

wetdogsmell wrote: »

how mant of the above could seriously damage a sleeping baby?

If the baby was in the garden it could (very very small probability) get salmonella/E-coli from faeces of these creatures. The faeces could also be carried on clothing, shoes and hands onto the baby.

Feargal as Luimneach

wetdogsmell wrote: »

i don't think everyone in london loves foxes as much as you seem to think , as the have a many pest control companys making a good living from killing foxes,,

i do alot of fox hunting myself and am yet to meet a farmer that is happy to see them about,

I know plenty that have no problems with foxes. Suckers farmers or Dairy farmers for example.