'Fox Problem' in apartment development

Cooper07

I posted here about whether I should feed a very skinny fox cub.

I have recently received a letter from my managment company saying there is a 'Fox problem' and there will be getting in a pest control company to trap and relocate the healthy foxes.

Now there is only one Fox, the cub I fed and I'm quite upset & concerned about what is going to happen to him. He is still very skinny - I only feed him about once a week so that he learns to fend for himself - so I'm now worried he won't be deemed 'healthy' and will be put to sleep.

It isn't causing any harm to anybody so I don't know why they won't just leave him alone, we live near a field where I'm sure he lives.

Can anybody advise me on anything I can do to stop him being trapped? Could the ISPCA help?

Many thanks

wetdogsmell

legally a fox i classed as vermin so they can legally trap and put it down,
alot of people are worried about foxes attacking children, after the twins being attacked in england, you only feed the fox once a week, how would you feel if the fox came looking for food on another day and attacked a child that lived in another apartment ?
(not having a go, just making a point)

Discodog

wetdogsmell wrote: »

how would you feel if the fox came looking for food on another day and attacked a child that lived in another apartment ?

I would be astonished as it is never going to happen. OP have a look online & see if there is a wildlife rescue that could relocate him.

A pest controller will kill him whether he is healthy or not.

wetdogsmell

Discodog wrote: »

I would be astonished as it is never going to happen. OP have a look online & see if there is a wildlife rescue that could relocate him.

A pest controller will kill him whether he is healthy or not.

i admit its highly unlikely but i think its a bit ignorant to say its never going to happen

Discodog

I will stick with never & be ignorant. A lot of people are not in the least bit worried. The polls in London have shown that the majority support the foxes & do not see them as a threat. The reason for this is that London has been full of foxes for donkey's years & there has never been a previous attack.

wetdogsmell

Discodog wrote: »

I will stick with never & be ignorant. A lot of people are not in the least bit worried. The polls in London have shown that the majority support the foxes & do not see them as a threat. The reason for this is that London has been full of foxes for donkey's years & there has never been a previous attack.

i think your wrong there, there was another attack a couple of weeks later

Discodog

wetdogsmell wrote: »

i think your wrong there, there was another attack a couple of weeks later

Can you supply a link ?. People can get bitten by foxes but it is because they invade the fox's space or threaten the fox. An unprovoked attack is something completely different & unheard of. Even the babies incident was probably born out of curiosity.

Cooper07

Thanks for your replies.

I believe the fox attacks were desperate attempts by the foxes to get food, recently with the introduction of wheely bins etc it is harder than ever for foxes to get food - just my opinion.

Back to my fox cub would anybody know of a wild life company who would be able to help save him?

Discodog

Foxes love wheelie bins. The excellent one hour Channel 4 documentary had some great shots of foxes opening bins. The reason that the urban population is so big is purely down to the availability of food. It every city the bins are full of food waste.

The whole key to this is that people would not feed foxes if they thought that foxes posed a threat. If there were any appreciable attacks then word would spread. The people who like & support the foxes have children. They have all heard about the "attack" but it bears no relationship to their experience of foxes.

wetdogsmell

Discodog wrote: »

Can you supply a link ?. People can get bitten by foxes but it is because they invade the fox's space or threaten the fox. An unprovoked attack is something completely different & unheard of. Even the babies incident was probably born out of curiosity.

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 ?)

seamus

wetdogsmell wrote: »

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

It depends on your definition of "attack". The word implies an intent to cause harm to the other party for a purpose, in response to or to initiate a fight. You can't attack something out of curiosity.

In the case of the babies, the foxes weren't "fighting", they were likely investigating and showed no fear of the baby and bit on it to see what they could get out of it. It was unlikely that the fox got aggressive or otherwise was in fighting mode.

Look at it this way, if I were to accidentally smack you with my hand as you walked by, would you say I attacked you, or would you just call it an "incident". Forget what the media call it.

Interceptor

I was attacked by a fox once. I was trying to rub its tail and it didn't want me to. I don't think it would have eaten me though, I don't taste very nice...

'cptr

wetdogsmell

seamus wrote: »

It depends on your definition of "attack". The word implies an intent to cause harm to the other party for a purpose, in response to or to initiate a fight. You can't attack something out of curiosity.

In the case of the babies, the foxes weren't "fighting", they were likely investigating and showed no fear of the baby and bit on it to see what they could get out of it. It was unlikely that the fox got aggressive or otherwise was in fighting mode.

Look at it this way, if I were to accidentally smack you with my hand as you walked by, would you say I attacked you, or would you just call it an "incident". Forget what the media call it.

thats a fair point, the fox did a fair bit of damage to the babys, (both of them), and the sound a screaming baby makes is a bit like the sound a rabbit makes when caught, so personaly i think the fox just seen the kids as food, i don't think it was fighting them it just seen them as food

going off topic,, sorry

Discodog

Also a fox or any other animal is entitled to defend itself as with cptr's fox.
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.

They are not naturally aggressive. I have handled foxes, often with serious injuries & they have rarely tried to bite. If residents leave foxes alone then the foxes pose no threat.

doctor evil

If he is in poor condition now he won't last much longer when the cold weather settles in. If he has mange too than things aren't at all pleasant for him. It may be kinder to have pest control deal with the fox.

meathstevie

Pest control company is talking through it's backside..you can't legally catch wild animals and release them unlicenced. And where are they going to release an urban fox anyway ?

wetdogsmell

Discodog wrote: »

Also a fox or any other animal is entitled to defend itself as with cptr's fox.
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.

They are not naturally aggressive. I have handled foxes, often with serious injuries & they have rarely tried to bite. If residents leave foxes alone then the foxes pose no threat.

are you having a laugh? most of your points were fair enough, but to say a fox attacked two sleeping babys out of self deffence is a bit silly

jap gt

meathstevie wrote: »

Pest control company is talking through it's backside..you can't legally catch wild animals and release them unlicenced. And where are they going to release an urban fox anyway ?

thats true, they cant release wild animals into a new location, and rightly so the will be destroyed because they are classed as vermin, also to say a fox attacked two children out of self defence is a joke, u cant seriously believe that

ger vallely

perhaps the fox is just 'skinny'? I'm living out in the sticks and see alot of foxes in my garden and the are all very skinny. At first I was suprised but the more I've seen I think that's generally the way they are. Maybe yours will be captured and brought off to someplace nice!

jap gt

ger vallely wrote: »

captured and brought off to someplace nice!

i really hope the dont, people do a lot of work controling fox numbers without people dumping more in the area, its also cruel on the fox, if he is used to being fed he wont last long in the country

Discodog

jap gt wrote: »

also to say a fox attacked two children out of self defence is a joke, u cant seriously believe that

Ok you won't listen but let's try. Young Freddy Fox smells something interesting, different & maybe food. He follows the scent & gets to a piece of meat hanging out of the side of a cot (it's a baby's arm but he hasn't met a baby before). So he bites it. Only this bit of meat screams & struggles. Freddie has a choice, run & miss dinner or hang on. Hanging on works with rats etc so he hangs on.

Did he go upstairs & say "Here is a baby to attack" ?.

It may be a joke to you but millions of Londoners know that the fox was not being aggressive which is why the GLC & London mayor have changed their original position of culling foxes. Millions of people in London live their lives surrounded by foxes but there has been no outcry to kill them even after a so called "attack".

Discodog

jap gt wrote: »

thats true, they cant release wild animals into a new location, and rightly so the will be destroyed because they are classed as vermin, also to say a fox attacked two children out of self defence is a joke, u cant seriously believe that

Wrong !. I used to release relocated urban foxes on two London sites. Heathrow Airport & Clapham Common. I did this on behalf of the largest, most famous & reputable Wildlife Teaching Hospital in Europe run by a man who is accepted as a World authority on foxes.

Anyone of the millions who watch Animal ER will of seen the hospital doing the same. This was only done after extensive radio tagging studies showed that the released foxes thrived.

jap gt

Discodog wrote: »

Ok you won't listen but let's try. Young Freddy Fox smells something interesting, different & maybe food. He follows the scent & gets to a piece of meat hanging out of the side of a cot (it's a baby's arm but he hasn't met a baby before). So he bites it. Only this bit of meat screams & struggles. Freddie has a choice, run & miss dinner or hang on. Hanging on works with rats etc so he hangs on.

Did he go upstairs & say "Here is a baby to attack" ?.

It may be a joke to you but millions of Londoners know that the fox was not being aggressive which is why the GLC & London mayor have changed their original position of culling foxes. Millions of people in London live their lives surrounded by foxes but there has been no outcry to kill them even after a so called "attack".

its obvious that he didnt intend to attack them, its the fact that he was in the house in the first place, thats why the are vermin, if a rat came into your house you would put down a trap and kill it, same thing goes for a fox, if the same rat bit someone in the house would you say it was done in self defence

Discodog

jap gt wrote: »

its obvious that he didnt intend to attack them, its the fact that he was in the house in the first place, thats why the are vermin, if a rat came into your house you would put down a trap, same thing goes for a fox, if the same rat bit someone in the house would you say it was done in self defence

You see Freddie as Vermin & millions of Londoners don't. Vermin is a convenient phrase that we use to justify killing something. To some it means that the animal is worthless to others it means scaring the public to make money.

As you think me an idiot I will confirm it. I would & have live trapped rats & relocated them.

kumate_champ07

you could also class it as 'apartment problem' in fox development

I reckon theres been more attacks by dogs than foxes. I stayed in a hostel in south London and there was a good few foxes out at night but some of the kids there seemed to throw stones at them. I gave them a few oat biscuits. they're about as dangerous as a stray dog

they've lived in Dublin a long time before it got built up. In Terenure,Tempelouge, Rathfarnham you see them out at night. the fields where food was plenty are now housing estates. so they live in the parks now instead

jap gt

Discodog wrote: »

You see Freddie as Vermin & millions of Londoners don't. Vermin is a convenient phrase that we use to justify killing something. To some it means that the animal is worthless to others it means scaring the public to make money.

As you think me an idiot I will confirm it. I would & have live trapped rats & relocated them.

where did i say you were an idiot, although trapping and releasing rats is also illegal, its not the fact that fox are in the city its the fact that they entered the house and bit the children weather it meant to or not it should never have been there in the first place

wetdogsmell

Discodog wrote: »

You see Freddie as Vermin & millions of Londoners don't. Vermin is a convenient phrase that we use to justify killing something. To some it means that the animal is worthless to others it means scaring the public to make money.

As you think me an idiot I will confirm it. I would & have live trapped rats & relocated them.

foxes are seen as vermin because thats what they are, they cause damage to livestock, they just happen to be cute vermin, if rats had fluffy tails and a cuter face people would probably feed them too, but it would'nt stop them being vermin

Feargal as Luimneach

wetdogsmell wrote: »

foxes are seen as vermin because thats what they are, they cause damage to livestock, they just happen to be cute vermin, if rats had fluffy tails and a cuter face people would probably feed them too, but it would'nt stop them being vermin

You consider them vermin, fair enough. Other people don't. The op doesn't. Everybody entitled to opinion.

wetdogsmell

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

You consider them vermin, fair enough. Other people don't. The op doesn't. Everybody entitled to opinion.

foxes are legaly classed as vermin, you can consider them what ever you want it does'nt change that fact

Discodog

wetdogsmell wrote: »

foxes are seen as vermin because thats what they are, they cause damage to livestock, they just happen to be cute vermin, if rats had fluffy tails and a cuter face people would probably feed them too, but it would'nt stop them being vermin

Vermin:

noxious, objectionable, or disgusting animals collectively, esp. those of small size that appear commonly and are difficult to control, as flies, lice, bedbugs, cockroaches, mice, and rats.



an objectionable or obnoxious person, or such persons collectively.



The second definition opens up no end of possibilities - get the guns lads !

The first definition isn't Freddie Fox.

Have you see the Fawlty Towers rat episode ?. You sound like the Major.

jap gt

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

You consider them vermin, fair enough. Other people don't. The op doesn't. Everybody entitled to opinion.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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!

wetdogsmell

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

homerhop

Can you post a link to that please?

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.

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

Can you post a link to that please?

Wildlife Act 1976 available online.

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?????

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.

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.