Giant Fox caught in Kent

Knine

I seen this article yesterday, look at the size of the fox. I know its the Daily Mail but still hes some size.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343464/Biggest-Ever-fox-caught-Britain-4ft-cat-killer-trapped-vet.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

A shame they felt they had to shoot him.

Tallon

You think the last thing on a vets mind would be to not kill it?

EGAR

Of course they had to kill him, so now they can say: "We killed the giant fox before he knocked on your door and went for your baby and your cats!"

Seriously, what a scaremongering - I am sick of it. Urban foxes have been around for as long as there was such a thing as *urban*.

Hannibal

its a pretty big fox, an article I read yesterday said it was the size of a dingo or coyote

EGAR

Dotsey wrote: »

its a pretty big fox, an article I read yesterday said it was the size of a dingo or coyote

And next week the papers will write that it was as big as a Great Dane.

FYA:

Coyote: 7-19 kg

Dingo: 14-25kg

In comparison the fox caught was said to be 26.5lbs which converts to 12kg.

My Cocker Spaniel weighs in at 15kg and she aint fat .

Discodog

I have lodged a formal complaint with the RCVS. The Vet swore the following oath when he qualified :

"I PROMISE ABOVE ALL that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct & that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care"

The fox was trapped before he shot it so there was no need to shoot it. At least one organisation that rescues & conducts research on foxes is furious. He even claims to welcome wildlife patients on his website.

As well as the "ethics" of shooting it he has fanned the flames. Now people will fear giant foxes climbing into their houses.

I believe that there is no evidence that this is the fox that killed a cat.

Even worse is the way that it has been photographed as a trophy.
How sick is this:

Shanao

"Presenter Charlie Jacoby said: ‘If it took a cat, who’s to say it wasn’t on the path to taking a child?"

Had to laugh at this. Seriously, the ignorance of some people. As if a fox, no matter how desperate, would be stupid enough to try and snatch up a child. Looks like there'll be a new red riding hood story out soon starring a fox instead.

ppink

It is amazing how they just trap and kill without a thought. if he was that worried about his 19yr old cat then why was it not inside by the fire.

But in fairness this really made me laugh:

Presenter Charlie Jacoby said: ‘If it took a cat, who’s to say it wasn’t on the path to taking a child?

‘If I lived in the suburbs with children, I would think twice about leaving the baby out in the pram on a warm summer night knowing outsize foxes are out there


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343464/Biggest-Ever-fox-caught-Britain-4ft-cat-killer-trapped-vet.html#ixzz1A03CTuqN


Are there people on this planet that leave their kids outside in their prams at night?
The second fox they are comparing the "monster" to is a very small one too, going on the ones I see around here anyway!

RMD

Shanao wrote: »

"Presenter Charlie Jacoby said: ‘If it took a cat, who’s to say it wasn’t on the path to taking a child?"

Had to laugh at this. Seriously, the ignorance of some people. As if a fox, no matter how desperate, would be stupid enough to try and snatch up a child. Looks like there'll be a new red riding hood story out soon starring a fox instead.

Read the article, there was 2 9 month old children scarred by a normal sized fox last year. Now imagine if that fox was twice the size, it could have potentially done a lot of damage to the children. Obviously it's an extremely rare case and the Dailymail is blowing this completely out of proportion to scaremonger as usual, but I wouldn't completely write off the chance of it happening.

Shanao

RMD wrote: »

Read the article, there was 2 9 month old children scarred by a normal sized fox last year. Now imagine if that fox was twice the size, it could have potentially done a lot of damage to the children. Obviously it's an extremely rare case and the Dailymail is blowing this completely out of proportion to scaremonger as usual, but I wouldn't completely write off the chance of it happening.

Supposedly mauled by a fox. Supposedly being the main word there, there was no proof that it was a fox.

Discodog

Shanao wrote: »

Supposedly mauled by a fox. Supposedly being the main word there, there was no proof that it was a fox.

Still isn't . The whole story is still as baffling as when it was originally aired but our wonderful Vet is going to get the whole debate going again.

Owen

Cat Killer? Seriously? Daily Fail Newspaper is at it again. And that picture is disgusting.

Discodog

The Vet is even being castigated on a UK Police forum !

Looks like it has backfired big time. Yesterday the website of Eden Vets of Cupar Fife Scotland had a big photo of him & a biography including his love of falconry. Now he has disappeared & there is no mention of him on the site.

doctor evil

I saw this on the news on the telly so I ignored the daily rag link.

Would everyone in this thread get into the same flutter about a mousetrap or chemicals to kill a wasps nest?

It is unusual for them to get to this size, perhaps it had something wrong with it like a growth on the pituitary gland. People do have a right to defend and protect their stock, in the news segment the fox had been killing hens. A confident fox won't just stick to hunting during the night.

Tallon

Would you bring a wasp to a vet because it's leg was broke?

Discodog

Doctor Evil you are missing the point. Foxes get shot every day but not by Vets !. The even more amazing part is that the idiot went for all this publicity. He has not only bought the profession into disrepute but also his own Vet practice where they advertise as being willing to take wildlife patients. No wonder he has disappeared from the practice website. They are going to be inundated by press & angry wildlife lovers. Heaven knows how he will be able to keep working.

Maybe people here just don't realise how much support there is in the UK for foxes. When I was doing wildlife rescue people were amazing in the way that they would help a fox. I was often asked where an injured fox would be treated. The next day I would find out the public had been in to the vet or rescue & made a donation for it's care.

Ten of thousands in the UK feed foxes. Whether one agrees with it or not it shows the public affection for them.

ButtercupTheCow

The vet himself posed for a photo.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3327835/Huge-fox-weighing-nearly-27lbs-killed-after-seemingly-eating-family-cat.html

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

Doctor Evil you are missing the point. Foxes get shot every day but not by Vets !.

Vets put down animals every day, either by lethal injection or with larger animals the humane killer (captive bolt) or the bullet. The method does not matter as long as it is reliable and humane to the animal at that time.

Tallon

But it wasn't, thats the point

Chris_Heilong

Its sick when you see the picture with the kid, their culture is partly to blame. I often hear some guys in work calling Irish foxes vermin and such but this seems like the same kind of attitude that has cause wolves to be hunted to extinction here and in the UK, different times but same outdated attitude.

Sigma Force

Ridiculous that they had to kill the poor animal, there was bound to be somewhere the fox could of been brought to and released there are many parks and protected areas in the UK it might of taken a bit of time but I can't see why the fox couldn't of been released elsewhere but of course people panic shame on that vet would hate to be his client probably trigger happy.
My opinion anyhoo.

ISDW

They leave a 19 year old cat sleeping outside in the weather that we've been having? Of course it is possible that the cat died of natural causes and that the fox found it and got himself a nice meal.

I do find the photo very disturbing.

seamus

ISDW wrote: »

They leave a 19 year old cat sleeping outside in the weather that we've been having? Of course it is possible that the cat died of natural causes and that the fox found it and got himself a nice meal.

I would also have said that it's much more likely that a local dog got the jump on a very old cat sleeping outside.

In any case, there's no sense in killing a fox because it attacked a cat. It's nature for feck's sake.

Tallon

It's the sensless killin that has me uneasy like Seamus said

Yakult

So let me get this right,

They trapped a giant fox, biggest found and then they shot it?
For what reason, as a trophy? to get money for selling he's story to the paper?

Would have been a much warmer story if they had taken pictures of it alive and then released it.

Love the pictures of its hanging on the ladder with the kid/vet posing in it. very nice. :rolleyes:

Discodog

ISDW wrote: »

I do find the photo very disturbing.

I think the kid might when it goes to school. Who would be stupid enough to get a kid to pose like that ?.

Dusty87

Discodog wrote: »

I have lodged a formal complaint with the RCVS. The Vet swore the following oath when he qualified :

"I PROMISE ABOVE ALL that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct & that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care"

The fox was trapped before he shot it so there was no need to shoot it. At least one organisation that rescues & conducts research on foxes is furious. He even claims to welcome wildlife patients on his website.

As well as the "ethics" of shooting it he has fanned the flames. Now people will fear giant foxes climbing into their houses.

I believe that there is no evidence that this is the fox that killed a cat.

Even worse is the way that it has been photographed as a trophy.
How sick is this:

i admire foxes. Their ability to adapt is amazing. Anyway, on your post, what should the vet have done once it was trapped?? Release it elsewhere? Surely you know thats illegal in the uk?? Put it in a sanctuary? Surely not fair for an animal so big and WILD! Stil an gorgeous animal, is it a rare gene or can his offspring be as big?

noodler

seamus wrote: »

I would also have said that it's much more likely that a local dog got the jump on a very old cat sleeping outside.

I haved never seen a dog catch a cat before.

seamus wrote: »

In any case, there's no sense in killing a fox because it attacked a cat. It's nature for feck's sake.

I would kill any animal that killed my Cat. My being the key word I guess.

Regarding that story about the baby attack, are we disputing it was a fox because the parents could only say it was a flurry of brown etc? I mean, would there really be another alternative given the circumstances?

The way I look at it, sadly I admit, is that that fox either did attack the baby in which case kill it. Or, one haalf its size did and in which case imagine what the big one could do so kill it.

I would be extremely anti-fox hunting etc but I am not sure a fox should be that size.

Dusty87

R_H_C_P wrote: »

So let me get this right,

They trapped a giant fox, biggest found and then they shot it?
For what reason, as a trophy? to get money for selling he's story to the paper?

Would have been a much warmer story if they had taken pictures of it alive and then released it.

Love the pictures of its hanging on the ladder with the kid/vet posing in it. very nice. :rolleyes:

warmer for who? You? Not the vet, or his family, as he would have been commiting an offence. Just to let ya know, i would have loved to see this fella, in a zoo or somethin. But that would not be fair on that fox.

seamus

noodler wrote: »

I haved never seen a dog catch a cat before.

Does that mean it doesn't happen?
My dog has caught a cat by surprise before. Headbutted it in the panic to sniff it and the cat legged it. Some dogs aren't so much curious as murderous when it comes to cats. They do catch them, and they may kill them.

I would kill any animal that killed my Cat. My being the key word I guess.

I understand that and I can imagine any owner would be eager for revenge, despite how illogical it is.

But the fox was trapped and shot by a local vet who had little or no investment in the cat.

The way I look at it, sadly I admit, is that that fox either did attack the baby in which case kill it.

Why? Punishment? Revenge? I just don't get the "animal attacking humans deserves death" rationale. At all.

noodler

seamus wrote: »

Does that mean it doesn't happen?

Absolutely not. I have a cat and a new dog who is huge - they are still sketchy of each other and we let them get close but it is hard to say if the Dog is just curious or murderous.

seamus wrote: »

But the fox was trapped and shot by a local vet who had little or no investment in the cat.
Why? Punishment? Revenge? I just don't get the "animal attacking humans deserves death" rationale. At all.

Really? It seems entirely logical to me to put down any animal who attacks a human (bar baiting it etc obviously). Don't they put down any dog which attacks/bites a human for fear of the taste of human flesh?

Anyway, I know we have no proof that this fox attacked anybody but its sheer size and hunting ability would worry me - irrationally perhaps.

Dusty87

seamus wrote: »

I just don't get the "animal attacking humans deserves death" rationale. At all.

ah now seamus. If a human attacked your kid how would you feel? I have a dog here, who is a great dog. He would not let a single person he dosnt know near me, my partner or baby. I know if someone jumped the wall he wouldn be friendly so he is watched by me all the time. If he attacked a child, im very sorry but it has to be done. Think, you have a child. The most important thing to you. He/she is attacked. What would you say? Ah feck it, relocate it to another area? Im sorry but if your dog did a job on my daughter, thats what id be looking for. And i know its not the dog, its the trainer, but ****ed if i think that dog is goin to do somethin to someone else child. TBH I would feel bad for the dog, but the law is on the owners side not the dogs

Discodog

Dusty87 wrote: »

i admire foxes. Their ability to adapt is amazing. Anyway, on your post, what should the vet have done once it was trapped?? Release it elsewhere? Surely you know thats illegal in the uk?? Put it in a sanctuary? Surely not fair for an animal so big and WILD! Stil an gorgeous animal, is it a rare gene or can his offspring be as big?

I know that a release is not illegal because I have personally released lots of them. Rescues like St Tiggywinkles have released hundreds - even on TV ?. Heathrow airport & Clapham common are popular release sites for urban foxes. The only condition was that we had to have the permission of the landowner. In the UK it is easy to get release sites as so many people are pro fox.

Because of it's unusual size it would of been useful to put a GPS collar on it & monitor it over a year or two to see if it produced unusually large offspring. Obviously before doing this it would of been good to do a full Vet check to see if there were any medical reasons.

Unfortunately because of the action of the Vet we will never know.

Discodog

Dusty87 wrote: »

ah now seamus. If a human attacked your kid how would you feel? I have a dog here, who is a great dog. He would not let a single person he dosnt know near me, my partner or baby. I know if someone jumped the wall he wouldn be friendly so he is watched by me all the time. If he attacked a child, im very sorry but it has to be done. Think, you have a child. The most important thing to you. He/she is attacked. What would you say? Ah feck it, relocate it to another area? Im sorry but if your dog did a job on my daughter, thats what id be looking for. And i know its not the dog, its the trainer, but ****ed if i think that dog is goin to do somethin to someone else child. TBH I would feel bad for the dog, but the law is on the owners side not the dogs

The Law here always punishes the animal & not the owner. If a dog bites a child there may well be a good reason why. The one that bit me, when I was 5, did so because I put my head in it's bowl. Now even at that age I did not blame the dog but on reflection it's owner (my Aunt) should of trained it not to be possessive over food & she should not of left me alone with the dog. The Law is so bad that if someone comes into your house & your dog bites them, your dog can be put down.

I know several people who's cats have been killed by dogs & they are often small terriers. I know of one cat that slipped whilst walking along a fence & fell into a garden containing several Jack Russels.

TooManyDogs

noodler wrote: »

I haved never seen a dog catch a cat before.

My dogs have regularly caught cats that have wandered into our garden, unusual but it does happen. And I'd have thought it would be easy pickings to catch a 19 year old cat who was asleep

meathstevie

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Its sick when you see the picture with the kid, their culture is partly to blame. I often hear some guys in work calling Irish foxes vermin and such but this seems like the same kind of attitude that has cause wolves to be hunted to extinction here and in the UK, different times but same outdated attitude.

Outdated attitude ? Go and tell that to the poultry keepers and sheep farmers of this island. Loosing a couple of 100 euro in lambs hens and ducks in a couple of nights will definitely make you love foxes. I will not and have never advocated attempted extermination of foxes as they have their role to play in keeping the show balanced but I do definitely agree with the trapping and shooting of foxes as long as it happens in a reasonable manner. I personaly hunt foxes with rifle and lamp and always attempt a quick kill ( as in split second, dead before the sound of the shot reaches to the fox ).

meathstevie

Discodog wrote: »

I have lodged a formal complaint with the RCVS. The Vet swore the following oath when he qualified :

"I PROMISE ABOVE ALL that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct & that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care"

The fox was trapped before he shot it so there was no need to shoot it. At least one organisation that rescues & conducts research on foxes is furious. He even claims to welcome wildlife patients on his website.

As well as the "ethics" of shooting it he has fanned the flames. Now people will fear giant foxes climbing into their houses.

I believe that there is no evidence that this is the fox that killed a cat.

Even worse is the way that it has been photographed as a trophy.
How sick is this:

Why should a vet not be allowed to partake in perfectly legal activities like trapping and hunting ? What are you going to call a vet who works for industrial poultry and pig farmers ?

I take it you're opposed to hunting and trapping in general but that's not the point.

The real issue is whether or not any unnecessary suffering was caused during the proces of trapping and killing. If the trap was checked regularly ( let's say at least once a day ) and a sufficiently powerful firearm was used to dispatch the fox there shouldn't be any problem on an ethics level.

EGAR

I keep poultry AND I feed a fox. Comes at the same time every evening to get his grub and fecks off again. NEVER bothered my chicken or my cats for that matter .

My ex OH has 500 sheep and never lost a lamb to a fox, although he did lose a lot of ewe to dogs chasing them and had two shot by "hunters" out lamping .

Foxes do not prey on larger healthy mammals, their stable diet are small mammals and birds, fruit and worms.

seamus

noodler wrote: »

Absolutely not. I have a cat and a new dog who is huge - they are still sketchy of each other and we let them get close but it is hard to say if the Dog is just curious or murderous.

From talking to people who work with dogs professionally, the tendency is for dogs to consider cats in their house to be "theirs" and leave them alone. Many of these dogs will still chase unknown cats away. Dogs who are raised in "cat-rich" environments tend to ignore all cats though.

Really? It seems entirely logical to me to put down any animal who attacks a human

How so? It's an animal. It will use its teeth for a multitude of reasons, the majority of with have nothing to do with aggression. If a child punched another child in the schoolyard, would you write him off and lock him up for the rest of his life? Of course not. There are thousands of reasons why a human might become injured by an animal, and "This animal is just aggressive" is the one of the rarest of the lot. There is no logical reason to destroy an animal for hurting a human without looking more closely at why it happened in the first place.
An animal attacking a human once does not immediately indicate any inherent aggressiveness or malice (lol) towards humans.

Don't they put down any dog which attacks/bites a human for fear of the taste of human flesh?

No, that's a myth. I suspect that in this country we put down such animals because of outdated attitudes towards animals and dogs in particular. We don't put down cats who scratch or horses who kick (and that's far more likely to kill than a dog bite), yet Irish people have this innate, "Kill it!" attitude when a dog bites.

Dusty87 wrote: »

If a human attacked your kid how would you feel?

Depends on the scenario. Annoyed? Sure. But then dogs aren't adults. At best they're equivalent to strong children. So if my child was injured by someone else's child, I'd still want to know the how's and whys - was my child punching and annoying the other child? Was it accidental (i.e. rough play)? Etc, etc, etc. Far too many variables there to assume that it was malicious and borne out of an innate viciousness in the dog.

Discodog

meathstevie wrote: »

Why should a vet not be allowed to partake in perfectly legal activities like trapping and hunting ? What are you going to call a vet who works for industrial poultry and pig farmers ?

Because he swears an oath "that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care". He had trapped the fox therefore it was in his "care". Now how is killing it ensuring it's welfare ?. Also a Vet cannot ethically shoot because neither he nor anyone else can guarantee that an animal does not suffer. Not every shot is perfect.

Also under Irish law it is illegal & cruel to "terrify" an animal. I cannot see how some hunting practices can avoid this.

The question is how many shooters shoot because it is vitally necessary to control numbers & how many shoot because they enjoy it. I suspect the latter & the necessary for control argument just provides some validation. After all some species are bred specifically to be shot.

Why can't a shooter admit the likely truth that he enjoys killing rather than trying to justify it ?.

meathstevie

Discodog wrote: »

Because he swears an oath "that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care". He had trapped the fox therefore it was in his "care". Now how is killing it ensuring it's welfare ?. Also a Vet cannot ethically shoot because neither he nor anyone else can guarantee that an animal does not suffer. Not every shot is perfect.

Also under Irish law it is illegal & cruel to "terrify" an animal. I cannot see how some hunting practices can avoid this.

The question is how many shooters shoot because it is vitally necessary to control numbers & how many shoot because they enjoy it. I suspect the latter & the necessary for control argument just provides some validation. After all some species are bred specifically to be shot.

Why can't a shooter admit the likely truth that he enjoys killing rather than trying to justify it ?.

Any honest hunter will tell you that the kill is part of the hunt and one goes with the other. If the only aspect of hunting that rocked my boat was simply to kill an animal I'd go working in a slaughterhouse. I spent the whole of last Tuesday morning out rough shooting with a friend one of his sons and my two sons. Didn't get a shot at anything but saw a good few mallard, a couple of woodcock and a satisfying number of hen pheasants. I had a great morning and killed nothing. Having said that I wouldn't have minded a few mallard for the oven.

As for the vet and the fox : since he trapped it he had appropriated it ( his property; not just in his care ) and since it's not illegal to kill foxes without causing unnecessary suffering he's done nothing wrong. If you follow the logic of that oath as you see it a vet could for example not keep a few broilers for the pot or keep any animal for personal consumption.

meathstevie

EGAR wrote: »

I keep poultry AND I feed a fox. Comes at the same time every evening to get his grub and fecks off again. NEVER bothered my chicken or my cats for that matter .

My ex OH has 500 sheep and never lost a lamb to a fox, although he did lose a lot of ewe to dogs chasing them and had two shot by "hunters" out lamping .

Foxes do not prey on larger healthy mammals, their stable diet are small mammals and birds, fruit and worms.

Fair play to the ex for having his lambing sorted so and as for the shot ewes; rule number one for using a firearm on open ground is when in doubt don't fire.
I agree with you that a fox will usualy not attack larger healthy mammals but a new born lamb doesn't exactly fall in that category. And as for marauding dogs, they're definitely a sheep farmer's worst nightmare.

Personally I will NEVER fire at any animal unless I'm 100% sure of what I'm firing at and with a rifle also what is in the line of my shot in case I miss since the bullet will travel a lot further with a lot more velocity than a load of shot from a cartridge.

Discodog

meathstevie wrote: »

I had a great morning and killed nothing.

As for the vet and the fox : since he trapped it he had appropriated it ( his property; not just in his care )

So you could of gone for a walk with maybe a pair of binoculars or a camera & enjoyed it so why kill anything ?.

The fox was never the Vets property. He didn't appropriate it, he lured it with food & trapped it. Do you really believe that indivuals can own wildlife ?.

To me your points have highlighted why someone can shoot without any feeling of guilt because you believe that you hold domain over wild animals.

There is a world of difference between the legalities of killing of a wild animal out of necessity & the morality of killing for pleasure.

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

Do you really believe that indivuals can own wildlife ?.

Why do you own dogs? Why not get books, dvd or go on vacations to watch wild dogs instead?
As for morals, you didnt think about them when you shot a bird,showing off in front of your friends, but because you feel guilty about it, you try to force your moral values about hunting upon everyone who does enjoy it.

seamus

Let's not turn this thread into a "morality of hunting" discussion. Most regulars on the forum don't support hunting in any form, so any discussion is not going to result in good things.

This thread is for discussing the content of the OP and the vet's actions in this particular case

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

Why do you own dogs? Why not get books, dvd or go on vacations to watch wild dogs instead?
As for morals, you didnt think about them when you shot a bird,showing off in front of your friends, but because you feel guilty about it, you try to force your moral values about hunting upon everyone who does enjoy it.

Whilst I totally agree with Seamus I feel that I must point out that I was a child when I shot a bird - I have grown up since then. Also funnily enough I do not consider that I own my dogs but that I have a duty of care or custody over them.

And in this case the Vet had a duty of care which he had sworn to uphold. His page is still missing from the practice website:

http://www.edenvets.co.uk/Keith.html

homerhop

Totally understood Seamus.
Discodog, you may not consider that you own the dog but the fact remains the same, according to the law of the land you do own your dogs.
Now the vet did nothing illegal, foxes can be trapped and dispatched.

The oath that he took for duty and care.
You could get 10 people together to read any oath and you can be sure that when questioned some people will have different views on how it is literally understood.
As a vet should they take every case and ensure that regardless an animal should be kept alive by any means untill it dies of natural causes. I have known vets who take into account peoples financial status before deciding to do surgery or putting an animal to sleep.

Feargal as Luimneach

The vet was foolish in getting that article published. Alot of his small animal clients will not be happy and he will lose business because of it.
All because he wanted his five minutes of fame.

Secondarily he is causing more hysteria (Huge cat killing foxes) and anti-fox feelings. Some members of the general public will now start to want all urban foxes killed, because foxes might kill pets.

Notice how the tabloids twist the story as much as possible. They compare the fox to a "normal" fox. The "normal" fox is small thin and diseased (mange), to make the "killer" fox as large as possible.

homerhop

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

The vet was foolish in getting that article published. Alot of his small animal clients will not be happy and he will lose business because of it.
All because he wanted his five minutes of fame.

Secondarily he is causing more hysteria (Huge cat killing foxes) and anti-fox feelings. Some members of the general public will now start to want all urban foxes killed, because foxes might kill pets.

Notice how the tabloids twist the story as much as possible. They compare the fox to a "normal" fox. The "normal" fox is small thin and diseased (mange), to make the "killer" fox as large as possible.

Show me a newspaper that wont twist a story and go for sensationalism.
That story it was the giant killer fox savaging old age peoples helpless pets, in a few weeks time it may be maniac hunters kill every living creature and eat their own babies when there is nothing left :rolleyes:. Paper never refused ink.

As for them losing clients, they probably will a few but I generally find with people, if he has been a good vet with them and their pets they will still use him.

Feargal as Luimneach

homerhop wrote: »

As for them losing clients, they probably will a few but I generally find with people, if he has been a good vet with them and their pets they will still use him.

Large animals client will generally stay with their vet unless they have a major row or are severly unhappy with the service they are getting.

Small animal clients are more fickle and they will change vets more easily, especially if they think that the vet is being cruel to animals

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

The oath that he took for duty and care.
You could get 10 people together to read any oath and you can be sure that when questioned some people will have different views on how it is literally understood.

As a vet should they take every case and ensure that regardless an animal should be kept alive by any means untill it dies of natural causes. I have known vets who take into account peoples financial status before deciding to do surgery or putting an animal to sleep.

"I PROMISE ABOVE ALL that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct & that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care"

It's pretty clear to me & it is qualified during Vet School. It is open to a degree of interpretation by the individual vet depending on the circumstances. So, of course, a Vet would have to take into account personal circumstances. He/she also takes into account what options are open to them. The key is always what is the best long term interests of the animal. He decided that death & lots of trophy pics was better than freedom.

As a UK Vet he knew that there were dozens of rescues that would of taken this fox & released it elsewhere. He could of done the same thing himself by calling the nearest rescue & asking if & where he can release.

The fact that he posed for photos, allowed a child to pose & showed no regard for the dignity of the animal tells me all that I need to know about him as a person & Vet.

As for his job I would suggest that removing his webpage & all references to him is hardly a ringing endorsement by his employers.