Giant Fox caught in Kent

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.

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

Not every shot is perfect.

He would have dispatched it in close proximity while the animal was in the live trap, it would have taken a lot of incompetence for that shot not to be perfect.

Discodog

doctor evil wrote: »

He would have dispatched it in close proximity while the animal was in the live trap, it would have taken a lot of incompetence for that shot not to be perfect.

That comment was about hunting in general as I suspect you already know .

I have no doubts that the Vet killed the fox humanely but totally unnecessarily.

homerhop

The man in question hunts as a passtime, he was not on call he was on holidays. Now I know you dont care regardless because no matter what you are completely anti hunting and as far as you are concerned the man is the devil reincarnated.
Do you think vets should be allowed to fish as a passtime or are you against that too?

Tallon

What about the oath he swore too on page one of this thread?

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

The man in question hunts as a passtime
Do you think vets should be allowed to fish as a passtime or are you against that too?

Does he ?. How do you know ?. He practices Falconry.

Quite happy for Vets to fish - provided they put them back

homerhop

Tallon wrote: »

What about the oath he swore too on page one of this thread?

So the man cannot have a personal life outside his career?
Once again I will ask the question, should vets be allowed to fish?

Jennieflower

Knine wrote: »

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.

It is a shame, the hunt was on around here again yesterday, they blocked up the road, and all the bloody dogs they have with them. I love dogs, I love horses, but i hate the hunt. We have loads and loads of foxex here where we live, we see them daily, they never come near the house though, thanks to the big labrador i have. But they never interfere with us, I hate to think of one being pulled apart. They used to do it for the tail, is that still the case????

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

So the man cannot have a personal life outside his career?

So during his day job we trust him to look after Wildlife, that is welcome at the practice according to their website. But after work he goes out shooting it !.

If an off duty doctor finds an injured person is it OK for him to say "sorry can't help I'm off duty". Hippocratic oaths are sworn by doctors & vets.

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

Does he ?. How do you know ?. He practices Falconry.

Quite happy for Vets to fish - provided they put them back

it is in an interview he gave

homerhop

Discodog wrote: »

So during his day job we trust him to look after Wildlife, that is welcome at the practice according to their website. But after work he goes out shooting it !.

And what law is he breaking?