Giant Fox caught in Kent

pitbull_fanatic

i think ye are blowing this out of propotion. in england they have problems with foxes coming into their homes, snatching babies and terroriseing their pets. it had to be done. if they released this fox into the wild, who's to say that it wont return to what it knows and how to survive. same as any animal, if they do something and they got a meal out of it, they will do it again. teach a dog to sit for a treat and he will sit every time you tell him, expecting a treat.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5471410/fox_attacks_sleeping_babies_inside.html

link shows they SAW the fox in the room and it was killed and nothing more was said. whats so different about this story.

Shanao

How amazing that the story changes every time they publish it, that's the very first time I read an article which claims that the mother actually saw the fox. Whereas at the very beginning of the article, it states that a fox 'is thought to have entered the home'. Everytime this story is mentioned, it changes a little.

pitbull_fanatic

thats the original one, not the one with the 26lb fox.

ya i saw that actually!! thought turnes to saw. but u cant argue with what someone saw. her word against whoevers

pitbull_fanatic

i read a different article on yahoo when it first emerged, it was roughly the same except that the womans partner was trying to hunt the fox out but the fox was standing his ground.

just like in a zoo, dont feed the animals!! except birds in the winter!:p

ppink

pitbull_fanatic wrote: »

i think ye are blowing this out of propotion. in england they have problems with foxes coming into their homes, snatching babies and terroriseing their pets. it had to be done. if they released this fox into the wild, who's to say that it wont return to what it knows and how to survive. same as any animal, if they do something and they got a meal out of it, they will do it again. teach a dog to sit for a treat and he will sit every time you tell him, expecting a treat.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5471410/fox_attacks_sleeping_babies_inside.html

link shows they SAW the fox in the room and it was killed and nothing more was said. whats so different about this story.

foxes snatching babies? when did this happen?

ISDW

ppink wrote: »

foxes snatching babies? when did this happen?

I must have missed that as well, and having lived in London for ten years and had urban foxes visiting our garden regularly, I don't know how my children, cats and dogs survived, especially the animals when they were kittens and pups and were outside unattended in the garden.:rolleyes:

pitbull fanatic, the links show what the parents SAY they saw, which seems to have changed dramatically over the course of time. Of course you can argue about it, if their story changes. And this may come as a shock to you, but sometimes, people lie:eek: I'm not saying that a fox didn't come in and wound those babies, but I'm just saying don't take what people say in the media as gospel. It is also not known obviously if the fox they trapped and killed was the same one that went into the house.

noodler

ISDW wrote: »

pitbull fanatic, the links show what the parents SAY they saw, which seems to have changed dramatically over the course of time. Of course you can argue about it, if their story changes. And this may come as a shock to you, but sometimes, people lie:eek: I'm not saying that a fox didn't come in and wound those babies, but I'm just saying don't take what people say in the media as gospel. It is also not known obviously if the fox they trapped and killed was the same one that went into the house.

Ah come the hell on, lie?
What exactly are you implying?

That they did themselves? - I certainly hope not as that would be a long way to go to try and argue our point

That it was an animal other than a fox? Well, open to suggestions there?

wildlifeman

pitbull_fanatic wrote: »

i think ye are blowing this out of propotion. in england they have problems with foxes coming into their homes, snatching babies and terroriseing their pets. it had to be done. .

I cant stop laughing at that ridiculous statement. one report in 20 years and you make it sound like an epidemic..give me a break. and I also have found plenty of holes in the story.

ISDW

noodler wrote: »

Ah come the hell on, lie?
What exactly are you implying?

That they did themselves? - I certainly hope not as that would be a long way to go to try and argue our point

That it was an animal other than a fox? Well, open to suggestions there?

I'm not implying anything, but go back and read the reports of this story and how it is changed, so if they have changed their story then yes, they have lied at some point, if you say one thing one day, then something completely different the next day, then one of those statements is a lie surely?

Please reread my post, I didn't say that the parents did it, I didn't say that a fox didn't go into the house and wound the babies, I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened, but then neither were the reporters who sensationalised this story.

ppink

this fox story has gone through chinese whispers I think. first the kids were attacked by an unknown...thought to be a wild animal. then they saw the "fox" from behind in the hallway and now according to that link he was in the bedroom looking at them.
Not saying it did not happen but we will never know the truth on that.

and this give the right to the vet to trap and kill 2 foxes with ZERO proof they killed puss how exactly? it could have been a dog from down the road who dispatched the cat.
we surely can't have it acceptable that if we decide a certain animal has committed an offence with no proof that we should start trapping and killing willy nilly

Knine

ppink wrote: »

this fox story has gone through chinese whispers I think. first the kids were attacked by an unknown...thought to be a wild animal. then they saw the "fox" from behind in the hallway and now according to that link he was in the bedroom looking at them.
Not saying it did not happen but we will never know the truth on that.

and this give the right to the vet to trap and kill 2 foxes with ZERO proof they killed puss how exactly? it could have been a dog from down the road who dispatched the cat.
we surely can't have it acceptable that if we decide a certain animal has committed an offence with no proof that we should start trapping and killing willy nilly

Hey OP here again. This kinda reminds me of the Dingo Ate my Baby Story. I'm not sure really what to believe.

I have to say I'm not impressed the vet trapped and killed the fox and if he were my vet I wouldnt be returning. Surely such a large fox should be released with a radio collar, then they could track him and see what exactly he was up to, after of course they took bloods to see was there any reason he ended up so big.

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

And what law is he breaking?

I have said several times that he did nothing illegal in the sense of breaking the law. However it appears that he did make a fundamental breach of the Veterinary Code that he swore an oath to uphold.

We discussed the "babies" incident at great length when it happened. The people of London have not stopped feeding foxes & the Mayor has forgotten all about his ridiculous comments about a cull.

Either the people are stupid & just don't realise that giant foxes are waiting to take their babies or they think that it is a load of rubbish. People have been living with foxes for donkey's years in London & the facts are that the vast majority support them. So much so that this Vet is going to get grief as a result of needlessly shooting the fox.

He chose to be a Vet & work in the public domain. He chose to publicise his killing of the fox, he chose to do interviews, he chose to parade the carcass like a trophy complete with grinning child & he will have to bear the consequences. He might be a good Vet but his judgement seems to be seriously flawed in the way that he has handled this.

At the moment he appears to be lying low as comments on UK forums suggest that people are trying to track him down to get an explanation. I believe that he has posted on a Falconry forum but did not mention the fox.

Vegeta

Discodog you need to look up the definition of the word "care" because you clearly don't understand it

Shanao

noodler wrote: »

Ah come the hell on, lie?
What exactly are you implying?

That they did themselves? - I certainly hope not as that would be a long way to go to try and argue our point

That it was an animal other than a fox? Well, open to suggestions there?

I have to agree with ISDW on this, when the story first came out, it started with an animal might have gotten in. That then became, they saw the fox outside the window which quickly transformed into the fox being in the room staring down the mother. As far as i can see, someone's telling a lie in there somewhere. Maybe a fox did it, but I still just cant understand why an animal would come into a house, ignore all the smells of food from the kitchen and instead make its way upstairs into the children's bedroom to savage not just one, but both babies? It just doesn't make sense to me. Foxes aren't humans, they dont kill for sport or fun, they kill to eat.

But anyway, on the topic of this vet who shot the fox, there had to be some other way. Surely they would want to do research into this phenomenon of a 'giant fox'? Why kill it? Why not tag it or put a radio collar on it and track it? Who says the fox even killed the cat anyway? Dogs have killed cats, plenty of dogs in fact will kill cats; catch them, break their backs and tear them apart, without hesitation. If there was a worry about a fox attack, then why was a nineteen year old cat sleeping on the doorstep anyway.

Certainly, people are going to argue with me on all this but I still just cant accept that the only answer was to shoot it. Not for a vet. And Discodog is right, he has paraded the carcass like a trophy, like he's proud of the fact that he killed the poor animal. I have no respect for a vet who will not do everything to ensure the welfare of animals, wild or otherwise.

Discodog

Vegeta wrote: »

Discodog you need to look up the definition of the word "care" because you clearly don't understand it

I assume you mean in relation to the oath sworn by Vets. If so then most people here know exactly what it means to entrust an animal to the care of Vet. The Vet is duty bound to do the best that he/she can do for the well being of the animal.

So why don't you enlighten us into a shooters view of caring for an animal ?.

homerhop

He might be a good Vet
This may well be the case and he may do his job when he is working in a very professional way.
But the man was on holidays, he was not called as a vet to look at the fox. He partakes in field sports be it hunting or falconry. He caught 2 foxes and dispatched them as a hunter which he is well entitled to do legally.



At the moment he appears to be lying low as comments on UK forums suggest that people are trying to track him down to get an explanation. I believe that he has posted on a Falconry forum but did not mention the fox.

So because certain people do not agree with what others do in their private lives, it gives them the right to stalk and bully a man who as you said may be very good at his job.

You do not want him hunting yet see no problems with him fishing, which when you break it down involves catching something with a metal spike, through the mouth, tongue, gills sometimes the side of the eye. Pulling it out of the water with that metal spike. Taking it out of its natural space into an area where it cannot get air. Perhaps miss handling it and damaging scales.

EGAR

I find it quite amusing how users from the hunting/shooting board come running onto the animal/pet section and post on topics like that only to disappear again afterwards.

Foxes attacking babies etc the press is at it again now with GIANT fox and local *heroes*.

I personally am sick and tired of numpties who pose next to dead animals and think they are the bees knees when in reality they are seriously compensating .

I posted earlier on this thread that I am feeding fox here and he leaves my chicken well enough alone. He also does not eat my cats. I am waiting for him to foxnap my son, maybe then I will be rich with all the interviews I can give to the gutter press.

Jeez!

doctor evil

Knine wrote: »

Surely such a large fox should be released with a radio collar, then they could track him and see what exactly he was up to, after of course they took bloods to see was there any reason he ended up so big.

Should the same be done with a large rat?

doctor evil

EGAR wrote: »

I find it quite amusing how users from the hunting/shooting board come running onto the animal/pet section and post on topics like that only to disappear again afterwards.


I posted earlier on this thread that I am feeding fox here and he leaves my chicken well enough alone. He also does not eat my cats. I am waiting for him

TBF hunters/shooters tend not to be represented in anything but a negative light on this forum.

Why would a fox risk possible injury or waste energy if a numpty is willing to feed him/her?

Feargal as Luimneach

doctor evil wrote: »

TBF hunters/shooters tend not to be represented in anything but a negative light on this forum.

Why would a fox risk possible injury or waste energy if a numpty is willing to feed him/her?

You whinge about hunters/shooters being protrayed in a negative light. Then in the next sentence you insult Egar by calling him/her a "numpty".
Pot calling the kettle black i'd say:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

EGAR

doctor evil wrote: »

TBF hunters/shooters tend not to be represented in anything but a negative light on this forum.

Why would a fox risk possible injury or waste energy if a numpty is willing to feed him/her?

Ahem, perhaps you ought to read my post again. I was refering to numpties who pose with dead animals .

My hens are still alive after the harshest weather we had in I don't know how long and therefore very hungry foxes. Who's the numpty now ?

Yawwwn, this is as tedious as ever.

Discodog

homerhop wrote: »

But the man was on holidays, he was not called as a vet to look at the fox.
You do not want him hunting yet see no problems with him fishing

You do not understand the principle of the Hippocratic oath. It is not just about when you are on duty. It is not a job description. It is a statement of your obligation to do your best for the welfare of animals in your care. It is a shortened version of the oath sworn by doctors.

Ask your own Vet - mine has no doubts that the Vet in question was in serious breach of the oath.

I would not be so extreme as to object to responsible fishing where the fish are treated with respect as is the environment. I would be concerned over the amount of irresponsible anglers who leave line & tackle that can entangle birds.

Discodog

EGAR wrote: »

I find it quite amusing how users from the hunting/shooting board come running onto the animal/pet section and post on topics like that only to disappear again afterwards.

I have taken this, especially the welcomed comment by a Hunting Forum Mod, that we are all welcome in the hunting forum & are free to present an anti hunting view without being accused of flaming, trolling or being verbally abused.

Discodog

doctor evil wrote: »

Should the same be done with a large rat?

If we discovered a rat that was over twice the size of a typical rat then, of course, we would need to study it to determine if it is a one off or a sign of a new species/mutation.

doctor evil wrote: »

TBF hunters/shooters tend not to be represented in anything but a negative light on this forum.

Try posting animal welfare & anti cruelty issues in the hunting forum. Personally I welcome hunters here but they have to accept that, as Seamus has already stated, the majority here oppose hunting.

I would be happy to post in the hunting forum to express my opinion & maybe make a few think again. In the same way I welcome the hunters coming here & trying to justify their sport.

We won't have much of a discussion if we all agree.

Discodog

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

Then in the next sentence you insult Egar by calling him/her a "numpty".
Pot calling the kettle black i'd say:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

EGAR is a numpty !. How else would you describe someone who has given a big chunk of her life to the care of animals & made great personal sacrifices.

Btw she's bonkers as well

meathstevie

Discodog wrote: »

If we discovered a rat that was over twice the size of a typical rat then, of course, we would need to study it to determine if it is a one off or a sign of a new species/mutation.



Try posting animal welfare & anti cruelty issues in the hunting forum. Personally I welcome hunters here but they have to accept that, as Seamus has already stated, the majority here oppose hunting.

I would be happy to post in the hunting forum to express my opinion & maybe make a few think again. In the same way I welcome the hunters coming here & trying to justify their sport.

We won't have much of a discussion if we all agree.

Discodog, in all fairness you are the sort of person who tends to try and play the ball and not the man and respect for that. Indeed I think we'll fundamentally disagree when it comes to hunting and that's probably a bridge that'll never be crossed.

Earlier on you made a comment about believing man has dominion over animals. I wouldn't put it in as biblical a way but yes I do believe that humans are an entitled to hunt just like any other carnivore or omnivore.

At the same time I hope ( often against better knowledge unfortunately ) humans are intelligent enough to not hunt ( poach ) endagered species and not to cause unnecessary pain and distress to the hunted animal.

homerhop

I find it quite amusing how users from the hunting/shooting board come running onto the animal/pet section and post on topics like that only to disappear again afterwards.

EGAR I have been reading this forum since I joined boards.

Foxes attacking babies etc the press is at it again now with GIANT fox and local *heroes*.

As I said earlier in this thread, paper never refused ink and you should know yourself when it comes to dealing with stereo typical comments made about restricted breeds and the type of people that want to own them,and what is printed and what the averge person may think is not always factual.
The same applies to hunting, we are not all knuckle dragging inbred numpty men and women.

I personally am sick and tired of numpties who pose next to dead animals and think they are the bees knees when in reality they are seriously compensating .

So what are those females who pose with dead animals over compensating for???:eek:

I posted earlier on this thread that I am feeding fox here and he leaves my chicken well enough alone. He also does not eat my cats. I am waiting for him to foxnap my son, maybe then I will be rich with all the interviews I can give to the gutter press.

I wish you all the best with your new found wealth and that it may bring you further success and happiness with your giant cat killing baby snatching fox

Fergal,
You post a lot in the hunting section and have even posted pics with comments about your dog hunting and killing rats. You are treated with respect in that forum and when anyone steps out of line with you the mods are pretty fast in nipping it in the bud.
There is actually a thread started in there at the moment by someone who is anti hunting and they have not been called silly names or abused in any way.

Discodog
I understand about the oath but I also believe that a person is entitled to partake in any legal activity in their private lives.

Ask your own Vet

My own vet runs a practice and he will tell you out straight that he hates small dogs and cats, he is a cattle and horse vet, but he has another vet in his clinic who is one of the kindest and most gentle person when it comes to small animals, and even though I may only have to deal with him once in a blue moon he always remembers my dogs names and enquires on their well being.

I would not be so extreme as to object to responsible fishing where the fish are treated with respect as is the environment. I would be concerned over the amount of irresponsible anglers who leave line & tackle that can entangle birds.

With fishing you do not know where the fish has been hooked until you have it out of the water.The majority of guys shooting with rifles will spend a lot of time ensuring their groupings are down to a minimum and know their capabilities when it comes to placement and taking a shot.
You and I have had long discussions without having to resort to name calling and petty stereo typing. You say what you feel as do I and we are sure to have more discussions in the future I hope.
Anti hunters can come on and and go down the stereo type route with the petty remarks and silly names, and hunters can do the same when it comes to anti hunters and it ends up just being a waste of time and space.

As much as anti hunters find it ironic that I can say I like animals and wildlife but yet I hunt, I too also find it ironic that these self same people see nothing wrong with hounding and badgering a person and their families out of a job, their home and in very extreme cases advocate the murder of humans.

EGAR

homerhop wrote: »

EGAR I have been reading this forum since I joined boards.

As I said earlier in this thread, paper never refused ink and you should know yourself when it comes to dealing with stereo typical comments made about restricted breeds and the type of people that want to own them,and what is printed and what the averge person may think is not always factual.
The same applies to hunting, we are not all knuckle dragging inbred numpty men and women.

Ahm, if you really read this board since you joined then you should know that I have no problem with hunting if it is done properly and the animal does not suffer. I am aware that numbers of certain species have to be controlled. As to why this is necessary is another story... . I do however have a HUGE problem with trophy, fox, carted stag etc hunting.

So what are those females who pose with dead animals over compensating for???:eek:

I did not know that the word *Numpty* was gender-bound. If not then it was you who made presumptions that I meant only males which, for the rescord, I did not.

I wish you all the best with your new found wealth and that it may bring you further success and happiness with your giant cat killing baby snatching fox

Maybe I can train him ... Keep your eyes fixed on the gutter press .

homerhop

EGAR wrote: »

Ahm, if you really read this board since you joined then you should know that I have no problem with hunting if it is done properly and the animal does not suffer. I am aware that numbers of certain species have to be controlled. As to why this is necessary is another story... . I do however have a HUGE problem with trophy, fox, carted stag etc hunting.

I did not know that the word *Numpty* was gender-bound. If not then it was you who made presumptions that I meant only males which, for the rescord, I did not.

Maybe I can train him ... Keep your eyes fixed on the gutter press .

EGAR I have no issues with you at all so I do apologise if you feel I was singling you out, I was just replying to your comment about those coming in from the shooting forum which i feel i am one of.

Again the over compensating term is something that i have only ever seen being used in terms of males and certain body bits, I have never seen it being used regarding females, so once again it is just the way I have read it and I have taken you up wrong.

Please do train him, I am sure there is a market out there for people looking to get rid of their problem neighbour kids, perhaps you could open a franchise!:D

EGAR

Oh women often have the same issues, just different body parts . Perhaps it also has something to do with my perception of women as nurturing which makes images of women posing next to dead animals even more vile to me.

I didn't see your post as having singled me out, I just thought I reply and re-iterate my stance on hunting.

If I become successful in my newfound business I will contact you for a franchise !