Giant Fox caught in Kent

Discodog

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Yes, people consider the fox a trophey. It looks impressive and Im sure trill hunters would love to parade a dead fox they have killed more so than a dead rat.

After he paraded it & posed with it I wonder what the Vet did with it ?.

Discodog

everypenny wrote: »

A pet cat has an owner. Its someones pet. I would have a moral issue with shooting that cat. A feral cat or a cat born in the wild however i would class as disease ridden and a pest to native wildlife. There for by reducing the numbers of these predators the species of song birds etc increase. Its the same reason i shoot magpies.

How would you know ?. An lost pet could appear feral. The owner could be out looking for it whilst you are shooting it.

Whispered

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The guy killed a trapped animal

I've asked about this already - do the hunters mean shooting a trapped fox when they say fox hunting, or do they mean tracking etc then shooting?

everypenny wrote: »

So can the vet. I don't think if i brought my dog to him he'd kill it and i think its unrealistic if not foolish to assume that a vet who hunts would be quick to kill someones pet. Firstly it wouldn't make good economic practice and secondly its a bit of a leap of an assumption.

Oooh are you bordering on calling me foolish? It is absolutely a leap, but as a paying customer, one I am entitled to make.

MACT1RE wrote: »

I was trying to show the difference between having an emotional attachment and a duty of care to a domesticated animal, and hunting a wild animal. A good vet and well balanced person should have an understanding of this.

ok I know what you mean but my example sort of negates that I feel. Can you comment on my example please? Although I do think that giving examples from one side to the other will just keep going

A vet will have no emotional attachment to most of the animals which come through their practise, I would be relying on them to make decisions based on their own "want" to do best by the animal.

Unfortunately there are a few "trigger happy" vets around. I would feel uncomfortable with going to a vet who has no problem with taking the life of a healthy animal. People who agree with what the vet did can call that foolish, or insinuate that I am not well balanced, but it appears that many people feel the same.:)

MACT1RE

Discodog wrote: »

What's the difference between your pet cat & the feral,

As a pet owner, I have a duty of care to my cat. It’s my responsibility to insure it remains fed, healthy and identifiable. If it had kittens, (which would be a new one for a Tom), it would be my responsibility to home them.

Discodog wrote: »

may of been a pet that was thrown out ?. Just because an animal is uncared for does that justify killing it.

Like I said, a feral cat is usually the direct result of human negligence or misguided sympathy. If I can no longer care for my cat or the kittens it may have, it is my responsibility to see it/them properly homed or failing that, put down. It is gross negligence and usually unduly cruel to simply “release” a domestic animal into the wild.

Discodog wrote: »

How would you know that it wasn't someone's pet ?.

That’s what collars are for, but even without a collar, any hunter worth his salt can tell the difference between a wild and a domesticated animal. It comes down to location, situation and identification.

Discodog wrote: »

And we are going way off topic again.

Yes we are.

everypenny

Whispered wrote: »

I've asked about this already - do the hunters mean shooting a trapped fox when they say fox hunting, or do they mean tracking etc then shooting?

Oooh are you bordering on calling me foolish? It is absolutely a leap, but as a paying customer, one I am entitled to make.

ok I know what you mean but my example sort of negates that I feel. Can you comment on my example please? Although I do think that giving examples from one side to the other will just keep going

A vet will have no emotional attachment to most of the animals which come through their practise, I would be relying on them to make decisions based on their own "want" to do best by the animal.

Unfortunately there are a few "trigger happy" vets around. I would feel uncomfortable with going to a vet who has no problem with taking the life of a healthy animal. People who agree with what the vet did can call that foolish, or insinuate that I am not well balanced, but it appears that many people feel the same.:)

Nope, wasn't my intention at all.
I think the trap in this case was food instead of a restraint trap. So in reality it was more of an ambush then a trap. He identified the route that the fos took into his parents garden and placed bait there. I would just like to make clear that no poisons were used in this bait as that is an illegal and cruel practice. But by positioning the food in a certain place it meant that the fox would be in a position to be dispatched quickly and cleanly.
The definition of hunting in essence is the capture of or killing of an animal, thats what he did.

Discodog

Whispered wrote: »

Unfortunately there are a few "trigger happy" vets around. I would feel uncomfortable with going to a vet who has no problem with taking the life of a healthy animal. People who agree with what the vet did can call that foolish, or insinuate that I am not well balanced, but it appears that many people feel the same.:)

So true especially amongst large animal vets that don't often deal with companion animals & older Vets.

Hunters & their supporters will rally to support the Vet. It is very good PR for Hunting if a Vet partakes in the "sport". The Hunting Lobby in the UK will be monitoring the RCVS.

MACT1RE

Shanao wrote: »

I'm sorry, what? You're saying that your answer to human negligence, is to shoot the poor animal that's been neglected?

Do you want to attempt to catch and take home a feral cat which is usually diseased and vicious? If so, be my guest.

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

So true especially amongst large animal vets that don't often deal with companion animals & older Vets.

Hunters & their supporters will rally to support the Vet. It is very good PR for Hunting if a Vet partakes in the "sport". The Hunting Lobby in the UK will be monitoring the RCVS.

And anti hunt supporters will rally against him. Its very good PR to vilify a man based on one known action.

How is it true amongst large animal vets and older vets? Is that another assumption or is it more opinion? You freely throw statements around as if its fact but rarley back it up with evidence. I have no problem with personal opinions, but it should be stated as such.

Discodog

The RCVS are confirming that they have received a number of complaints regarding the Vet. They will no longer comment until the matter is investigated.

http://twitter.com/rcvs_uk

Shanao

MACT1RE wrote: »

Do you want to attempt to catch and take home a feral cat which is usually diseased and vicious? If so, be my guest.

I have, several times in fact. It isn't impossible to tame them you know. It just takes time and patience.

ISDW

everypenny wrote: »

A pet cat has an owner. Its someones pet. I would have a moral issue with shooting that cat. A feral cat or a cat born in the wild however i would class as disease ridden and a pest to native wildlife. There for by reducing the numbers of these predators the species of song birds etc increase. Its the same reason i shoot magpies.

As we've been talking legalities throughout this thread, no a pet cat does not have an owner, cats legally aren't owned which is why they can be and are treated so badly. But its also why they can wander as they do, into other people's gardens etc, and nobody is legally responsible for them, so no action can be taken against their 'custodian' like it could be for a dog.

I don't see why the vet was justified in killing the fox because he thought it had killed his parent's cat. I am not saying the cat deserved to die, but that cat has probably killed a fair few mice and birds in its time, especially as it was left to sleep outside. Why did the vet not kill the cat? Its crime would have been the same as the fox. Double standards?

ISDW

MACT1RE wrote: »

Do you want to attempt to catch and take home a feral cat which is usually diseased and vicious? If so, be my guest.

Lots of people do, very successfully. I used to have a black cat that was born as a feral, he was a great pet.

Discodog

everypenny wrote: »

And anti hunt supporters will rally against him. Its very good PR to vilify a man based on one known action.

How is it true amongst large animal vets and older vets? Is that another assumption or is it more opinion? You freely throw statements around as if its fact but rarley back it up with evidence. I have no problem with personal opinions, but it should be stated as such.

We all express personal opinion - that is why we are here. Evidence is required when you claim to express the views of someone else. In this forum we discuss personal experiences. Whispered didn't say it without reason & neither do I.

I have met & worked with dozens of Vets. Anyone working in rescue has & we all know that Vets differ as to whether they recommend treatment or PTS. I have seen plenty of cases where volunteers would wait until the "right" Vet was on duty to avoid a PTS.

A Vet who deals primarily with farm animals will know that the cost of treatment is balanced against the commercial value of the animal which is never a consideration with companion animals.

MACT1RE

Whispered wrote: »

ok I know what you mean but my example sort of negates that I feel. Can you comment on my example please? Although I do think that giving examples from one side to the other will just keep going

If the dog was to be cared for, as all domestic animals should be, and was not suffering, then I would not suggest putting him down. But it was up to you not the hunter.

Whispered wrote: »

A vet will have no emotional attachment to most of the animals which come through their practise,

No, but he should recognize the attachment the owner has and act accordingly.

MACT1RE

Shanao wrote: »

I have, several times in fact. It isn't impossible to tame them you know. It just takes time and patience.

My hats off to you then. Tell me, can you do that for every other feral one in the country?

No?

Well then I guess "Catch and Re-home" isn't going to solve the feral cat problem in the country so I will have to go on shooting them when seen as after all they are an alien introduction in the country side.

everypenny

Discodog wrote: »

I have met & worked with dozens of Vets. Anyone working in rescue has & we all know that Vets differ as to whether they recommend treatment or PTS. I have seen plenty of cases where volunteers would wait until the "right" Vet was on duty to avoid a PTS.

So if you have to wait for the ''right vets'' then why don't you submit a complaint against the wrong ones as you have against the vet who shot the fox?

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:

Even worse is the sick way it was photographed? So taking a picture of it is worse then shooting it. Why not ask that his camera be taken away so?

everypenny

MACT1RE wrote: »

My hats off to you then. Tell me, can you do that for every other feral one in the country?

No?

Well then I guess "Catch and Re-home" isn't going to solve the feral cat problem in the country so I will have to go on shooting them when seen as after all they are an alien introduction in the country side.

+ 1, as it is pet owners in this country cant even take care of animals currently in care, let alone the ammount that have been released and have bred in the wild.

Shanao

I apologise, but I have to say that I'm regretting entering this conversation. The fact that I now have to read as two people pat each other on the back for shooting cats is upsetting to say the least. There are dozens of rescues in this country doing everything they can for the feral cat population, if i could save them all I would. I admit that there is a problem, but shooting them? Really?

everypenny

Shanao wrote: »

I apologise, but I have to say that I'm regretting entering this conversation. The fact that I now have to read as two people pat each other on the back for shooting cats is upsetting to say the least. There are dozens of rescues in this country doing everything they can for the feral cat population, if i could save them all I would. I admit that there is a problem, but shooting them? Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia

Non native species when released and bred in the wild cause untold damage to native populations. Under foxes in this link, the australian government recognises that shooting is the best form of control.

MACT1RE

Shanao wrote: »

I apologise, but I have to say that I'm regretting entering this conversation. The fact that I now have to read as two people pat each other on the back for shooting cats is upsetting to say the least. There are dozens of rescues in this country doing everything they can for the feral cat population, if i could save them all I would. I admit that there is a problem, but shooting them? Really?

I do not go out to hunt cats, feral or otherwise.
You admit they are a problem and that re-homing them all is not a viable solution for them all. Does that mean I should ignore the ones remaining in the wild where they have no business being?
There either is a problem or there isn't. You either have a total solution or you don't. If not then hunters who care about the country side will have to offer their own solution when they meet them. Its not what I go out for but its something I’m will to do to protect our countryside.
As with most things in life the problem is better addressed at the source, before they become discarded.

Discodog

everypenny wrote: »

So if you have to wait for the ''right vets'' then why don't you submit a complaint against the wrong ones as you have against the vet who shot the fox?

Even worse is the sick way it was photographed? So taking a picture of it is worse then shooting it. Why not ask that his camera be taken away so?

Because the Vets would be treating a sick animal whereas the Vet shot a healthy one in a trap.

Photographic & parading it is in direct contradiction to his obligation to treat animals with respect. In many people eyes this is actually as bad as shooting it.

One of the organisations that have formally complained to the RCVS is the Fox rescue that covers Kent & that would of taken it.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Fox-Project/143198679641

Feargal as Luimneach

MACT1RE wrote: »

I do not go out to hunt cats, feral or otherwise.
You admit they are a problem and that re-homing them all is not a viable solution for them all. Does that mean I should ignore the ones remaining in the wild where they have no business being?
There either is a problem or there isn't. You either have a total solution or you don't. If not then hunters who care about the country side will have to offer their own solution when they meet them. Its not what I go out for but its something I’m will to do to protect our countryside.
As with most things in life the problem is better addressed at the source, before they become discarded.

Trap/neuter/release can be very effective way of controlling feral cat population.

Discodog

MACT1RE wrote: »

I do not go out to hunt cats, feral or otherwise.
You admit they are a problem and that re-homing them all is not a viable solution for them all. Does that mean I should ignore the ones remaining in the wild where they have no business being?
There either is a problem or there isn't. You either have a total solution or you don't. If not then hunters who care about the country side will have to offer their own solution when they meet them. Its not what I go out for but its something I’m will to do to protect our countryside.
As with most things in life the problem is better addressed at the source, before they become discarded.

So what steps would you take to ensure that you are not killing someone's beloved pet like your own ?.

Shanao

MACT1RE wrote: »

I do not go out to hunt cats, feral or otherwise.
You admit they are a problem and that re-homing them all is not a viable solution for them all. Does that mean I should ignore the ones remaining in the wild where they have no business being?
There either is a problem or there isn't. You either have a total solution or you don't. If not then hunters who care about the country side will have to offer their own solution when they meet them. Its not what I go out for but its something I’m will to do to protect our countryside.
As with most things in life the problem is better addressed at the source, before they become discarded.

There is a solution, it is known as trap and neuter. The feral cat population will dwindle as the cats are neutered; therefore meaning less and less kittens every year. Who are you to deny them life when all they are doing is trying to survive? As far as I can see, we humans are the ones destroying the countryside, not the animals. The American wildcat and Scottish wildcats haven't wiped out songbirds, I sincerely doubt that feral cats are going to either.

MACT1RE

Discodog wrote: »

So what steps would you take to ensure that you are not killing someone's beloved pet like your own ?.

I answered that question earlier.

MACT1RE

Shanao wrote: »

There is a solution, it is known as trap and neuter. The feral cat population will dwindle as the cats are neutered; therefore meaning less and less kittens every year. Who are you to deny them life when all they are doing is trying to survive? As far as I can see, we humans are the ones destroying the countryside, not the animals. The American wildcat and Scottish wildcats haven't wiped out songbirds, I sincerely doubt that feral cats are going to either.

Leaving them in the Irish countryside is not a solution. It’s just more misguided sympathy.

Feargal as Luimneach

Shanao wrote: »

There is a solution, it is known as trap and neuter. The feral cat population will dwindle as the cats are neutered; therefore meaning less and less kittens every year. Who are you to deny them life when all they are doing is trying to survive? As far as I can see, we humans are the ones destroying the countryside, not the animals. The American wildcat and Scottish wildcats haven't wiped out songbirds, I sincerely doubt that feral cats are going to either.

Feral cats are threatening endangered corncrakes on Tory Island:(
http://www.3rdworldpets.com/bird-blog/at-last-a-cull-of-feral-cats-on-tory-island-to-protect-the-corncrakes/

Discodog

MACT1RE wrote: »

I answered that question earlier.

MACT1RE wrote: »

That’s what collars are for, but even without a collar, any hunter worth his salt can tell the difference between a wild and a domesticated animal. It comes down to location, situation and identification.

If this is what you mean can you elaborate. Cats can move huge distances so how is location relevant in making sure that you are not killing a pet ?.

How can you identify a feral cat because I don't think that I could & certainly not sure enough to shoot it ?. Just because it acts feral doesn't mean that it is not just a scared pet.

Discodog

Feargal as Luimneach wrote: »

Feral cats are threatening endangered corncrakes on Tory Island:(
http://www.3rdworldpets.com/bird-blog/at-last-a-cull-of-feral-cats-on-tory-island-to-protect-the-corncrakes/

Yes but they weren't shot & great care was taken to protect pet cats.

"For the protection of people and other animals that frequent the island, the feral cats were caught and euthanised humanely," said Sandy Alcorn, a corncrake field worker with Birdwatch Ireland.
"We took photographs of all the pet cats and provided them with collars before we started to catch the feral cats in humane traps and euthanise them," she said.
A vet has since made two trips to the island to neuter the domestic cat population.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/cat-cull-on-donegal-island-14578232.html#ixzz1Ale7voBj


Can't imagine MACT1RE or everpenny doing this.

Whispered

Discodog wrote: »

Anyone working in rescue has & we all know that Vets differ as to whether they recommend treatment or PTS. I have seen plenty of cases where volunteers would wait until the "right" Vet was on duty to avoid a PTS.

It is very true that vets differ in their treatment or pts. It's unfortunate. And it's not an opinion, it's fact.

I am very very uncomfortable reading people talk about how they shoot cats. Can you please clarify how you can tell a feral from a domestic. People who have rescued for years wouldn't presume enough to make that call. People invest time and money into humanely reducing the population of feral cats, you don't know if you're shooting an animal someone has spent months working with. I personally think the conversation has hit a low when we are talking about killing domestic animals and having people congratulate themselves on "helping"

Tell me, can you do that for every other feral one in the country

If everybody took that view about things, nothing would ever be done.