Fox bites off baby's finger in London

yubabill1

Thought this deserved its own thread.

Fox entered four-week-old's bedroom and attacked face. Mother heard cries and entered tug-of-war with fox.

Twins attaced in similar fashion in London 2010, serious facial, arm injuries.

Child attacked by another fox in UK in 2002.

http://news.sky.com/story/1050008/fox-bites-off-babys-finger-in-cot-attack

Cavan duck buster

An RSPCA spokeswoman said the only reason a fox would attack is due to fear.

How the hell is a 1 month baby fearful???

And also dose a fox attack a rat,rabbit or chicken because of fear?... NO thay are hunting and a deadly animal and NEED to be controled!!!

John_Rambo

Cavan duck buster wrote: »

NEED

I think the humans need the educational lesson here, not the animal. When this happens the problem is solved.

yubabill1

Cavan duck buster wrote: »

An RSPCA spokeswoman said the only reason a fox would attack is due to fear.

How the hell is a 1 month baby fearful??? QUOTE]

Think they are saying the fox only attacks when fearing for its safety: Not entirely true any more.

Why do they have to consult the RSPCA every time? What cruelty was perpetrated on this fox?

interize

Well anyone hear about the fox attack in London, a fox dragged a one month old baby from his cot mauled and bit one of the child's fingers off, maybe now people might realize fox are wild animals and not this cuddly animal they are portrayed as.

mister gullible

This thread seems a bit like an anti anti rant . It's also been discussed before on threads.

OpenYourEyes

I think it was the 2002 incident that fell apart under further scrutiny in the weeks following the initial report. The story went from "fox came in the window and attacked baby" to "baby had injuries...window was open....fox was seen down the garden a few weeks before".

There's also the strong possibility that some of these stories are blaming foxes to cover up for a dog or maybe cat, so that the family pet doesnt have to be destroyed.The number of dog, cat and even ferret attacks in the UK are much higher than fox ones, and some dog and cat ones have caused fatalities whereas nothing comparable has ever been done by urban foxes.

Like John Rambo said above (if I'm interpreting what he said correctly), I think the parents should be looked at more seriously in these (few) incidents - why was their very small baby left alone at all, let alone in a situation where a wild animal could possibly get in and have any kind of contact with it?



And I say all of this while completely acknowledging the need for fox control in the countryside. The reasons for fox control in the countryside stand up on their own, without the need to portray urban foxes as baby-attackers using questionable tabloid-fodder like these stories.

yubabill1

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Like John Rambo said above (if I'm interpreting what he said correctly), I think the parents should be looked at more seriously in these (few) incidents - why was their very small baby left alone at all, let alone in a situation where a wild animal could possibly get in and have any kind of contact with it?



And I say all of this while completely acknowledging the need for fox control in the countryside. The reasons for fox control in the countryside stand up on their own, without the need to portray urban foxes as baby-attackers using questionable tabloid-fodder like these stories.

Certainly, the police were involved heavily in the 2010 incident and the present one. Sign o the times, I suppose.

Anyone remember the Aussie dingo baby snatch in 1980?

John_Rambo

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Like John Rambo said above (if I'm interpreting what he said correctly), I think the parents should be looked at more seriously in these (few) incidents

I was aiming at people leaving food out for them on their property making mister madra rua associate direct contact (with humans) with food. We just need to keep our city foxes afraid of us. A short media campaign along with a leaflet drop in heavily fox populated areas would do the trick.

Kids nap with windows open in the summer, I napped in the garden in my pram when I was a nipper.

yubabill1 wrote: »

Anyone remember the Aussie dingo baby snatch in 1980?

Yeah, mad story. Cops made a balls of the case, I think the authorities recently admitted it had to have been a dingo after all those years.

Longranger

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I think it was the 2002 incident that fell apart under further scrutiny in the weeks following the initial report. The story went from "fox came in the window and attacked baby" to "baby had injuries...window was open....fox was seen down the garden a few weeks before".

There's also the strong possibility that some of these stories are blaming foxes to cover up for a dog or maybe cat, so that the family pet doesnt have to be destroyed.The number of dog, cat and even ferret attacks in the UK are much higher than fox ones, and some dog and cat ones have caused fatalities whereas nothing comparable has ever been done by urban foxes.

Like John Rambo said above (if I'm interpreting what he said correctly), I think the parents should be looked at more seriously in these (few) incidents - why was their very small baby left alone at all, let alone in a situation where a wild animal could possibly get in and have any kind of contact with it?



And I say all of this while completely acknowledging the need for fox control in the countryside. The reasons for fox control in the countryside stand up on their own, without the need to portray urban foxes as baby-attackers using questionable tabloid-fodder like these stories.

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous.
Firstly,Do you expect all parents of new babies to sit by them 24/7:rolleyes:?. Secondly,I would imagine that most city dwellers would not expect countryside animals to be a threat to their families.
Thirdly,while fox(and other vermin)control is a fact of countryside life,the fact remains that urban foxes are relatively recent(first reported in london in the the 1930's)and,with estimates of around 10,000(2006),confrontations are inevitable.

I'm just wondering what it will take for people to stop making excuses,blaming parents and admit that foxes are,on rare occasions,potentially dangerous and not always cute and innocent.
Foxes are clever and opportunistic predators,and sometimes trapping or culling is the only way to curb numbers. If it was a wolf on the continent or scandinavia it would be either trapped or shot as soon as possible. Granted,foxes are smaller but just as smart and can be a lot bolder. One simple fact is that wolves have a history of conflict with humans and have been demonised for centuries,while foxes are usually portrayed as cute and helpless,or sneaky and cowardly.

The main problem IMO is the likes of TV shows like "Wild in the city" and so on,encouraging people to bring them into their gardens and feed them. If the food is not there,neither will the red fella. People need to know to leave well enough alone.
Anyway,rant over.
My lift is outside,time to hit the countryside with the dog for some good old fashioned charlie control:D:D:D

Solair

Seems to me that it might be an issue with people feeding wild animals.

The whole notion of feeding foxes is relatively new too.

They're wild animals well capable of fending for themselves. Encouraging them into your garden or house isn't a good idea. They're not pet dogs or cats.

OpenYourEyes

Longranger wrote: »

I'm sorry but that is ridiculous.
Firstly,Do you expect all parents of new babies to sit by them 24/7:rolleyes:?. Secondly,I would imagine that most city dwellers would not expect countryside animals to be a threat to their families.
Thirdly,while fox(and other vermin)control is a fact of countryside life,the fact remains that urban foxes are relatively recent(first reported in london in the the 1930's)and,with estimates of around 10,000(2006),confrontations are inevitable.

I'm just wondering what it will take for people to stop making excuses,blaming parents and admit that foxes are,on rare occasions,potentially dangerous and not always cute and innocent.
Foxes are clever and opportunistic predators,and sometimes trapping or culling is the only way to curb numbers. If it was a wolf on the continent or scandinavia it would be either trapped or shot as soon as possible. Granted,foxes are smaller but just as smart and can be a lot bolder. One simple fact is that wolves have a history of conflict with humans and have been demonised for centuries,while foxes are usually portrayed as cute and helpless,or sneaky and cowardly.

The main problem IMO is the likes of TV shows like "Wild in the city" and so on,encouraging people to bring them into their gardens and feed them. If the food is not there,neither will the red fella. People need to know to leave well enough alone.
Anyway,rant over.
My lift is outside,time to hit the countryside with the dog for some good old fashioned charlie control:D:D:D

No I don't, but not leaving the window wide open would be an idea! The chances of a fox thinking of trying to get into a window that's only half or partly open would be vanishingly small (although the number of fox attacks are vanishingly small anyway).
And I think parents should think their few-weeks old child coming into contact with any wild animal, especially one thats very similar to a dog, would be a bad idea! Again, the number of reported fox attacks are vanishingly small so its probably something most people wouldn't consider, but needless to say a bit of cop on goes a long way.

And I'm surprised to hear that urban foxes are so recent, but I agree that confrontations are almost inevitable, but to say that urban foxes are attacking children and are a problem because of that is nonsense when there's thousands of them in every city and the most we can name is 3 very questionable cases where there has been an attack, and that takes into account Ireland and all of the UK.

So to say 3 very questionable fox attacks in 13+years constitutes justification for curbing urban fox numbers, is wrong. There are plenty of reasons to curb their numbers in the countryside, but in urban areas its different.

I agree that feeding urban foxes isn't always a particularly smart idea though.

Longranger

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

No I don't, but not leaving the window wide open would be an idea! The chances of a fox thinking of trying to get into a window that's only half or partly open would be vanishingly small (although the number of fox attacks are vanishingly small anyway).
And I think parents should think their few-weeks old child coming into contact with any wild animal, especially one thats very similar to a dog, would be a bad idea! Again, the number of reported fox attacks are vanishingly small so its probably something most people wouldn't consider, but needless to say a bit of cop on goes a long way.

And I'm surprised to hear that urban foxes are so recent, but I agree that confrontations are almost inevitable, but to say that urban foxes are attacking children and are a problem because of that is nonsense when there's thousands of them in every city and the most we can name is 3 very questionable cases where there has been an attack, and that takes into account Ireland and all of the UK.

So to say 3 very questionable fox attacks in 13+years constitutes justification for curbing urban fox numbers, is wrong. There are plenty of reasons to curb their numbers in the countryside, but in urban areas its different.

I agree that feeding urban foxes isn't always a particularly smart idea though.

Where did I say anything about the number of attacks? Also, I never said anything specific about attack on children. When foxes find themselves in an urban environment they are a problem for many householders because they drag bins all over the place, can cause untold problems for people who keep birds, ie.pigeons, chickens and other domestic and pet birds, cats and occasionally pups. Also many urban foxes carry mange, which is a nightmare for any dog owner. Maybe you disagree, but in my mind that is justice enough to try and control their numbers.

John_Rambo

Longranger wrote: »

but in my mind that is justice enough to try and control their numbers.

Education is the way forward, I don't think it's a good idea if one part of society is lecturing another on how to manage their wildlife.

EP90

I think I’ll wait for the full version of the story before I jump on the band wagon.

I would be interested to know/read the statistics for “untold problems for people who keep birds, ie.pigeons, chickens and other domestic and pet birds, cats and occasionally pups “
Just for a balanced view of London life.
I do believe that culling of city foxes by professionals takes place when deemed necessary .

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

................. their wildlife.

Their ?????????????????

No one owns it. Especially when it comes to managing. Everyone wants to fight for the "rights" of foxes and other animals, but when it comes to the practical application of a plan or even getting involved they shrivel up and slink away. IOW no more shouting to be done so no more interest.


I don't believe that three "attacks" constitutes a serious problem. I also don't believe that one attack should be tolerated. However the same people that feed the foxes, and call those that hunt or cull them "murderers" are the first to call for "vengeance" when the cuddly little animal gives them a glimpse of their true nature.

People attach emotions, and feeling to these animals that they simply do not have. Then are astounded and shocked when they act naturally. The simple fact is a fox is a scavenger, and opportunist. It will take an easy meal, in whatever shape, when it gets it. I seen on the news today video of people opening their doors, and recording wild foxes coming into their homes to eat from the family pet's bowl. Will not be as funny when the fox decides the family pet is tastier or a threat/rival. Or when one of the children get bitten.


Education is important, but until people stop humanising wild animals, and this education is parred with an effective, and perspective culling program nothing will change.

Sparks

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

why was their very small baby left alone at all

Speaking as a new father, feck off.
You *have* to leave them alone at times, even if they're only 20 feet away in the next room. Otherwise, you'd never be able to wash their clothes/muslins/blankets/etc, sterilise bottles/soothers, wash/feed/clean yourself, or do any of the things you have to do to keep them healthy. You might spend 23 hours beside them, but you'll need that extra hour

Besides, sleeping with them in the bed with you gets you lots of wagging fingers and frowns these days from the nurses and doctors (even though it was how it was done when I was a newborn), so even "best practice" has them isolated from you by a distance, even if they're in the same room (and if you're asleep, that's perfectly sufficient for an attack in some situations).

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

No one owns it. Especially when it comes to managing

I'm sure if I arrived over to Laois from Dublin and started telling you how much foxes you should and shouldn't shoot you'd change your tune.

@ Sparks, congratulations, some father/daughter/son stalking to be done in the future.

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

I'm sure if I arrived over to Laois from Dublin and started telling you how much foxes you should and shouldn't shoot you'd change your tune. .

You can tell me, and i can choose to listen or not, but it still does not mean that every/any wild animal is mine, your's, his, her's, ours, etc. Nor do i have any right to them.

To tell someone they have no right to talk to me because they are from a different part of country is stupid. If they have good info to share i'm always willing to listen. Frankly if this debate goes down the "country vs city" route i'll walk away now thanks.

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

To tell someone they have no right to talk to me because they are from a different part of country is stupid

I didn't say that.

I think we will agree to disagree Cass, I'm surrounded by wildlife and I like it! I'm willing to take the tiny tiny risks and take precautions. I reckon a small media campaign and leaflet drop with a simple message would nip the problems in the bud.

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

I didn't say that.

Really;

John_Rambo wrote: »

Education is the way forward, I don't think it's a good idea if one part of society is lecturing another on how to manage their wildlife.

And if i did't take the above as meaning that well then this finalised it for me;

John_Rambo wrote:

I'm sure if I arrived over to Laois from Dublin and started telling you how much foxes you should and shouldn't shoot you'd change your tune

you are making distinctions between groups, and parts of the country. So if that is not what you meant then perhaps a better explanation is called for. Maybe a little mor etime typing about exactly what it is you mean.

I think we will agree to disagree Cass

I never agreed with you at all. Thats the point.

, I'm surrounded by wildlife and I like it! I'm willing to take the tiny tiny risks and take precautions.

No idea what you mean by "tiny tiny risks, and take precautions". Please explain.

I reckon a small media campaign and leaflet drop with a simple message would nip the problems in the bud.

Not a hope. You are fooling yourself if you think a bunch of leaflets will solve urban encroachment by foxes. You need proper, constant education, people willing to listen, a respective and sustained culling scheme and all of it spread out over many months if not years.

There is no quick fix solution here. Not only are you trying to break the habits of people, but also the foxes. Last i checked they don't care much for leaflets. Killing them all is not an option or at least not one that i think should be entertained not least of which because it's not possible.

John_Rambo

I said it's not a good idea, I certainly didn't tell you had no right to talk Cass, big difference. When I say tiny risks, I mean there are tiny risks of attacks by wild animals.

Again, I think we'll agree to disagree.

EDIT.. sorry, i am referring to my area where there are foxes, I reckon a leaflet drop would do the trick, educate people before there's an incident. RE the London problem, I don't know, I haven't been there in ages.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

I said it's not a good idea, I certainly didn't tell you had no right to talk Cass , big difference.............

You have misread my post. Read it again. I never claimed you told to me i had no right to talk. We were talking hypothetically about you coming down to Laois to tell me how many foxes i should or should nt shoot. I answered with the same hypothetical situation in mind. My comment was based on your post above it so i don't understand how you could have misunderstood.

When I say tiny risks, I mean there are tiny risks of attacks by wild animals.

You said;

John_Rambo wrote:

I'm willing to take the tiny tiny risks and take precautions

So with keeping your explanation about the risks of animal attacks in mind what do you mean when you say you are willing to take those risks, and you have taken precautions.

Again, I think we'll agree to disagree.

Again - No.

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

You have misread my post

Nope, I understood it perfectly.

Cass wrote: »

So with keeping your explanation about the risks of animal attacks in mind what do you mean when you say you are willing to take those risks, and you have taken precautions.

Well, I don't feed them, I act responsibly, I don't litter or leave food lying around and I'm willing to take the tiny risk of having them around.

Cass wrote: »

Again - No.

Well, if you won't even agree to disagree we won't get much further! Goodbye, carry on, etc....

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

Nope, I understood it perfectly.

Apparently not.

I certainly didn't tell you had no right to talk Cass

Please point out where i accused you of this?

Well, I don't feed them, I act responsibly, I don't litter or leave food lying around and I'm willing to take the tiny risk of having them around.

But they shouldn't be around. Plus you can do all the right things, and if everyone else on your street, neightbour, etc. is doing the complete opposite what good does it do.

Foxes need to be deterred, removed from areas, and if necessary culled. The people that encourage the current behaviour of foxes by feeding them, treating them as novelty acts, pets, humanising them. They need to cop on.

Well, if you won't even agree to disagree we won't get much further! Goodbye, carry on, etc....

I'll agree where it's appropriate, and even agree when i cannot come to an agreement, but so far you have not shown anything remotely like a solution. The idea of a leaflet campaign is not a solution but a small part of a much larger resolution.

You then misread my posts, accused me of making accusations, and continued to make unclear comments. Hence my less than willing attempt to fill in the blanks on your behalf.

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

The idea of a leaflet campaign is not a solution but a small part of a much larger resolution

There isn't any fox - human conflict where I live. I said a media campaign and a concentrated leaflet drop in areas populated by foxes, educate before something happnes... Remember the old ad on TV in the seventies where the family labrador chasing sheep? Very affective campaign. Education is the answer.

Cass wrote: »

But they shouldn't be around

I disagree.

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

Education is the answer.

Education is part of the answer. Not the answer.

Remember the old ad on TV in the seventies where the family labrador chasing sheep? Very affective campaign.

No, was only around on the latter half of the seventies. Not sure how you remember them????????

I disagree.

Again with the one liners. Why? Explain.

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

Education is part of the answer. Not the answer.

I think it's the answer. Nothing has happened, nobody has been attacked, or hurt, I reckon, seeing what's happening in London, a precautionary measure would be a good idea. No need for a cull.

Cass wrote: »

No, was only around on the latter half of the seventies. Not sure how you remember them????????

What do you mean? The fact that I remember it proves what a good campaign it is.

Cass wrote: »

Again with the one liners. Why? Explain.

I live beside a 190 acre woodland and a large island nature reserve, most people I live near like the fact that we have foxes, barn owls, badgers, kestrels, perigrines, etc... the fox population is healthy and although they go through our gardens at night, they are fairly fearful of people.

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think it's the answer. Nothing has happened, nobody has been attacked, or hurt, I reckon, seeing what's happening in London, a precautionary measure would be a good idea. No need for a cull.

Could not disagree more. Prevention is better than cure. If we take a lax attitude now then when there is an incident it'll be more kneejerk re-action, and calls for mass culling. Better to have controlled healthy populations.

I live beside a 190 acre woodland and a large island nature reserve, most people I live near like the fact that we have foxes, barn owls, badgers, kestrels, perigrines, etc... the fox population is healthy and although they go through our gardens at night, they are fairly fearful of people.

So they are tolerated/liked because there has not been an incident. As soon as something does happen watch the change in attitude.

Also familiarity breeds complacency. Either the foxes or the people will get "too friendly". They should not be treated like that. They are wild, and should be deterred from any human interaction no matter how small.

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

Prevention is better than cure

Prevention through education. Just like the dog worrying sheep ad you are confused about me remembering.

Cass wrote: »

So they are tolerated/liked because there has not been an incident..

So are lots of things! I was out last night in Dublin bay and was followed by two seals, there wasn't an incident, I was out in Spanish Point two weeks ago and got buzzed by a dolphin, there wasn't an incident.

As I said, there is a tiny risk, but a lot of people are prepared to live side by side with wildlife. With education and respect it's possible. You may not like it, but it happens all over the world.

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

Prevention through education.

Education, and action. Meaningful, constant action.

Just like the dog worrying sheep ad you are confused about me remembering.

What?

So are lots of things! I was out last night in Dublin bay and was followed by two seals, there wasn't an incident, I was out in Spanish Point two weeks ago and got buzzed by a dolphin, there wasn't an incident.

Yeah thats the same. So many dolphins, and seals attacking children, pets, fowl, livestock. Exactly the same. :rolleyes:

Seriously that comparison is so far out you might as well be on the island where the seals are.

As I said, there is a tiny risk, but a lot of people are prepared to live side by side with wildlife. With education and respect it's possible. You may not like it, but it happens all over the world.

My liking has nothing to do with the issue. I do not like that foxes were so tolerated, and liked that the child at the centre of this thread got hurt yet it happened. I do not like the villainous reputation hunters have, but yet are called upon when needed yet it happens.

You keep beating the education drum, and so far i have not disagreed with you on that aspect, but your claim that educating people will suffice is flawed. People can be educated, but not all will follow or listen. Then it does not solve the issue of the fox, and it's nature. From years or generations of being fed in urban areas, being around people, etc it will not change it's habits simply because got a leaflet telling them not to feed them.

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

What?

You know well what, you seemed surprised that I remember the ad.

Cass wrote: »

So many dolphins, and seals attacking children, pets, fowl, livestock. Exactly the same. :rolleyes:

Roll you're eyes all you want, know any trawler men? Been to Tramore lately? Know any commercial divers? Seals can be grumpy, territorial fookers and they are the size of Cian Healy, Dolphins are very very strong wild animals, there has been accidents and they have attacked in the past.

Cass wrote: »

Seriously that comparison is so far out you might as well be on the island where the seals are.

It's not really.

Cass wrote: »

I do not like that foxes were so tolerated

Edit... they were more than tolerated obviously! there were fed and encouraged.

Cass wrote: »

I do not like the villainous reputation hunters have

Neither do I. My friends that hunt are sound.

Cass wrote: »

You keep beating the education drum, and so far i have not disagreed with you on that aspect, but your claim that educating people will suffice is flawed. People can be educated, but not all will follow or listen. Then it does not solve the issue of the fox, and it's nature. From years or generations of being fed in urban areas, being around people, etc it will not change it's habits simply because got a leaflet telling them not to feed them.

Again (and again) it's more than a leaflet, a media campaign can be incredibly effective.

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

You know well what, you seemed surprised that I remember the ad.

No i don't. Anyway not important.

Roll you're eyes all you want, know any trawler men? Been to Tramore lately? Know any commercial divers? Seals can be grumpy, territorial fookers and they are the size of Cian Healy, Dolphins are very very strong wild animals, there has been accidents and they have attacked in the past.

Cop on. I've tried to remain polite, but that's bollix. Pure and simple. comparing a dolphin to a fox. Foxes are everywhere in Ireland. People see them daily, weekly, monthly. No matter the frequency i'd say you would be hard pushed to find a person that has not seen one. So comparing them to dolphins, and seals is beyond idiotic. I've never seen nor come close to a seal/dolphin. I can name a 100 other people i know that are the same. I'm sure they can name hundred more each that also have never seen one.

A seal or dolphin is not going to raid a chicken coup, attack a child, chase a lamb/sheep, harass pets, feed from my back door. I cannot believe i am reduced to having to explain away such a nonsensical mashup of thoughts that have made you think a dolphin or seal poses the same risks to children, people, livestock as a fox.

It's not really.

Yes it is. The more i try to make you understand how stupid it is the more it defies logic that anyone can think it is.

Tough.

Great rebuttal. Need i use the rolleyes emoticon or can you sense it's implied?

Edit... they were more than tolerated obviously! there were fed and encouraged.

In-action is as bad as the wrong action. They need to be actively discouraged. If that takes the form of a 55gr round then so be it.

Neither do I. My friends that hunt are sound.

I'm getting the impression you don't hunt. Otherwise it would have read "Neither do i."

Again (and again) it's more than a leaflet, a media campaign can be incredibly effective.

So we've gone from leaflets to media campaign. Who is going to pay for that? Who will enforce the message? Drink driving campaigns aren't overly successful, but they have the Gardaí, etc. to enforce them, and it's directly in people's best interests given the high number of road fatalities caused by drink driving each year. So with less than one attack every 5 years, and it not even being here, what resources do you see being spent on this?

Who can, whomever runs this media campaign, turn to to make sure people do what they are being told is necessary?

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

No i don't. Anyway not important.

Well, I think you were trying to make light of me by implying that you thought I was too young to remember the ad.

Cass wrote: »

A seal or dolphin is not going to raid a chicken coup.

I know. I didn't say that, but they are wild animals, they can attack, they are perceived to put a dent on peoples livelihood, a trawlerman might consider the fish his livestock.

People that work at sea see more dolphins and seals than foxes.

Cass wrote: »

I'm getting the impression you don't hunt. Otherwise it would have read "Neither do i."

That's exactly what I said "Neither do I" Does it matter if I hunt?

Cass wrote: »

So we've gone from leaflets to media campaign.

I said from the start a media campaign... read my quote from when I first mentioned it.

John_Rambo wrote: »

I reckon a small media campaign and leaflet drop with a simple message would nip the problems in the bud.

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

I know. I didn't say that, but they are wild animals, they can attack, they are perceived to put a dent on peoples livelihood, a trawlerman might consider the fish his livestock.

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Foxes can have an impact on any of the 4+ million citizens. Dolphins/seals on the few hundred/thousand fishermen. Also fishermen have money in their equipment but no outlay on livestock. Farmers have both. Dolphins/seals do not have an effect on pets, homes, babies. Foxes do.

People that work at sea see more dolphins and seals than foxes.

Really have no idea how to respond to that other than to say that is painfully obvious and completely irrelevant.

That's exactly what I said "Neither do I" Does it matter if I hunt?

No what you said exactly was;

Neither do I. My friends that hunt are sound

Yes it does matter. You are looking at solving a problem through non hunting related means when you fail to realise that sometimes it requires just that. You are on a hunting forum where the very name suggests what kind of responses will be generated. You do not fully understand foxes having never been around them in the same way as most every person on the forum that hunts them, and knows their true character/behaviours.

I said from the start a media campaign... read my quote from when I first mentioned it.

You have made it abundantly clear how you feel about education, but you still have not answered what you intend to do or would suggest to do about the foxes when you have educated the people. How would it be enforced? Who would fund it? How would you prevent the foxes from continuing their built up behaviour?

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

Foxes can have an impact on any of the 4+ million citizens. Dolphins/seals on the few hundred/thousand fishermen. Also fishermen have money in their equipment but no outlay on livestock. Farmers have both. Dolphins/seals do not have an effect on pets, homes, babies. Foxes do.

Really have no idea how to respond to that other than to say that is painfully obvious and completely irrelevant.

No what you said exactly was;

Yes it does matter. You are looking at solving a problem through non hunting related means when you fail to realise that sometimes it requires just that. You are on a hunting forum where the very name suggests what kind of responses will be generated. You do not fully understand foxes having never been around them in the same way as most every person on the forum that hunts them, and knows their true character/behaviours.

You have made it abundantly clear how you feel about education, but you still have not answered what you intend to do or would suggest to do about the foxes when you have educated the people. How would it be enforced? Who would fund it? How would you prevent the foxes from continuing their built up behaviour?

Get some sleep cass.

Cass

Another terrific rebuttal.

This is also how i know you don't hunt. Anytime a person with anti hunting (or just does not hunt) views comes on and tries to rationalise something and they fail miserably they usually resort to quips or smart comments to deflect attention away from their short comings.


However you are right. I have wasted enough time on both you, and this pointless argument.

Watch out for the dolphins.

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

Watch out for the dolphins.

Very smart, along with the personal digs at my maturity level. Shame you had to resort to that along with other unpleasantness.

But, to ease you worries in case you weren't being smart, a bit of cop on and smart seamanship will keep you out of trouble with dolphins, a healthy respect, keeping your distance and not reaching out to touch them keeps you safe. It's all about education and knowledge.

fission

So much that doesn't make sense with this incident.

How did a fox get into the house? It's freezing cold in London right now. Why would a door/window be open?

The fox managed to get the baby out of the cot and on to the ground...impressive.

The baby has a black eye, cuts on his face and an injured hand...
I thought foxes would go for the neck?

The mother had to kick the fox to get it away from the child...
I knew foxes were cheeky, but I still thought they were very timid and afraid of humans.

I'm not convinced this was a fox.

yubabill1

fission wrote: »

So much that doesn't make sense with this incident.

How did a fox get into the house? It's freezing cold in London right now. Why would a door/window be open?

The fox managed to get the baby out of the cot and on to the ground...impressive.

The baby has a black eye, cuts on his face and an injured hand...
I thought foxes would go for the neck?

The mother had to kick the fox to get it away from the child...
I knew foxes were cheeky, but I still thought they were very timid and afraid of humans.

I'm not convinced this was a fox.

I have a pic somewhere in an old magazine of a fox culled 8 or 10 years ago in Scotland, that weighed 56lbs. That's 25kg in new money, or 4 stone. Well capable of taking something the same size as itself.

I do wonder why this seems to be happening a lot in London, however. The foxes do seem uncharacteristically brazen.
I would not be of the opinion that foxes are incapable of these actions, but I would like to know the motivational factors.

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

Very smart,

You did not respond to logical debate, and were first to be smart so i thought (against my better judgement) that i needed to sink to your level in order to better communicate with you. Seems to have worked.

along with the personal digs at my maturity level. Shame you had to resort to that along with other unpleasantness.

Show me the personal digs? Another unsubstantiated claim, and non sensical one liner.:rolleyes:

But, to ease you worries in case you weren't being smart, a bit of cop on and smart seamanship will keep you out of trouble with dolphins, a healthy respect, keeping your distance and not reaching out to touch them keeps you safe. It's all about education and knowledge.

My sweet Jesus. You are actually serious. You genuinely believe what you are saying. That is amazing.

fission wrote: »

How did a fox get into the house? It's freezing cold in London right now. Why would a door/window be open?

Back door, low lying window even open a crack or for a moment, and they will get in. They are a strong animal for the size of them, and can push open a door or window once they get enough room to manipulate it.

The fox managed to get the baby out of the cot and on to the ground...impressive.

That is nothing. Check youtube for other videos. The term cunning as a fox did not spring from nowhere. They are intelligent, and adaptive.

The baby has a black eye, cuts on his face and an injured hand...
I thought foxes would go for the neck?

It's not like you see on discovery with big cats. If in an area where the fox may be caught or is not alone it will grab, and run. Then kill.

The mother had to kick the fox to get it away from the child...
I knew foxes were cheeky, but I still thought they were very timid and afraid of humans.

Not a chance. Have a look at this. The fox spends over ten minutes trying to evade the Rottweiler, and man to get a chicken. Not in the least bit scared, and this is not an urban fox so you would think with less contact with man it would be a little more shy than an urban fox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vzgnTEMyCg

I'm not convinced this was a fox.

I don't doubt a fox is capable, but whether it was or not we can only take the mother's word for it.

EP90

There is a lot I don’t agree with in the previous posts and some that I do. BUT before I blame the fox I’ll wait for the proper reports to emerge, not the SUN or hysterical Mother (she must have been) or friends.
Interesting and balanced opinions from a wildlife expert and a professional pest controller on this morning’s news. A fox is physically capable of such an act, as are a lot of family pets and not just dogs. Both experts agree the cause of the increased lack of fear of man is the feeding and petting of all wild animals in urban districts. Education would help…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21407979

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21408944

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

Show me the personal digs? Another unsubstantiated claim, and non sensical one liner.:rolleyes:

I have pointed out where you were getting sly digs in already, but you keep asking where... Everyone can see what you are at, you said you were surprised I remembered an ad from the seventies.

Cass wrote: »

No, was only around on the latter half of the seventies. Not sure how you remember them????????

I may not hunt, but I have been hunting and I have an interest in it and I cook wild game all the time, it's interesting to know where it's coming from. This place used to be a pretty friendly place, you could chat and have banter and learn lots. But you're attitude is different, you're being rude, you're sneering, you're language is abusive, crude and very unwelcoming.

I think it's a shame that's the way it's gone.

Back on topic... I still believe preventive education could be introduced in towns and cities in Ireland to bring people around to the idea that it's risky feeding wildlife.

dodderangler

Think I asked this question before about urban foxes
What could be done? Trapping? Lamping with dogs?
I see at least 3-4 a night when I come home from work and in my estate
I was worried about them getting at my hawk and ferrets as there is a lane behind me and across the road a field and tymon park which has plenty of them

John_Rambo

dodderangler wrote: »

Think I asked this question before about urban foxes
What could be done? Trapping? Lamping with dogs?
I see at least 3-4 a night when I come home from work and in my estate
I was worried about them getting at my hawk and ferrets as there is a lane behind me and across the road a field and tymon park which has plenty of them

If they are a risk to your property surely you can trap them? I'd be discreet though.

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

I have pointed out where you were getting sly digs in already, but you keep asking where... Everyone can see what you are at, you said you were surprised I remembered an ad from the seventies.

Everyone? Trying to drag others into it to support your unsupportable position.

As for the advert i asked a simple question or more to the point made a simple statement. I was surprised you remembered an advert from 40 years ago. You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill while actively avoiding questions i have asked.

This place used to be a pretty friendly place, you could chat and have banter and learn lots. But you're attitude is different, you're being rude, you're sneering, you're language is abusive, crude and very unwelcoming.

I think it's a shame that's the way it's gone.

Do not attempt to try and blame the forum for your dislike of being challenged. If you could support your argument you would not need to deflect as you are doing again.

As for my "abusive", "crude", and "unwelcoming" language. Well you see it as such because you are unable to counter my comments so resort to this deflection. Had i ceded your point or just "gave up" arguing you would not feel this way. Also no one else is involved in this argument so how can you blame the forum for my actions?

Again baseless arguments, and points. Plus there is a report post function if i'm being abusive. Use it.

Back on topic... I still believe preventive education could be introduced in towns and cities in Ireland to bring people around to the idea that it's risky feeding wildlife.

I have agreed with you on education, but as part of a larger plan which includes pro-active measures such as trapping, culling, etc.

However maybe you would be so kind this time to answer me. How do you intend to pay for this? I have asked three times now, and you have not answered. How would you suggest such an educational scheme be financed? When money is tight, and healthcare, Gardaí, emergency services are all being cut how do you expect to pay for any scheme?

Think I asked this question before about urban foxes
What could be done? Trapping? Lamping with dogs?
I see at least 3-4 a night when I come home from work and in my estate

Trapping would keep everyone happy from the point of view that those opposed to hunting/killing would know the animals are being relocated rather than dispatched. However the issue as i've asked numerous times above, is where does the money for such a scheme come from. you can rely on volunteers, but their effect may be minimal, and as soon as it becomes a burden (mentally or financially) they will cease to help.

Shooting may not be an answer in most cases due to the area in which the foxes are. You cannot take a shot in an estate. So the issue becomes preventing people from encouraging the foxes, preventing the foxes from continuing their habits as developed over the last few generations, and maintaining the preventative measures to ensure a relapse does not occur. Exactly how that would take shape i do not know. Someone with a better knowledge of animal management/relocation would be better suited.

I was worried about them getting at my hawk and ferrets as there is a lane behind me and across the road a field and tymon park which has plenty of them

DO NOT trap anything in a park or other public place. Not 100% on the legalities, but i'm sure there will be issues. So discretion is not good enough. It could be illegal.

John_Rambo

Cass wrote: »

Do not attempt to try and blame the forum for your dislike of being challenged.

I'm not, I'm blaming you. You are the one being rude, not the forum, you're making it an unpleasant place, not because you challenged me, but your because of your aggressive manner.

Cass wrote: »

However maybe you would be so kind this time to answer me. How do you intend to pay for this? I have asked three times now, and you have not answered. How would you suggest such an educational scheme be financed? When money is tight, and healthcare, Gardaí, emergency services are all being cut how do you expect to pay for any scheme?

Property tax.

Look Cass, it's a discussion, I'm under no obligation to rearrange the cities budget to explain to you how it would be paid for. I am just suggesting education to preempt a problem. You are suggesting education along with a cull, that's more expensive than my suggestion!

dodderangler

That's why I was asking cass
What's the solution to capturing them
I think in public park it's illegal unless a group of people complained and petition signed for legal trappers in council to trap them
But again I'm sure the antis will protest against it
Lamping with dogs in public would that be considered illegal?

Cass

John_Rambo wrote: »

I'm not, I'm blaming you. You are the one being rude, not the forum, you're making it an unpleasant place, not because you challenged me, but your because of your aggressive manner.

I am defending my point of view so "aggressively" because of your nonsensical rebuttal. Your stance that Dolphins/seals are the same as foxes, education only will solve all our problems, etc. show clearly you have no plan of affecting change merely the notion of change. Combined with your smart comments, when asked a question, has lead us to where we find ourselves.

All the this has lead to my responses. You take everything as a insult when it was not implied. I even had to explain such on a couple of occasions. Now after 10-15 posts i get an answer to my original question. An answer that is not an answer, but another aggressive/confrontational remark with undertones of snideness, and condescension.

Property tax.

Possibly, but from a personal point of view a non runner. In current financial times with water charges, property taxes, cuts to salaries, income, welfare, health, services, etc. people will not tolerate any charges for something they deem not worthy.

just my opinion, but it's a starting point.

Look Cass, it's a discussion, I'm under no obligation to rearrange the cities budget to explain to you how it would be paid for.

And we're back. Kind of negates your comment that this is a discussion only for you to say you will not discuss it. Especially with me!

I am just suggesting education to preempt a problem. You are suggesting education along with a cull, that's more expensive than my suggestion!

One last time. I agree on education, but not as a singular tool. As part of a more complex or better structured plan. Something enforceable, effective, and long lasting.

As for the cost. Hunters have been culling foxes for free for years. So that'll cost nothing.

Birdnuts

dodderangler wrote: »

That's why I was asking cass
What's the solution to capturing them
I think in public park it's illegal unless a group of people complained and petition signed for legal trappers in council to trap them
But again I'm sure the antis will protest against it
Lamping with dogs in public would that be considered illegal?

Its all about getting permission from the owners of these public lands, just as you would approach a farmer if you wanted to hunt/trap on his land.As the City council own these public spaces, these would be the people you would ask permission from.

Sparks

Okay, this isn't doing any good for anyone. Closing the thread.