Fox bites off baby's finger in London

yubabill1 · 09-02-2013 11:23PM #1

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 · 10-02-2013 12:35AM

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 · 10-02-2013 01:01AM

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 · 10-02-2013 08:18AM

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 · 10-02-2013 10:43AM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:30AM

This thread seems a bit like an anti anti rant

. It's also been discussed before on threads.

OpenYourEyes · 10-02-2013 11:40AM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:14PM

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 · 10-02-2013 02:14PM

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 · 10-02-2013 03:51PM

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 · 10-02-2013 03:57PM

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 · 10-02-2013 04:11PM

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 · 10-02-2013 05:41PM

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 · 10-02-2013 05:55PM

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 · 10-02-2013 06:00PM

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 · 10-02-2013 06:25PM

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 · 10-02-2013 07:30PM

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 · 10-02-2013 08:31PM

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 · 10-02-2013 09:17PM

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 · 10-02-2013 09:45PM

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 · 10-02-2013 09:55PM

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 · 10-02-2013 10:07PM

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 · 10-02-2013 10:16PM

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 · 10-02-2013 10:44PM

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 · 10-02-2013 10:54PM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:07PM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:13PM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:20PM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:34PM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:44PM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:55PM

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.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Fox bites off baby's finger in London

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County