Molezak

You are absolutely right that many of our animals are in decline and steps must be taken to protect them. However, this decline is not because of foxes and this is what this debate is about....controlling fox numbers.

the population can be bought down to a sensible level.

But studies show that the fox population has neither increased nor decreased - it remains stable. Why is there an issue with the control of numbers when numbers are not showing to be increasing to the detriment of the balance of nature?!

It's also extremely rude to refer to people who don't agree with your opinion as "people like you". I have been involved in conservation for over twenty years and am well aware of the difficulties our wildlife face (I had a rather heated debate in another thread about people allowing their dogs to give chase to wildlife!). However, when you break it all back to the basics..it's not the fox...not the badger...but the worst predating species of all - humans which have caused the decline of some of our wildlife.

>But studies show that the fox population has neither increased nor decreased - it remains stable. Why is there an issue with the control of numbers when numbers are not showing to be increasing to the detriment of the balance of nature?!

If wild animals are starting to come into people's homes and cause problems, when they never used to before, then something has got out of balance and needs to be rectified. People wouldn't accept that behaviour from feral dogs or cats; why should foxes (or rats) have different rules?

> I do love people who try and make arguments without knowing or understanding the true facts. This is where your argument falls apart, this "particularly cruel" bit is still allowed under the Hunting act. If the act was genuinely just a welfare issue surely this would have been banned and not just hunting the foxes.

Whether you love me or not is irrelevant, it is not my argument, would refer you to the link yet once again - read it.   I have read it, and my point about hunting foxes which I tried to get over, but obviously failed, was that we have lived here 22 years, and far as I am aware (but do not have any proof of my own) that the fox numbers have remained I would imagine roughly the same, as has the other wildlife that has either access to or lives on our land.  

Again, you have missed read or misinterpreted the piece about the rabbits, it is that every 3-4 years we have someone in to control them, not because of just their numbers, it is of no interest to me, I do not have crops, they are controlled because of the myxomatosis which only attacks them about every 3-4 years when the numbers increase, and if not controlled they would die from a long and lingering death.   I can assure you that every time I hear a gun fired at them is a sad sound, it is only undertaken to stop them suffering.

And again you have chosen to misinterpret my post, it is my opinion, obviously not yours, but that is your perrogative, I have a difference of opinion to yourself and to others, but hey I am entitled to that, if you wish to denigrate what I believe and do, then carry on but without my input.

>

then something has got out of balance

Why? Are there no other reasons which could explain this? I can think of a few :)

At the risk of sounding like an endless repeating loop tape - all the studies show that there is no increase to our fox population and that includes urban foxes. Do you have access to another study I have not read which indicates the contrary?

In many ways an increase or otherwise in numbers is irrelevant; the fact is that their behaviour is changing and (or their previous unacceptable behaviour is now becoming more publicised) and they are no longer coexisting in harmony with us, and, if we look reality straight in the face, that means that they will have to change. People being bitten, by dogs, cats, foxes or rats just isn't tolerable.

In areas where they can coexist harmoniously then people will see no problem with them, in just the same way that they're not affected by gangs of hoodies mugging people or sink estate kids terrorising the neighbourhood. But if the people who have to live with the problem will take a rather different view.

> Dogsdinner, what a beautiful and moving post and long may you continue to enjoy the wildlife which shares your land :-) You are so right that people are entitled to their opinion. It just saddens me that opinions can be formed with no substance to the "why".

Glad someone appreciated it.

I would be interested to see studies regarding fox bites over the years to ascertain whether this is a changing behaviour or whether it is a more publicised behaviour. I recall stories in my childhood (more years ago than I care to admit to lol) of foxes attacking babies in their prams. So, is it a change of behaviour? I suspect not but I can't support that with any studies.

Even if it was proven that their behaviour was SO problematic that something had to be done (and I don't agree that one reported instance of a fox attack and anecdotal evidence of foxes becoming more brazen does support that) then culling them has been proven to be ineffective (see earlier post of London attempting a large culling of urban foxes to no avail).

I go back to my point of humans finding it "cute" to train urban foxes to hand feed...eeesh! Perhaps some public education wouldn't go amiss :)

Still not quite sure why some people insist on making a link to fox hunting!

> But studies show that the fox population has neither increased nor decreased - it remains stable. Why is there an issue with the control of numbers when numbers are not showing to be increasing to the detriment of the balance of nature?!
>
>Yet when foxes are controlled intensly (along with other predators) there is evidence of improvement in populations that elsewhere are in decline.

> You are absolutely right that many of our animals are in decline and steps must be taken to protect them. However, this decline is not because of foxes and this is what this debate is about....controlling fox numbers.
>

It may not have increased, but I can guarantee you that if fox control was to be stopped in rural areas it would. Foxes are in the majority of places not at the point where they are going to self manage there population. I totally agree with you, humans have done incredible damage, but it is only humans who can sort the mess out. Any body who thinks that nature will just balance itself is very naive. We created the countryside as it is today we have to take responsibility for managing it.

The hunting debate is nonsense anyway, the ban is pretty much non existent anyway hence the stable fox population.

In urban areas if it is felt there is a need to reduce numbers it would be pointless just controlling a few in one area of a city, there would have to be a concerted population wide culling and then continued control, the cost would be huge to do the job properly, so it is not going to happen.

> I go back to my point of humans finding it "cute" to train urban foxes to hand feed...eeesh! Perhaps some public education wouldn't go amiss :-)
>
>

Totally agree with you on this one!

> Again, you have missed read or misinterpreted the piece about the rabbits, it is that every 3-4 years we have someone in to control them, not because of just their numbers, it is of no interest to me, I do not have crops, they are controlled because of the myxomatosis which only attacks them about every 3-4 years when the numbers increase, and if not controlled they would die from a long and lingering death.   I can assure you that every time I hear a gun fired at them is a sad sound, it is only undertaken to stop them suffering.
>

Maybe I did misinterpreted your post, so as way of apology can I make a couple of suggestions. One is to leave them and only cull the really ill rabbits, if some of your rabbits survive they will build up a resistance to this terrible disease. However the best policy is to keep the numbers low i.e. an annual cull as generally these days it only strikes where populations are dense.

I have read it, I have also read the Hunting act. If you live in a hunting area you probably havent noticed any change in population!!!

> Maybe I did misinterpreted your post, so as way of apology can I make a couple of suggestions. One is to leave them and only cull the really ill rabbits, if some of your rabbits survive they will build up a resistance to this terrible disease. However the best policy is to keep the numbers low i.e. an annual cull as generally these days it only strikes where populations are dense.
>

We generally leave them and only cull the ill rabbits, well I don't, someone comes in that does it for us.   But I do not mind having a large population of rabbits, as we do not do anything with the land, only used for exercising the dogs on.  The dogs are not allowed to give chase and they will walk, off lead without chasing the rabbits, no doubt if I was not around they would exercise a different course of action!!

Sorry, but here we are not in a hunting area. I have no explanation for the lack of foxes, other than it has always ticked over, so if it works I do not have any intention of altering the balance.   Before moving here we lived in the middle of the Belvoir and Quorn hunt area, and as of course you are aware they are large hunts, they regularly hunted on the land behind and each side of us and across the road.  Only once was there any problem with a fox, and our nearest neighbour (not the neighbouring farmer) decided to keep chicken, unfortunately he did not fence the area adequately and he placed the chicken huts up against the supposedly fox proof fence, well it was such an easy opportunity for the fox - who can blame him!!  

I can guarantee you that if fox control was to be stopped in rural areas it would

But how can you guarantee this? There was no increase in England following the hunting ban as a response to foot and mouth. There has been no increase in the Scottish Borders (traditionally the only area of hunting to use this method) following the ban in 2002. As I said earlier, even with the numbers which the hunting fraternity proposed that required culling on an annual basis to control numbers, hunting with hounds only accounted for 1% of those numbers!

I do not know what would happen if ALL culling were to stop rurally. There are no studies which would support an opinion either way. As I have freely said earlier, the gamekeeper on this estate very infrequently lamps for fox.

However, there are studies which show that culling of urban fox has no impact on the population. That's a fact.

My argument on this thread has always been about the ineffectiveness of hunting with hounds in controlling fox population. I don't think the facts can really be disputed on this.

What I can't and don't propose to know the answer to is how a ban on ALL fox hunting would effect rural populations. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. We do know the answer for our urban foxes though.

My bone of contention is with hunting with hounds remember, not countryside management :) Not sure how well myself and the gamekeeper would get on otherwise lol

>There was no increase in England following the hunting ban as a response to foot and mouth.

Apparently an increase in numbers was reported in Wales.

Hmmm Jeangenie - not exactly a "study" is it? It's a bunch of welsh farmers saying there was more foxes lol Hardly independent and the article itself says:

"We have no scientific evidence to back that up. It is pure anecdote,"

Not really a convincing argument

>It's a bunch of welsh farmers saying there was more foxes lol Hardly independent

They're the people who would be asked to provide information to someone carrying out a study; this way you get the information directly rathr than via a third party.

We need to be very careful in decrying anecdotal information. People's information on here on a wide range of topics has never been independently verified; are they all liars? If they tell their vet the same information and then he reports the information, does it then become true?

oh my lol

Independent studies to monitor numbers don't depend on the word of someone with a vested interest.

I am afraid that this is bordering on the slightly ridiculous now.

>Independent studies to monitor numbers don't depend on the word of someone with a vested interest.

Not depend, no. But evidence from all interested parties is taken into account, otherwise the studies would be biased and therefore unreliable.

Then perhaps you should read the studies whereby all evidence actually is taken into account because the newspaper article quoting some welsh farmers is "biased" and so, in your own words, "unreliable" :)

Only a fool thinks that everything in the media is gospel, and none of us are fools. But it all needs to be taken into account to get the full picture. Of course the Welsh farmers are biased; equally so are the antis, but they all deserve to have their voices and opinions heard.

> read the studies

You haven't been specific here.  What can we read? How was the information gathered? I would like to read it myself if possible.

http://www.thefoxwebsite.org/After-the-Hunt.pdf

That's a good starting point with a comprehensive reference list for further  study

An article on recent fox numbers (study by scientists on fox poo!) appeared in the Journal of Applied Ecology which concluded a figure of around 250,000 (in keeping with past figures). I can't provide you the link to this study but you can pay for this if you like :)

thanks I have saved that to read a bit earlier in the day.