# Fox attact!



## nickleicester (Mar 29, 2010)

who els is really annoyed and :censor: off with the meadia and the parents of the two young girls that wer so called ''attacked'' by a fox?

this has been blown way out of the water by the meadia and as for the parents, well. 
ther was five female foxes killed in that area after the insident, that made me sik and very angry. the irresposeble parents of the girls left the door open and left the children unattended wile this happend. they only hav themselfs to blame for this. they are lucky it was only a fox that got in and not a rapest.

foxes are wild animals, are people forgetting this? a fox cannot be blamed for this. it is the parents fault and no one els's


----------



## ForeverHams (Sep 9, 2008)

Hmm...

Don't get me wrong im a big fan of foxes in fact i spend many an hour watching and photographing them... but at the end of the day they are an opportunistic predator and this sort of thing although rare can and does happen.

I don't thinks its fair to blame the parents for the way they reacted to it, and they are perfectly within their rights to have the foxes destroyed if caught on their premises. I can't see how its their fault for leaving the doors open.... millions of people do it... its just unfortunate that this happened. 

Alex


----------



## slippery42 (Mar 23, 2008)

ForeverHams said:


> Hmm...
> 
> Don't get me wrong im a big fan of foxes in fact i spend many an hour watching and photographing them... but at the end of the day they are an opportunistic predator and this sort of thing although rare can and does happen.
> 
> ...


Of course its fair to blame the parents, after all they leff the bloody doors open!

What Dickheads!


----------



## KTedham (Feb 11, 2009)

I agree that the parents were irresponsible and quite frankly stupid for leaving their young children unattended with the door wide open while they were in a completely other room. They knew they had a fox problem, with one troublesome fox in particular as they'd been complaining about the said fox for a while.
It surprises me even more that parents would be this irresponsible ever since that man was able to get into a house and snatch a little girl from her bath as her mother dried her brother in the next room. It's not just foxes they should have been aware of.

I can understand in a way why they are reacting like this. They are angry because their children were hurt and they won't be thinking clearly and will be looking for some kind of revenge as well as trying to ensure that nothing like this can happen again. They're probably already blaming themselves deep down because they probably already know that leaving that door open with unattended babies was stupid beyond belief.

It does really upset me though that this story has sparked off a large anti-fox following with other people jumping on the bandwagon for media attention.
I recently saw a story of some woman who claims that a fox snuck in on two separate occasions and bit the same foot in the same place. It is so obvious that she is just after attention as she claims it must have got in on one occasion when she opened the door for a moment to let the cat out. I thought that if that was the case, she would have seen it come in. Also, if that were me, I wouldn't have left a window wide open welcoming a second attack.

Foxes certainly aren't too blame for any of this since, as ForeverHams has also pointed out, they are opportunistic predators. It is their nature. They haven't done any of this to be malicious. They're just trying to survive and saw what they thought was an easy meal.

The way I see it is that people are the ones forever building and moving into other creatures habitats and it's about time they started to take responsibility for themselves and rather than blame the animals, respect the wildlife of that area and take precautions to prevent things like this from happening in the first place.


----------



## mrcarlxx (May 1, 2009)

edit;


never mind


----------



## KTedham (Feb 11, 2009)

????? lol


----------



## Gina. (Sep 9, 2009)

Everyone keeps saying the parents were irresponsible for leaving their children alone.. since when were parents meant to stand and watch over their children while they are sleeping??


----------



## nickleicester (Mar 29, 2010)

im not the one constantly bringing it up. ther is going to be another documentary on it soon but dont know when. 

and who els is to blame? certainly not the fox that is a wild creature and just lookin for food.
the people in question said they hav had a problem with the fox scratching at the door and all sorts yet they still left the door wide open and left the kids unattended.

and the fact that 5 female foxes wer killed in that area at this time of year made me sik.


----------



## Gina. (Sep 9, 2009)

nickleicester said:


> and the fact that 5 female foxes wer killed in that area at this time of year made me sik.


Thats what I hate. I thought foxes were meant to be protected or something? 
I love seeing foxes around


----------



## Drodge (Mar 28, 2010)

Gina. said:


> Everyone keeps saying the parents were irresponsible for leaving their children alone.. *since when were parents meant to stand and watch over their children while they are sleeping*??


But surly you would close the door to thier room or something...?
and :no1: to KTedham, totally agree with your 1st post.


----------



## mrcarlxx (May 1, 2009)

Gina. said:


> Thats what I hate. I thought foxes were meant to be protected or something?
> I love seeing foxes around


i agree, so did they forget to shut the door or leave it open on perpose?


----------



## nickleicester (Mar 29, 2010)

mrcarlxx said:


> i agree, so did they forget to shut the door or leave it open on perpose?


 
from what i gatherd they left the door open on perpose.


----------



## KTedham (Feb 11, 2009)

Thanks Drodge. I completely agree with you too.  Shutting their door would have stopped any of this from happening. 
We're not saying that they have to watch them that closely, Gina. 

Just take simple steps like not leaving a door wide open where they can't observe it while their very young children are in a completely separate room. It would be different if their children were older, but at the age they were, they were vulnerable babies.

Also, whatever happened to baby monitors? If they'd had one of those, surely they would have heard things and got there a lot sooner.


----------



## ForeverHams (Sep 9, 2008)

I don't think anyone is to blame as such .. sure it could have been prevented but at the end of the day thousands of people leave their doors open in the summer.. its just an unfortunate accident.

"Also, whatever happened to baby monitors? If they'd had one of those, surely they would have heard things and got there a lot sooner."

If you read any of the articles you will see that thats how they heard the babies.. via a baby monitor...

I'm not really on either side of the arguement, i have a huge passion for wildlife.. but by the same point think there are several view points and that if you are going to have a thread like this it needs to be balanced as opposed to just slagging off the parents who have not done anything wrong.

I think you also need to accept the fact foxes can and are a pest species in urban area's and they need to be controlled.


----------



## mrcarlxx (May 1, 2009)

nickleicester said:


> from what i gatherd they left the door open on perpose.


i do this, but i have a 6 foot wall around my garden...so my kids are safe..


ForeverHams said:


> I don't think anyone is to blame as such .. sure it could have been prevented but at the end of the day thousands of people leave their doors open in the summer.. its just an unfortunate accident.
> 
> "Also, whatever happened to baby monitors? If they'd had one of those, surely they would have heard things and got there a lot sooner."
> 
> ...


amen to that...


----------



## Drodge (Mar 28, 2010)

My main point was not that they left the main door open, but both the main door and the door to the childrens room... But I'm not having a go, as such, I'm just sort of saying it's a little strange that they didn't close the door to the room, because the only reason, I personally, would have left the door open would have been to hear if they woke up or anything, but if they had baby monitors (since it's a rep forum, when KTedham said baby monitors, I was like "but how would a monitor lizard let you know sooner???" lols) it sounds like they didn't leave it open for that purpose... the only other thought would be for ventilation, which I would just open the window for... I do understand that foxes are a pest in urban areas, they have gotten very used to humans and now do not really see them as a major threat... I also understand that people want to have the freedom of being able to just leave doors open, but it is us that has made the foxes need to move into the cities. This also is a very rare occasion, and should not have been hyped as much as the media has made it...


----------



## KTedham (Feb 11, 2009)

ForeverHams said:


> If you read any of the articles you will see that thats how they heard the babies.. via a baby monitor...


Yes I have read an article, and the article I read didn't mention the baby monitor. I guess different sources will always tell different versions. I was just questioning the version I read.



ForeverHams said:


> I think you also need to accept the fact foxes can and are a pest species in urban area's and they need to be controlled.


Sadly though, as people spread and keep building, over time there's going to be fewer rural places for foxes to go. Farmers hate them and they can't live in the city that was built over their home as they're a nuisance and sometimes a danger there because people won't adjust accordingly.
I guess eventually they'll just all have to be destroyed to make way for human progress.


----------



## nickleicester (Mar 29, 2010)

KTedham said:


> Sadly though, as people spread and keep building, over time there's going to be fewer rural places for foxes to go. Farmers hate them and they can't live in the city that was built over their home as they're a nuisance and sometimes a danger there because people won't adjust accordingly.
> I guess eventually they'll just all have to be destroyed to make way for human progress.


 
very sad but iv got a sinking feeling that you are right. the human race is so selfish and make me ashamed to be human sometimes. why cant we just learn to liv with other animals just like they hav? i thort we wer serposed to siverlised.


----------



## ForeverHams (Sep 9, 2008)

KTedham said:


> Sadly though, as people spread and keep building, over time there's going to be fewer rural places for foxes to go. Farmers hate them and they can't live in the city that was built over their home as they're a nuisance and sometimes a danger there because people won't adjust accordingly.
> I guess eventually they'll just all have to be destroyed to make way for human progress.


That largely depends on the type of farmer, sure livestock farmers hate foxes but other farmers dealing with crops will tolerate them to a further extent as they keep down other pest species such as rabbits.

Based on the fact that the fox population in britain has been increasing over the past 20 years (based on several sources most noticably the British Mammal Society survey data) i think your statement is largely incorrect. While the number of urban foxes is growing this information (again based on several different surveys) suggests that the vast majority of british foxes are rural.

"If we add the number of 225,000 rural foxes to the number of 33,000 urban foxes, we obtain an estimate of *258,000* adult foxes across Britain."

There are many examples across the world that show your statement to be correct in the sense that encroaching human populations are having a massive negative impact on wildlife, however this is not necessarily a suitable example.

For more information on my sources please visit the following websites. I used this information on a case study a few months back.

The fox website: one site with all the answers about foxes
Welcome to the Mammal Society

Alex


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

ForeverHams said:


> That largely depends on the type of farmer, sure livestock farmers hate foxes but other farmers dealing with crops will tolerate them to a further extent as they keep down other pest species such as rabbits.
> 
> Based on the fact that the fox population in britain has been increasing over the past 20 years (based on several sources most noticably the British Mammal Society survey data) i think your statement is largely incorrect. While the number of urban foxes is growing this information (again based on several different surveys) suggests that the vast majority of british foxes are rural.
> 
> ...


Informed comment:no1:
Foxes will move into urban areas because theres plenty of rubbish for them to feed on. No they are not protected in any way and are trapped, shot and hunted because they are a pest. I agree the media have gone overboard but no more so than those who think foxes are cute cuddly creatures and feed them, so reducing their fear of man.


----------



## KTedham (Feb 11, 2009)

ForeverHams said:


> Based on the fact that the fox population in britain has been increasing over the past 20 years (based on several sources most noticably the British Mammal Society survey data) i think your statement is largely incorrect. While the number of urban foxes is growing this information (again based on several different surveys) suggests that the vast majority of british foxes are rural.
> 
> "If we add the number of 225,000 rural foxes to the number of 33,000 urban foxes, we obtain an estimate of *258,000* adult foxes across Britain."
> 
> There are many examples across the world that show your statement to be correct in the sense that encroaching human populations are having a massive negative impact on wildlife, however this is not necessarily a suitable example.


I don't understand how my statement was incorrect. I was expressing an opinion on the future, not the present.

I didn't at any point say foxes are currently dwindling in numbers. Just pointing out that there are getting fewer and fewer places where they can go where they won't be considered a pest.

And if building continues the way it is in this day and age, with no respect to the natural world and everytime this happens, they are classed a pest on what was once their own land and then 'controlled' as such, then it will inevitably happen one day, in the future that their numbers will begin to fall.

Over the last year, I've just watched bulldozers and diggers etc flatten what was supposed to be a nature reserve next to my workplace because they decided they wanted to put a bypass road there. I think this proves my point that where human progress and development is involved, nothing in the natural world is safe until it is almost extinct.

I'm guessing many years ago there also used to be thousands of tigers, pandas etc. Just because they had the numbers then, didn't stop them from being driven almost to extinction once humans got seriously involved. There is nothing to say that in years or decades to come, the same won't begin to happen to foxes.


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

KTedham said:


> I don't understand how my statement was incorrect. I was expressing an opinion on the future, not the present.
> 
> I didn't at any point say foxes are currently dwindling in numbers. Just pointing out that there are getting fewer and fewer places where they can go where they won't be considered a pest.
> 
> ...


 I like a person with vision. However as I said before foxes have moved into urban areas "for the easy pickings" as much as they have been squeesed out by development. They are resourceful survivers and like rats that have lived side by side with us for centuries I think humans will bring about their own demise before Vulpes vulpes disapears. I like the point you have raised about land being built, those who have vision and care should never miss an opportunity to raise the issue as politicians avoid it as it's never yet been a vote winner. Locally we have an area of land that apparantly has the largest population of common toads in the country and the council is wanting to sell it for development (or at least 11 acres of it)
Totally unecessary and just a way to raise money. The protest momentum is gaining ground and will hopefully win through before I have to consider other methods of dissuasion:devil:!


----------



## ForeverHams (Sep 9, 2008)

KTedham said:


> I don't understand how my statement was incorrect. I was expressing an opinion on the future, not the present.
> 
> I didn't at any point say foxes are currently dwindling in numbers. Just pointing out that there are getting fewer and fewer places where they can go where they won't be considered a pest.
> 
> ...


Trends show that this is unlikely to happen, would you agree over the past 20 years more of britain has become urbanised? Fox numbers have risen significantly in the last 20 years. Would you agree there is a correlation between the two? Urban area's grow foxes thrive on easy pickings?

Baring in mind the red fox is the most widespread member of the canine family and one of the most if not the most widespread and common carnivore in the world i think this is an extremely unlikely event, if anything their population is likely to carry on rising which could significantly impact other species. 

Red foxes are extremely adaptable creatures. Extinction occurs when an animal cannot adapt to a new threat, habitat or competitor. On this basis there is very little threat to red foxes unless something MASSIVE changes in the next century.

The examples you gave were Tigers and pandas, While tigers could possibly survive in urban area's (as leopards do in parts of india) they are a threat to man and would not be tolerated in the way foxes are and are poached anyhow, the chances are they couldnt sustain themselves on scraps...through no fault of their own of course... but nonetheless a failure to adapt. Giant panda's are extremely specialised mammals feeding off a very select few plants most notably bamboo, there for they have suffered massively through habitat destruction losing their natural food source... Again through no fault of their own... failure to adapt. 

No doubt your arguement is correct, humans are squeezing animals in to smaller habitats and destroying much of where animals once thrived. Unless this stops those animals that can't adapt WILL die out.


----------



## HABU (Mar 21, 2007)




----------



## Drodge (Mar 28, 2010)

I think that, although the foxes thrive in the urban areas, due to easy food sources, it's going to have a more and more negative impact on the way they are viewed by people, due to a probable increase in events like this. Although extinction is not going to happen, it needs to be reckonized that the reason why this event happened in the first place is due to the fact we have forced foxes into the urban areas. And so although it probably wont show a negative impact on the number of foxes, these sorts of events are down to humans building over the natural habbitat. So at some stage we will have to realize that building over these habbitats, may effect some species to extinction, but we also have to think about the possiblities of the species thriving and the possible impacts that would have on the people that move into that area...


----------



## ForeverHams (Sep 9, 2008)

oh no doubt, But i think if we are going to continue to expand we have to accept that these sort of things will happen. Its all well and good people kicking up a fuss after it happens but if they don't do anything to prevent it (ie deterents) then they cannot complain especially not after its happened once...


----------



## Drodge (Mar 28, 2010)

Yea I agree... I just think that this could lead to a cull of urban foxes, which I don't think is the way things should go, but probably will...


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

Hahaha

How stupid are people, what a thread, love it :no1:


----------



## nickleicester (Mar 29, 2010)

ForeverHams said:


> oh no doubt, But i think if we are going to continue to expand we have to accept that these sort of things will happen. Its all well and good people kicking up a fuss after it happens but if they don't do anything to prevent it (ie deterents) then they cannot complain especially not after its happened once...


 
i agree with you.
i was thinking to my-self last nite, why cant we relocate or scare the foxes out the urban areas. iv seen it done with bears in canada, so why cant we do the fox equiverlent? i would be happy to be involvd in something like this. its a win win situation.


----------



## snakewhisperer (Nov 13, 2009)

nickleicester said:


> i agree with you.
> i was thinking to my-self last nite, why cant we relocate or scare the foxes out the urban areas. iv seen it done with bears in canada, so why cant we do the fox equiverlent? i would be happy to be involvd in something like this. its a win win situation.


Where and how are you going to scare these foxes??? Bear in mind a few things; for whatever reason the couple whose children were attacked had a tough time scaring the fox out of the house how are you going to scare a fox several miles out of a city? 
IF they were able to immediately adjust to a very different enviroment and find enough food , unlikely if they are competing with rural foxes and badgers, then they would be very quickly shot anyway. People in the countryside don't want disease ridden, scavenging, animals dumped in their midst. I have heard first hand of foxes (probably rescued) being released from a van, wandering around bewildered and being promptly shot as they ran towards the guns. 
Would we have such suggestions if we were talking about rats?!
Nope. Why not? Control of species can maintain a small, healthier population that is less likely to cause problems.


----------



## ForeverHams (Sep 9, 2008)

I have no need to write anything as its all right above this!


----------



## nickleicester (Mar 29, 2010)

bears in canada are humainly caught and given hell, wile this may seem crule its the best thing for the bear in the long run as they hav a new found grater fear for humans and therfor would avoid at all costs.


----------



## ForeverHams (Sep 9, 2008)

I understand how the bear project works, but it would be extremely difficult and impractical to replicate such a system with foxes. This is largely due to the amount of foxes by comparison to bears.

only a few hundred bears are caught every year and it takes a lot of effort from several specialists working full time to do so... there are some 40000 foxes living in towns and cities throughout the UK.

I'm not sure the system would even work on foxes in the UK, unlike the bears they are not hunted and many have almost completely lost their fear of man. 

That said its something that could be tried, although im not sure there is really that much of a problem as it stands. There are much cheaper and easier ways of preventing this sort of thing happening such as not feeding foxes, making sure rubbish is put away securely etc.

Alex


----------



## ForeverHams (Sep 9, 2008)

oops accidentally double posted


----------



## nickleicester (Mar 29, 2010)

i understand what your saying and this is one thing that annoyes me. people dont take active measurs to keep foxes away like secureing rubbish ect ect.. and then they blame the fox for accidents like this.


----------



## bobby (Sep 26, 2006)

nickleicester said:


> i understand what your saying and this is one thing that annoyes me. people dont take active measurs to keep foxes away like secureing rubbish ect ect.. and then they blame the fox for accidents like this.


We live in an area where there are apparently too many foxes. Our bins are in a brick structure with two gates at the front for access, only ever seen a fox once and it was down beside the river being chased away by a swan....


----------

