Foxes: Vermin or fluffy little Basils

13 Apr 2007

Quote by mazandden

If fox’s are left alone and nothing done they will breed and spread (along with the diseases they carry) as they don’t have a natural enemy any more, for year’s humans hunted them and that has controlled the population.

Surely the number of animals in an area is dictated by the availability of food. If an area can only support 2 foxes when they breed their offspring have to leave the area or face starvation.
If an area can support 30 foxes and only 25 live there then they will be joined by 5 more. If 2 are killed then 2 more will replace them.
Natural predators are also controled by the number of prey. The more prey the more predators the fewer the prey the fewer the predators.
Hunting is a very short term solution and has very little long term effect. For hunting to be effective it has to be a cull. Every fox in an area. It is the availability of food that is the most important factor in survival.
:thumbup:
All I can say is 'farmers, get a better fence'!!!
Now, what do you all make of the following?
I know a man who will trap a magpie, in order to attract more magpies to it so that he can kill them.
I'm not sure how he kills them, but he does it because the magpies 'kill the small hedge birds'
I cannot possibly understand why he would play with nature, even if magpies actually do kill other birds (does anyone know if this is true?) then what right does he have to interfere?
I whole heartedly believe in survival of the fittest, if one animal has killed another animal, then the prey that died was not fit to pass on its genes- it was too slow to survive, just as if the predator is too slow to catch the prey, then it starves and should die and not pass on its poor attacking genes!
If we get involved, then we are upsetting this natural balance....
Why does this man think magpies are his problem to deal with?
And, does he know that magpies mate for life?!
mad

:x :x :x
Has been said before, but if farmers have to put up beteer fences to keep out predeters from their assets which is, after all what the free range chicken are, then costs will have to be passed on to the consumer, pure buisness.
Now magpies. Yes, magpies do hunt smaller birds and they will even kill their own. I witness the former serveral times a day where I live. I used to see loads of sparrows, starlings black birds etc. but these all but dissapeared but have started to make a bit of a come back since our local hunting/shooting fan trapped and killed 13 magpies from the local farmyard last year. I haven`t seen any thrushes for several years and I didn`t see any long tailed tits in my garden this year either.

13 Apr 2007

Quote by Bumpkin

If fox’s are left alone and nothing done they will breed and spread (along with the diseases they carry) as they don’t have a natural enemy any more, for year’s humans hunted them and that has controlled the population.

Surely the number of animals in an area is dictated by the availability of food. If an area can only support 2 foxes when they breed their offspring have to leave the area or face starvation.
If an area can support 30 foxes and only 25 live there then they will be joined by 5 more. If 2 are killed then 2 more will replace them.
Natural predators are also controled by the number of prey. The more prey the more predators the fewer the prey the fewer the predators.
Hunting is a very short term solution and has very little long term effect. For hunting to be effective it has to be a cull. Every fox in an area. It is the availability of food that is the most important factor in survival.
:thumbup:
All I can say is 'farmers, get a better fence'!!!
Now, what do you all make of the following?
I know a man who will trap a magpie, in order to attract more magpies to it so that he can kill them.
I'm not sure how he kills them, but he does it because the magpies 'kill the small hedge birds'
I cannot possibly understand why he would play with nature, even if magpies actually do kill other birds (does anyone know if this is true?) then what right does he have to interfere?
I whole heartedly believe in survival of the fittest, if one animal has killed another animal, then the prey that died was not fit to pass on its genes- it was too slow to survive, just as if the predator is too slow to catch the prey, then it starves and should die and not pass on its poor attacking genes!
If we get involved, then we are upsetting this natural balance....
Why does this man think magpies are his problem to deal with?
And, does he know that magpies mate for life?!
mad

:x :x :x
Has been said before, but if farmers have to put up beteer fences to keep out predeters from their assets which is, after all what the free range chicken are, then costs will have to be passed on to the consumer, pure buisness.
Now magpies. Yes, magpies do hunt smaller birds and they will even kill their own. I witness the former serveral times a day where I live. I used to see loads of sparrows, starlings black birds etc. but these all but dissapeared but have started to make a bit of a come back since our local hunting/shooting fan trapped and killed 13 magpies from the local farmyard last year. I haven`t seen any thrushes for several years and I didn`t see any long tailed tits in my garden this year either.
Why does the hunting fan get to choose which birds live and which die?
Are thrushes and long tailed tits 'better' than magpies then?
And I'm pretty sure that killing magpies is illegal?
Off to do some reasearch....

13 Apr 2007

hi....new to posting...lol. has any said that we make safe houseing for our chickens, so if the fox kills all but only takes one....it can come back for the rest. The dead chickens should still be there. The foxes don't know that we humans will have moved them, and the chickens must have been on their patch...

13 Apr 2007

Quote by mazandden
Why does the hunting fan get to choose which birds live and which die?
Are thrushes and long tailed tits 'better' than magpies then?
And I'm pretty sure that killing magpies is illegal?
Off to do some reasearch....

Under the UK's Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 magpies can be killed if it can be proved that they are affecting songbird populations. This is why the "hunting fan" can kill magpies. However, this "hunting fan" may just be a conservationist of songbirds.
Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, yes the thrushes and long tailed tits are better than magpies.

Quote by mazandden
I cannot possibly understand why he would play with nature, even if magpies actually do kill other birds (does anyone know if this is true?)

Magpies are predatory birds. They will kill other birds and eat their eggs. They can decimate other bird populations in a short amount of time. So they are culled to manage the population of them.
Dave_Notts

13 Apr 2007

Hmm bit odd as we have lots of magpies here in Bristol and quite a few around where I live. Yet we still seem to have a healthy popualation of other birds, not that I am paying particular attention I just havent noticed any lack of other birds. The general population of sparrows and starlings has decreased since I was young but I thought that was a country wide issue and non related.

13 Apr 2007

Quote by Kiss
Dave I don't disagree nor do I misunderstand the economics of such a 'sport'. I just find fox hunting a :censored: and often cannot help myself when I promise myself not to comment.
30 dogs and 16 horses are not and never will be an effective method of pest control when they kill one fox!

Any solution to another alternative though? That was one of the questions near the beginning. The question was not about fox hunting being nice or bad but an alternative "humane" solution, if there is one.
Dave_Notts

13 Apr 2007

Quote by Dave__Notts
Dave I don't disagree nor do I misunderstand the economics of such a 'sport'. I just find fox hunting a :censored: and often cannot help myself when I promise myself not to comment.
30 dogs and 16 horses are not and never will be an effective method of pest control when they kill one fox!

Any solution to another alternative though? That was one of the questions near the beginning. The question was not about fox hunting being nice or bad but an alternative "humane" solution, if there is one.
Dave_Notts
To say we need a solution to natural wildlife is sick

14 Apr 2007

Quote by Drewxcore
Dave I don't disagree nor do I misunderstand the economics of such a 'sport'. I just find fox hunting a :censored: and often cannot help myself when I promise myself not to comment.
30 dogs and 16 horses are not and never will be an effective method of pest control when they kill one fox!

Any solution to another alternative though? That was one of the questions near the beginning. The question was not about fox hunting being nice or bad but an alternative "humane" solution, if there is one.
Dave_Notts
To say we need a solution to natural wildlife is sick
Are you calling me sick or the question? I would like you to clarify this before I answer your comment.
Dave_Notts

14 Apr 2007

Quote by Drewxcore
Dave I don't disagree nor do I misunderstand the economics of such a 'sport'. I just find fox hunting a :censored: and often cannot help myself when I promise myself not to comment.
30 dogs and 16 horses are not and never will be an effective method of pest control when they kill one fox!

Any solution to another alternative though? That was one of the questions near the beginning. The question was not about fox hunting being nice or bad but an alternative "humane" solution, if there is one.
Dave_Notts
To say we need a solution to natural wildlife is sick
worship

For once i agree with you Drew! lol

And weirdly, you were in my dream last night! :shock:
m xx

14 Apr 2007

Ok, even spookier, it seems you were also in one of Dens dreams last night, which was very similar to mine!
:eeek:
I'm very scared now!
m xx

14 Apr 2007

Quote by Dave__Notts
Why does the hunting fan get to choose which birds live and which die?
Are thrushes and long tailed tits 'better' than magpies then?
And I'm pretty sure that killing magpies is illegal?
Off to do some reasearch....

Under the UK's Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 magpies can be killed if it can be proved that they are affecting songbird populations. This is why the "hunting fan" can kill magpies. However, this "hunting fan" may just be a conservationist of songbirds.
Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, yes the thrushes and long tailed tits are better than magpies.

Quote by mazandden
I cannot possibly understand why he would play with nature, even if magpies actually do kill other birds (does anyone know if this is true?)

Magpies are predatory birds. They will kill other birds and eat their eggs. They can decimate other bird populations in a short amount of time. So they are culled to manage the population of them.
Dave_Notts
For you Dave- reading a little further into the article you are quoting for-
'Research by the British Trust for Ornithology and the RSPB said there was no link between rising magpie and sparrowhawk numbers and the decline of songbirds.
The research suggested the problem lay with the loss of habitat loss caused by modern agriculture'
Modern agriculture eh?!
wink

14 Apr 2007

Maz how's your research going on finding fox-proof fencing & dry stone walling for all of the UK's fields? lol

14 Apr 2007

So to add to this, went to the allotments out the back of the stables near us to be met by a man who resembled none other than our own much loved TV favourite Worzell Gummage, was it him?!
Anyway, i asked him about foxes and whether they could be stopped from getting into chicken coups and he showed me a coup that one of the other allotment owners had.
It was very simply made and fox proof, the "secret to this" he informed me was to "put the chicken wire on the ground making sure it was fully enclosed so the foxes couldn't dig under the coup and fill it over with soil" (so the chickens don't hurt their little chickeny type feet i presume)
so whoever said "do you know how much a fox proof coup would cost" or words similar, the answer is apparently very little :shock:

14 Apr 2007

Quote by mazandden
Why does the hunting fan get to choose which birds live and which die?
Are thrushes and long tailed tits 'better' than magpies then?
And I'm pretty sure that killing magpies is illegal?
Off to do some reasearch....

Under the UK's Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 magpies can be killed if it can be proved that they are affecting songbird populations. This is why the "hunting fan" can kill magpies. However, this "hunting fan" may just be a conservationist of songbirds.
Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, yes the thrushes and long tailed tits are better than magpies.

Quote by mazandden
I cannot possibly understand why he would play with nature, even if magpies actually do kill other birds (does anyone know if this is true?)

Magpies are predatory birds. They will kill other birds and eat their eggs. They can decimate other bird populations in a short amount of time. So they are culled to manage the population of them.
Dave_Notts
For you Dave- reading a little further into the article you are quoting for-
'Research by the British Trust for Ornithology and the RSPB said there was no link between rising magpie and sparrowhawk numbers and the decline of songbirds.
The research suggested the problem lay with the loss of habitat loss caused by modern agriculture'
Modern agriculture eh?!
wink

For you mazandden:
You asked why the hunter should choose: because they can by law.
You asked were the songbirds better than magpies: yes they are because of the law.
You asked was killing magpies illegal: no because of the law.
You asked if magpies do actually kill, yes they do.
If you don't like the law, then contact your local MP and lobby them to change it. Don't blame me for the legislation of this country. If you don't like the answer........don't ask the question.
Dave_Notts

14 Apr 2007

Quote by Srne
So to add to this, went to the allotments out the back of the stables near us to be met by a man who resembled none other than our own much loved TV favourite Worzell Gummage, was it him?!
Anyway, i asked him about foxes and whether they could be stopped from getting into chicken coups and he showed me a coup that one of the other allotment owners had.
It was very simply made and fox proof, the "secret to this" he informed me was to "put the chicken wire on the ground making sure it was fully enclosed so the foxes couldn't dig under the coup and fill it over with soil" (so the chickens don't hurt their little chickeny type feet i presume)
so whoever said "do you know how much a fox proof coup would cost" or words similar, the answer is apparently very little :shock:

What you would have is a box of chicken wire in which the chicken lives. That would be great for the small holder or allotment holder with less than 10 chickens. But the cost to do that for 100's of free range chickens may not be economically viable.
I like the humane aspect of your thoughts though.......as this was one of my primary quaestions.
Dave_Notts

14 Apr 2007

Ok, this might actually answer your question dave!
There are many claims made about the need to control foxes, but there are no quantified data on the cost/benefits of fox control, nor the impact of different methods of fox control on fox numbers.
Away on my little research trip there, i came across an article that studied fox population during and post foot and mouth disease. During the outbreak, no fox hunting could be carried out.
The study found no significant difference in fox population during foot and mouth when no culling was carried out, and after foot and mouth, when the hunts could resume.
Why would culling be allowed when it is not carrying out its supposed function?
At the time of foot and mouth, areas which were employing different methods of culling were also studied.
One area of research was into a type of 'sterilisation' vaccine.
Again, results were conclusive with regards to any form of culling making no significant difference to ox population.
If there is no difference in the number of foxes whether culling happens or not, then why do we bother?
In answer to your question dave, and based purely on the evidence available,
1. We do not need to cull animals to maintain land
2. Farm animals will always be killed by foxes if culling makes no difference to the fox population
3. No method of culling is appropriate
IMO it is the management of the actual farm animals that need to be changed
IMO there is no humane method of culling a species, given that it is proven that culling is ineffective in species (ie fox) control.
m x
One other thing, I do think that this is a relatively minor debate and i do agree with whoever it was that said it was a vote building method for polititians,
The hunting ban debate took up far too much time in parliment, there were far greater issues at the time that needed addressed- it should have been a straight forward examine the evidence, realise culling has no benefit, ban any cull and be done with it!

14 Apr 2007

Not sure if it still applies, but magpies were classified as vermin in the 1970`s, such was their population.

14 Apr 2007

Quote by Bumpkin
Not sure if it still applies, but magpies were classified as vermin in the 1970`s, such was their population.

As are pigeons I believe dunno

14 Apr 2007

Quote by mazandden
Ok, this might actually answer your question dave!
There are many claims made about the need to control foxes, but there are no quantified data on the cost/benefits of fox control, nor the impact of different methods of fox control on fox numbers.
Away on my little research trip there, i came across an article that studied fox population during and post foot and mouth disease. During the outbreak, no fox hunting could be carried out.
The study found no significant difference in fox population during foot and mouth when no culling was carried out, and after foot and mouth, when the hunts could resume.
Why would culling be allowed when it is not carrying out its supposed function?
At the time of foot and mouth, areas which were employing different methods of culling were also studied.
One area of research was into a type of 'sterilisation' vaccine.
Again, results were conclusive with regards to any form of culling making no significant difference to ox population.
If there is no difference in the number of foxes whether culling happens or not, then why do we bother?
In answer to your question dave, and based purely on the evidence available,
1. We do not need to cull animals to maintain land
2. Farm animals will always be killed by foxes if culling makes no difference to the fox population
3. No method of culling is appropriate
IMO it is the management of the actual farm animals that need to be changed
IMO there is no humane method of culling a species, given that it is proven that culling is ineffective in species (ie fox) control.
m x
One other thing, I do think that this is a relatively minor debate and i do agree with whoever it was that said it was a vote building method for polititians,
The hunting ban debate took up far too much time in parliment, there were far greater issues at the time that needed addressed- it should have been a straight forward examine the evidence, realise culling has no benefit, ban any cull and be done with it!

The Burns Report will give you the quantified data on the cost/benefits of fox control. This was one of the governmental reports that allowed the banning of hunting to be successful.
It also showed that culling is a necessary requirment for animal husbandry. There are also a number of other studies that support this view, and there are a number that do not support this view. The author or who was paying the author will depend on what answers they will conclude.
So for what you wrote above, there is still two camps of experts saying what is right. It isn't as black and white as what you stated.
After foot and mouth, in the first lambing season, farmers were reporting that their "write off" of killed lambs of about 6-7 to foxes, in usual years, had risen to 40+.
I asked for a humane solution, not humane killing. Perhaps you didn't understand my question.
Dave_Notts

14 Apr 2007

Thank you Dave, I understood your question perfectly, (and i like how you keep directing this at me rolleyes

)
And I replied there does not need to be a humane solution as fox control is not necessary.
Leave them be is my humane solution.
The Burns report did not show that view, but the wording of it could be taken to read as that. (Perhaps a re-read?)
Yes there are a number different studies arguing the different sides of the coin, as with any scientific research, and yes nothing is as black and white, but I took that into consideration and read the various articles, and made my decisions based on the studies which had a good methodology, research criteria, good sample size, using valid tools to analyse the results as I would do when deciding on the value of any scientific research.
I would imagine not every person reading this forum is interested in p values and blah blah blah, so rather than stating what every journal article I read said, I summed up the points from those I thought were most valid, based on my own literature review criteria.

14 Apr 2007

I am glad that you understood my question. I was starting to wonder if I should have re-phrased it. However, I am now starting to understand your view. It is against culling per se and let foxes roam with no controls.
The scientific research studies that you refer to all point to foxes being no problem? I had a quick look around and saw many of differing opinons, some for and some against. The only one that was impartial was the Burns Report but that was more based on the debate of fox-hunting and hunting with dogs. It recieved many reports and studied them across the diverse groups who had carried out research then gave its opinions on different aspects of each. It is an interesting read.
Any report can be found to support anyones views.
The main problem that I have with the research that you say is available, is if it is true then the culling of foxes per se would have been banned at the same time as the fox-hunting and hunting with dogs legislation was enacted. Since it wasn't, then I can only assume that the evidence was not strong enough to support the ban.
Dave_Notts

18 Apr 2007

never mind foxes, what about seagulls, & you cant shoot the little bas****s either.