The Fox that bitten those poor girls

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by StellaJohnson, Jun 8, 2010.

  1. StellaJohnson

    StellaJohnson Active Member

    I was horrified to hear about these poor little girls have have been seriously hurt by a fox who entered there home, worse still that they think people have been feeding the fox.

    As the world gone mad, if this isn't a good reason to have fox hunting I don't know what is.

    Foxes are vicous animals that will kill anything in there sight. Although this is rare case that a fox has attacked a human, they are not cute cuddly loving animals that people think. They are entering towns and cities and are going to cause more problems and worse still another case like this where a child will be killed.

    Any thoughts?
  2. Chunky

    Chunky Active Member

    Foxes have been urbanised since the 1940's. Fox hunting continued till this decade and did nothing to quell the numbers of urbanised foxes.

    Secondly can a group of people on the back of horses hunting 1 fox a day with a pack of dogs be either humane or asssisting in stopping the urbanised fox?
  3. geordiecolin

    geordiecolin Active Member

    I'm couldn't care less either way about fox hunting, but I agree that it probably would have little if any impact upon the urban fox population.
  4. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    What Chunky said. Plus - horse-back hunting in the tally-ho style is not a very efficient way of killing significant numbers of foxes.
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2010
  5. Anno Draconis

    Anno Draconis Well-Known Member

    ??? Fox hunting isn't illegal. Hunting wild animals with hounds is illegal, for the simple reason that it's inhumane. It's also a rubbish way to eliminate foxes, which I agree can be a vicious nuisance, and it doesn't work at all for urban foxes.

    Urban foxes live mainly on the food waste that we throw away, or (as in this case) scraps that people leave out for the cute little foxy-woxy. Best way to get rid is to eliminate the food source. Second best way is a guy with a shotgun.
  6. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

  7. StellaJohnson

    StellaJohnson Active Member

    I agree it dosen't affect the population of urban foxes. I don't care if fox hunting is inhumane or not. They are nasty ******s and they need getting rid of. As soon as this poor fuffy cute foxes mentality is out of peoples heads the better
  8. mxb59307

    mxb59307 Member

    Classic knee-jerk reaction, hilarious!

    The overflowing bins and food dropped by litterers will of course have no effect in attracting foxes.

    Killing an urban fox which is strong enough to hold a territory often creates a vacuum filled by more animals fighting it out for the now vacant patch.

    Err, no. They do kill anything they think makes a good meal and do (annoyingly) enter a frenzy, killing more than they can eat at a single sitting. Some is hidden for later, the rest is unfortunately discarded.

    Quite correct. No fatalities, one recorded attack in 2004. Will attack if cornered and feel threatened, much like any other animal.

    Absolutely, still a wild animal even if urbanised.

    Wrong, they've been here for decades.


    Dogs attack with more frequently and worse consequences than foxes ever will. They should be removed from homes and shot in the street. Cats sh1te in my garden. They should be drowned in treacle. Just wanted to add my own knee-jerk reaction to something. And before anyone asks, I'm not pro fox - I dislike them as much as anyone as my dead and nearly dead pets will/would testify.
  9. Thirteen Ball

    Thirteen Ball Active Member

    Foxes are merely doing what they evolved to do. Filling an ecological niche, scrounging food where they can get it, and killing as they require in order to suvive. Nature is neither kind nor evil - merely coldly indifferent.

    Advocating the extermination of a species based on one very questionable report of an attack does not seem a rational response to me.

    Several people a year are bitten feeding squirrels in parks. Should squirrels then be hunted down? (Personally I believe that if they're grey/black squirrels the answer is yes - but not because they bite people. If people are stupod enough to allow themselves to be bitten by what is - at base - a wild animal, they deserve all they get.)

    Domestic dogs are responsible for astronomically more injuries than foxes every year. Likewise faeces not cleared up by owners is not only disgusting and a health hazard, it can cause childhood blindness. Surely there is more cause for reducing the numbers of dogs than there is those of foxes?

    The long and short of it is, even if it is a fox attack (and I remain to be convinced) this is a one-off. If society reacts knee-jerk to this, then we run the risk of running yet another of our native species to extinction. A species that has only moved into cities because we humans can't be trusted to put things in the bin.
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2010
  10. BigHorn

    BigHorn Active Member

    So I assume you think all tigers should be shot in India, all Polar Bears in the habitable parts of the Arctic, all Brown and Grizzly Bears in Canada, in fact all the 'dangerous' animals around the world .

    Throw away those teddy bears people, you shouldn't get sentimental about these animals - Lets all go on a bear hunt.
  11. StellaJohnson

    StellaJohnson Active Member

    No, I agree with all the points raised and has made me look at a different light but they are endangered species. I want all dirty rats killed also, they are raising in population and needs controlling.

    On your point, my family are ex farmers and I have seen quite alot of there animals, lambs, chickens etc killed by foxes. I just don't like the creatures. Farmers want to protect there livestock. I know of friends who used to live in Kenya who find elephants pest to farmers and over their there have been cases rightly/wrongly shoot them even though they are endangered. I just don't like foxes for that reason, and I know shooting them or hunting them down its not the answer.

    Sorry for this debate.:D
  12. Thirteen Ball

    Thirteen Ball Active Member

    Never apologise for a debate! Though I may not agree with what you've said, it does us all good to have our ideas challenged now and again.

    Thesis + antithesis = synthesis. :)
  13. 2nd man down

    2nd man down Moderator Staff Member

    Foxes, urban and rural, both have their rightful place on this planet, and unfortunately the urban ones are only urban because we moved in on where they lived. We're on their patch, not the other way round. To cull them following one "attack"? Isn't that just a little severe? And if we do adopt that kind of knee jerk reaction philosophy there are a few idiots in my village well past their point of being culled because they've been preying on the innocent people for years and getting away with it quite the thing. Might be time to dust down the old pick-axe handle and balaclava after all. An eye for an eye and all that.

    I also find something quite "not right" about this story but can't quite put my finger on what it is. It just doesn't ring true to me somehow. Foxes just don't behave like that round humans. Chickens maybe, but not humans. It troubles me. I'm sure there's more to this that we haven't heard yet.
  14. Andy Cooper

    Andy Cooper Member

    Call me cynical but I find the whole of this episode somewhat debateable, and obviously seeing that link, others put doubt on it as well. To put it bluntly I just do not believe what the mother said that was televised. What is the next step I ask myself, Max Clifford and story sold to the Sun / News of the Screws?
  15. Rambo Chick

    Rambo Chick Member

    :clap: I totally agree. There are a lot of human idiots that are oxygen wasters imo and should be removed from the planet accordingly.
  16. Laserbeam bass

    Laserbeam bass Active Member

    Does the mother qualify for a darwin award. Leaving access available to wild animals?????
  17. johnmartin

    johnmartin Active Member

    Afraid not. To qualify for a Darwin one must remove oneself from the gene pool.
  18. Thirteen Ball

    Thirteen Ball Active Member

    The gene pool does, after all, need a little chlorine.....
  19. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    One could argue that removing one's children from the gene pool effectively removes oneself from the gene pool...
  20. MoominDave

    MoominDave Well-Known Member

    But then one would start to flirt dangerously with the bounds of poor taste...

Share This Page