The message
from Tim Perry contains these words:
Rusty Hinge 2;812194 Wrote:
The message
from Tim Perry contains these
words:
-
Rusty, there are more ways than 1 to interpret most things.-
Please give attributions - your posts are unintelligible.
O.K., Rusty, is that better,
Much. Thanks.
I didn't realize I was making it too complicated for you to follow.
Life's too short, and my feet aren't touching the ground ATM.
I don't think shifting a problem onto someone else is a fair or
viable solution, and it's true that urban foxes would have a hard
time if dumped into the countryside.
Irresponsible pet owners are a nuisance. As I said earlier I've had
more than my fair share of 'Fido' chasing my sheep.
It's more often several 'Fidos' when they do it off their own bat (not
always, I'd agree), but fairly locally, there was one person (for want
of a better description) who bred lurchers from (it is reported) bull
mastiffs and Irish wolfhounds, drove out into the countryside with them
and used them to bring down sheep and calves to put in his freezer.
It's legal to shoot the dogs if caught in delicto - rhetoric but why
not the owner? /rhetoric
Point of interest, when I observed a fox passing through a field of
ewes with lambs, the ewes seemed unconcerned, but let a dog
into that field - utter panic.
In all fairness, I have to say that farmers from 'up north' tell me
quite
a different story, so perhaps the northern foxes are more aggressive.
Eeee lad, life's 'ard oop north, 'appen.
So, without everyone getting too shirty and worked up, I can only
repeat that if you choose to keep anything, for pet or production,
you are responsible for its welfare, and you have a duty to see that
it is properly fed, watered, and securely housed.
But that does not give you the excuse to exterminate every other
creature, just so you can save a few quid on suitable containment.
Man is just as much part of the environment as any other creature, and
it's unfortunate that said creature has exterminated anything which
might have kept foxes down to sensible numbers - wolves, for example,
and possibly, bears.
As it is, foxes are too numerous, and increasing in numbers all the
time, at the same time as other wildlife is on the decline.
I wonder if there might be some correlation there?
I'm sure that it's not beyond man to use his intelligence and find a
more rational solution.
·243
It's true that foxes have few natural predators now. Perhaps if DEFRA
do reintroduce the wolf, the fox population might suffer a decline.
In the US they find that the wolf displaces the coyote, the coyote
displaces the fox. But will people in 20 years time be wanting to wipe
out the 'big bad wolf'.
Wolf rays!
Even in Russia and areas of the former Soviet Union most authorities
discount any direct threat to man from wolves. A few might be a good
idea in the Highlands, as the red deer and roe deer populations aren't
sustainable by winter flora. (I did put 'winta florer' - ToBAGO - but -
we're not in the Shed...)
--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig