Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 16:20:43 -0700 (PDT), Dave Starling
wrote:
Reading the the news today that a fox snook into a house and mauled
two babies whilst they were asleep in their cots. Does rather make
wonder what would have happened if the mother? hadn't disturbed the
fox in the act.


Perhaps the story wouldn't have been quite so sensational if the
attack had been in a rural area rather than urban Stoke Newington.

I wonder whether the sharp rise in the "urban fox" population has been
in any way triggered by "New" Labour's ban on fox hunting.

Probably not, to be fair.

There are really two sorts of fox hunting: one is sporty and colourful,
and done by men in red jackets half ****ed on horseback, and kills very
few foxes, and not a few riders and horses.

Still each to his own.

The other sort is professional drives done probably largely on foot in
difficult horse country, accompanied by large packs of dogs, and is
ruthless and dull. And any combination in between.

The idea of the first is to make a virtue of necessity and have a bit of
a jolly jape, the idea of the latter is to dramatically reduce breeding
populations in the most efficient manner. And dogs are it.

Its possible that population pressure has driven foxes into urban areas,
but irs really far more likely that inner cities that are relatively
unmanaged, become as useful to the hunter gatherers of the animal world,
as to the hunter gatherer street gangs of humans that inhabit them. Its
more symptomatic of incipient breakdown of social order than anything
else. If trash is left uncollected outside, rats and foxes will turn up.