On Jun 5, 3:59*am, Bill wrote:
Because the foxes way of hunting and providing food relies on storage.
He/she will kill as much as possible while the opportunity is there and
then take it away. *If your neighbour had waited a few days the fox
would have been back and removed most of its kills. *Trouble is people
intervene with the process and think it was just killing for the sake of
it and not eating what it had killed. *OK 40 is a shade excessive, maybe
it had a big family to support?

I've also heard a similar story about foxes breaking into hen coops
and just murdering all the hens. The foxes just go into a killing
frenzy and as you say, don't leave anything alive. The owner had just
used bog standard chicken wire and the fox had simply ran at it
repeatedly until it forced a way through.

I know about the hunting ban with horse/dogs, but are you allowed to
capture and/or shoot a fox if its on your land?

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.

Dave.

On 07/06/2010 00:20, Dave Starling wrote:

I know about the hunting ban with horse/dogs, but are you allowed to
capture and/or shoot a fox if its on your land?

Foxes are vermin and can be shot on sight subject to the normal rules on
discharging firearms.

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.

On 03/06/2010 22:22, Jules Richardson wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:58:36 +0100, David WE Roberts wrote:
I would have thought you
might to keep at least chickens and bees (assuming you regard these as
livestock).

Have you ever tried herding bees!? ;-)

Use a beagle? ;-)

--
Howard Neil

Bruce wrote in
:

Being a vegan isn't easy. I married someone strictly vegetarian who
is keen to go vegan, so I know. But many people seem to achieve a
dairy-free diet quite successfully.

The key difficulties are to get enough B12 and calcium. Note that
deficiencies in those take *decades* to appear, so it is entirely
possible that someone that become a vegan diet can easily appear
to be getting adequate nutrition.

Often vegans correctly state that there are many vegans in
developing countries, and they don't get B12 deficiency, so it
must be OK. It is then amusing to watch their face when they hear
the actual source of their B12. Hint: it isn't a nice thought, and
definitely is not for the squeamish. See the "dietary sources"
section of http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html

Clearly B12 and calcuim can be safely obtained from "artificial"
supplements, but they can be difficult to obtain them directly from
food. If in doubt, use the USDA nutrient database to calculate
the amount of an ingredient that someone would have to eat to
get their RDA.

Dave Starling wrote:
On Jun 5, 3:59 am, Bill wrote:
Because the foxes way of hunting and providing food relies on storage.
He/she will kill as much as possible while the opportunity is there and
then take it away. If your neighbour had waited a few days the fox
would have been back and removed most of its kills. Trouble is people
intervene with the process and think it was just killing for the sake of
it and not eating what it had killed. OK 40 is a shade excessive, maybe
it had a big family to support?

I've also heard a similar story about foxes breaking into hen coops
and just murdering all the hens. The foxes just go into a killing
frenzy and as you say, don't leave anything alive. The owner had just
used bog standard chicken wire and the fox had simply ran at it
repeatedly until it forced a way through.

I know about the hunting ban with horse/dogs, but are you allowed to
capture and/or shoot a fox if its on your land?

Its almost impossible to get a rifle licenses these days, and using a
shotgun against foxes is not good news if at any range. 60 yards is
about the limit, and even then, the fox will probably limp away to die
of infections after several days of agony.

Dogs are far better, safer and more humane killers. Either the fox
escapes, or its dead within seconds.

To kill a fox cleanly needs a rifle of at least .22, preferably .25
calibre, and a pretty nasty hollow point bullet, and sights, and a
marksmen capable of an accurate head or heart shot, at distance, and
deployed in such a way that the bullet can not fly off into the distance
and hit some lone walker a couple of miles away. Single bullet firearms
are lethal (though not accurate) up to several miles.

Dogs are far safer. You cant go on a killing spree with dogs.


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.


Same probably.

Still rottweilers have killed more babies so far.

We ban those, but ban dogs also that can kill foxes (but not babies)
from so doing.,


Immediately a law that is political, but not effective, can be clearly seen.


Dave.

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 07/06/2010 00:20, Dave Starling wrote:

I know about the hunting ban with horse/dogs, but are you allowed to
capture and/or shoot a fox if its on your land?

Foxes are vermin and can be shot on sight subject to the normal rules on
discharging firearms.

And all the other restrictions surrounding ownership of said firearms,
which are not inconsiderable.

sufficient enough to make e.g. wandering through the streets of a town
with a loaded firearm 'hunting foxes m'lud' likely to net you a pretty
hefty jail term.

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.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...


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.


More likely the foxes moved into towns as a result of them being hunted.
They seek out anywhere they can survive and they didn't need to go into town
when they could live in the countryside.
Something else to blame the fox hunters for.

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:28:28 +0100 Roger Chapman wrote :
I know about the hunting ban with horse/dogs, but are you allowed
to capture and/or shoot a fox if its on your land?

Foxes are vermin and can be shot on sight subject to the normal
rules on discharging firearms.

But isn't it the case than in hunting areas, shooting foxes is viewed
as bad form?

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Nightjar \"cpb\"@"
"insertmysurnamehere saying something like:

I had one that said no chickens, pigs or travelling fairs and I was not
allowed to make it into a lunatic asylum,

What a bind.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:28:28 +0100 Roger Chapman wrote :
I know about the hunting ban with horse/dogs, but are you allowed
to capture and/or shoot a fox if its on your land?
Foxes are vermin and can be shot on sight subject to the normal
rules on discharging firearms.

But isn't it the case than in hunting areas, shooting foxes is viewed
as bad form?

don't think so.


Local landowner does both.

He snares foxes and dispatches them with a 12 bore through the back of
the head.

He also allows the local horsey set to rush around chasing them as well.

With dogs too. The law seems to have had zero effect. Oh I expect
someone has trailed a dead fox for the hounds to follow, but if they
break off and chase a live one, what can one do? :-)

There are almost no police within miles, and certainly none with the
time or inclination to enforce a law none of them believe in anyway.

As long as some anti-hunting mob don't turn up, who gives a shit?
everyone's lost chickens and pheasant chicks, and that's lost money, and
a lot of inhumane killing by foxes.


I told em to say that they were all pagans, and hunting foxes was part
of their culture, and if Jews and Muslims get away with cutting animals
throats to make meat, then they should say that chasing foxes with dogs
is part of their cultural and religious heritage..too..

Anyway, the racist government is now out of office, so that one will get
quietly repealed.

Janet Baraclough wrote:
Foxes are opportunist omnivores and they go (and breed) where the food
supply is densest. In urban areas, their ample food supply is
the vast mountain of food remains people throw away or drop as litter.

On the plus side, they will probably all turn into soap-opera-watching
sofa-dwelling lard buckets within another generation or two ...

In uk.rec.gardening "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
and I was not
allowed to make it into a lunatic asylum,

What if it just naturally developed into one?

Janet Baraclough wrote:
On the plus side, they will probably all turn into soap-opera-watching
sofa-dwelling lard buckets within another generation or two ...
The supply of fast food sustains a density of urban fox populations
which makes urban foxes far more susceptible to disease/ infection
(just like sofa-dwelling lardbuckets).

*nod*
The London-based foxes I've seen have all been a bit on the skanky side.
Except those around Blackheath, I seem to remember.

I walked past one sitting on a wall once. And I mean literally, I was
walking on the pavement, he was sitting on the (~waist height) wall on the
inner edge of the pavement. He just watched me, just moving his head as I
went past, then the same as I went back again in the opposite direction.

It was odd, but this was one huge and incredibly healthy-looking beastie!