Foxes control their own population

E

Ereiam_jh

Well-Known Member
Joined
22 June 2006
Messages
2,771
Location
Sunny Devon
Visit site
I was wondering if any of you had any thoughts on this statement from Endy.

My own are that all wild mammal populations control themselves through limited food supply, living space, competition and disease due to overcrowding.

The question is whether they control themselves at a level that is tolerable to us.
 
The hunting ban had no effect on fox numbers:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/mammal/report3.pdf

Fecal density counts for monitoring red fox numbers:
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/dfiles/file_464.pdf#search='Faecal%20density%20counts%20for%20monitoring%20changes%20in%20red%20fox'

Impacts of foxes on lowland agricultural areas (in case anyone is interested on a foxes environmental impact) :http://www.wildlifebiology.com/2006/1/baker.pdf#search='the%20potential%20impact%20of%20red%20fox%20Vulpes%20vulpes%20predation%20in%20agricultural%20landscapes%20in%20lowland%20Britain.'

And also this one for good luck:

Foxing the nation: The economic (in)significance of hunting with hounds
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...289670921acc045f6f5d68c&ie=/sdarticle.pdf


Opinions are opinions, these are the scientific facts. None of this material comes from lobby groups such as LACS or the government, they are all independant studies. I base my opinions on papers like these, hence the reason I have said that hunting rats with dogs is acceptable to me as there is no better way. I have more links to papers if anyones interested.
 
p.s foxes are a friend to the majority of farmers. 70% of their diet is made up of rabbits, can you imagine the boom in rabbit pops if fox numbers fell?
 
That's a good question, but I think the issue is this... attempts to control the number of foxes can be defeated by the fact that fox numbers can quickly recover to the former environmentally-controlled numbers. The only way to avoid this happening is to reduce fox numbers to the point where populations cannot recover.
 
Oh come on Endy, don't get me started on the science of s#it again!

We can all provide biased links for and against any subject on hunting, it doesn't mean either are right.
 
That's nonsense and completely misunderstands the nature of control. If I want to maintain a hot water tank at a temperature then I have to keep heating it.

If I want to limit the number of foxes in an area then I would have to keep killing them.
 
70% of their diet is made up of rabbits?

We're surrounded by land. There is a resident hare but no rabbits....we have a loose cockrel who lives a bit wild and sleeps in the stable, the fox jumped out the other night when dad came in late and we've not seen him since. We have loads of foxes local to us yet no rabbits, 70% of their diet? Pish!
 
SM, it may come as a surprise but i was not talikng about your farm/yard in particular. It is a representative, generalised statement for the entire country.

Those links.....?
 
But that;s exactly bthe problem with your arguments. They don't apply to specific cases. Eg. You say foxes are the farmers freind. The truthy is that they are sometimes and they aren't at other times.
 
''foxes are a friend to the majority of farmers.''


Endy,

Why do the vast majority of farmers therefore allow hunting on their land?

If foxes are so proficient at controlling their own numbers, kindly explain the boom in numbers of foxes in inner cities.
 
"If foxes are so proficient at controlling their own numbers, kindly explain the boom in numbers of foxes in inner cities. "

I postulate the higher availability of food. Possibly related to the demise of the use of metal dustbins and the increase in use of plastic sacks.
 
I'd far rather live in the countryside than in the town if I were a fox. Town foxes are full of mange, much worse than dogs.

I'd also be far more worried about getting shot than chased by dogs.
 
Endy, why are you so selective in your links to 'scientific' information? you'll be quoting us 'evidence' by Prof. Harris next and trying to persuade us it is not biased!

As for IFAW!!!! 'Scientific!!!!!
 
Exactly. You either have to keep killing foxes to try to maintain them at a human-desired level (which presumably is lower than their natural level), or you have to get them to a level where they cant breed effectivley.
 
But RS, surely each farm that lambs 800 ewes (so say 1200 lambs) provides an abundance of food in the countryside, therefore foxes are no longer able to control their own population.
 
Um... I dont think that's logical. An abundance of food would allow the population to increase. If you switched to arable farming, come next spring there would not be so much food available and the fox population would decrease.
 
"Exactly. You either have to keep killing foxes to try to maintain them at a human-desired level (which presumably is lower than their natural level), or you have to get them to a level where they cant breed effectivley. "

Precisely, so if the human desired level is lower than the natural level, unless you are prepared to pretty much wipe out the population in one fell swoop ( which is very unwise for a number of reasons) then you have to keep killing them.

To say 'foxes control their own populations' really isn't the point. The question is do they control their poulations at a level at which we can tolerate them. This then boils down to what we are doing. Personally foxes don't particularily bother me, I'd be happy to import them or build artificial earths or undertake other conservation measures if their numbers were too low. However if their numbers were too high then I might want to reduce them as I value the ground nesting birds around me. The same goes for badgers. The sensible way to do this is through continuous control measures that don't take out local populations but reduce them.

I also very much like to have deer. BUT I want to control their numbers so my woodland grows healthily.

The deer would no doubt 'control their numbers' too however not at a level I could tolerate.
 
"The hunting ban had no effect on fox numbers:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/mammal/report3.pdf"

This is rubbish.

For a start it is Stepen Harris (biased) and furthermore he claims all forms of Fox control were curtailed during FMD.

What rubbish.

Why?
 
"Um... I dont think that's logical. An abundance of food would allow the population to increase. If you switched to arable farming, come next spring there would not be so much food available and the fox population would decrease. "

There's not much arable farming where I live, it's the wrong sort of countryside.
 
"Impacts of foxes on lowland agricultural areas (in case anyone is interested on a foxes environmental impact) :http://www.wildlifebiology.com/2006/1/baker.pdf#search='the%20potential%20impact%20of%20red%20fox%20Vulpes%20vulpes%20predation%20in%20agricultural%20landscapes%20in%20lowland%20Britain.'"

Stephen Harris again !!!!!!!

What about upland foxes?

Jesus !!!
 
"And also this one for good luck:

Foxing the nation: The economic (in)significance of hunting with hounds
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VD9-3XBKC2J-3-1&_cdi=5977&_user=132444&_orig=search&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1999&_sk=999849995&view=c&_alid=465269325&_rdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkzV&md5=4f9bd1e82289670921acc045f6f5d68c&ie=/sdarticle.pdf"

30 Dollars for a crock of shite !!?!

I would rather believe my eyes, ears and my the 500 years of sheep farming experience my family has.

But of course, you will know better.
 
Yes it is because that is the situation down here. If we switched to arable farming there would be a huge increase in rabbits(due to the crops) so there would still be a mass of food....breed like rabbits and all!
 
Well well, our resident " I'm free" Mr Humphries (Bendy) has finally surfaced.

As per usuall with a huge load of shite psuedo science links.

The next one with be the Mammal Society study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top