Urban fox press reports

[irish_only]

Just received this email from NWTF

We’ve just learnt of two recent press reports about urban foxes. The first relates to a doubling in the number of cases of lungworm infections in domestic dogs. This increase, in a disease not previously known in the UK, is attributed to a parasite carried and spread by foxes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373857/Deadly-urban-fox-disease-spreading-dogs.html

The second relates to an attack on a newspaper columnist Jenni Murray’s pet Chihuahua.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...head-urban-fox-bitten-Surely-wouldnt-die.html

The first article, in the Daily Mail, is dated 6 April 2011, which means it will probably have appeared in yesterday’s paper. But it may possibly appear in today’s.

The second article, in the Mail on Sunday, is dated 4 April 2011, which means it probably appeared in last week’s edition. But it may possibly appear in next Sunday’s.

Should anyone have access to the printed versions of either, could they please hang onto them and either contact us through the website, or drop us an email at wdbrr@aol.com

Thanking you in anticipation - NWTF http://www.terrierwork.com/

 

[ThePinkPony]

Why is it that so many people are so ignorant to fox behaviour.

They will take on a fully grown ewe to take her newborn lamb. A chihuahua is easy pickings. Every time i read these stories i roll my eyes.

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Why is it that so many people are so ignorant to fox behaviour.

They will take on a fully grown ewe to take her newborn lamb. A chihuahua is easy pickings. Every time i read these stories i roll my eyes.

The fox problem is serious in this valley and beyond, every farmer is losing lambs,some nightly.It hasn't been this bad in years, so much for the ban-

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Just received this email from NWTF

We’ve just learnt of two recent press reports about urban foxes. The first relates to a doubling in the number of cases of lungworm infections in domestic dogs. This increase, in a disease not previously known in the UK, is attributed to a parasite carried and spread by foxes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373857/Deadly-urban-fox-disease-spreading-dogs.html

The second relates to an attack on a newspaper columnist Jenni Murray’s pet Chihuahua.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...head-urban-fox-bitten-Surely-wouldnt-die.html

The first article, in the Daily Mail, is dated 6 April 2011, which means it will probably have appeared in yesterday’s paper. But it may possibly appear in today’s.

The second article, in the Mail on Sunday, is dated 4 April 2011, which means it probably appeared in last week’s edition. But it may possibly appear in next Sunday’s.

Should anyone have access to the printed versions of either, could they please hang onto them and either contact us through the website, or drop us an email at wdbrr@aol.com

Thanking you in anticipation - NWTF http://www.terrierwork.com/

Just wanted to point out that lungworm is carried and spread by slugs and snails. Foxes and dogs are at risk of infection but dont expect the Daily Mail to tell the truth

 

[Mocha]

Just wanted to point out that lungworm is carried and spread by slugs and snails. Foxes and dogs are at risk of infection but dont expect the Daily Mail to tell the truth

Umm ... yes slugs and snails carry the larvae ... but only after they pick it up from the soil infected by faeces! They are only intermediate hosts.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Umm ... yes slugs and snails carry the larvae ... but only after they pick it up from the soil infected by faeces! They are only intermediate hosts.

Yes the faeces of dogs and foxes.

 

[EAST KENT]

Foxes can be costly for urban dog owners, if the nuisances get in their garden for instance ,the dogs will need regular spot on treatments with Advocate to prevent lung worm/fleas/mange and a host of other things .Foxes belong in the countryside ,controlled in numbers by any means available.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Foxes can be costly for urban dog owners, if the nuisances get in their garden for instance ,the dogs will need regular spot on treatments with Advocate to prevent lung worm/fleas/mange and a host of other things .Foxes belong in the countryside ,controlled in numbers by any means available.

ALL urban garden/dog owners risk the need for vet treatment for their pets due to slugs and snails. The fox is not the problem. They are at risk of infection as are dogs, cats and hedgehogs. Any attempt by the Daily Mail or any other to present this as an urban fox problem is ludicrous! Thankfully the treatment of lungworm is easy so no need for scare stories in the press unlessa they have an agenda
As for foxes belonging in the countryside that is all well and good until the countryside is built on making the resident foxes urban due to no fault of their own.

 

[EAST KENT]

Never heard of a slug or snail carrying fox mange mites or dripping flea eggs everywhere!

 

[rosie fronfelen]

and didnt know the countryside was to be swallowed up by building work, like to see it here-PMSL.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Never heard of a slug or snail carrying fox mange mites or dripping flea eggs everywhere!

Hence the reason you first introduced them to the thread in an attempt to re-direct it. Sad or what

 

[Binkle&Flip]

and didnt know the countryside was to be swallowed up by building work, like to see it here-PMSL.

Another wasted opportunity to post anything worth anybodys time my dear!

When the Daily Mail where not so anti fox they published a similar story telling the truth about the lungworm carriers back in 2008 Anyway, Cameron, the champion of repeal is doing well isnt he ROTFL

 

[endymion]

S**t. I'm not going to sleep tonight.

 

[Fiagai]

Current information on urban fox populations is very patchy with estimates of between 13,000 - 35,000 foxes living in urban areas but it would appear that urban fox populations are on the rise

A recent RSPB nationwide survey found that 38 per cent of those living in urban areas had caught a glimpse of a fox, compared to just 23 per cent of their rural counterparts.The poll of 62,000 people is the first time the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has asked people about the wildlife found in their gardens as well as birds.

LINK

Urban sightings and requests for fox control would appear to on the increase
According to Peter Crowden, Director of the National Pest Control Technicians Association, controllers in towns and cities across the country are being asked to trap one fox a week
He said most householders called in pest controllers to stop noise and disturbance to pets and gardens.
Mr Crowden's own business in Northamptonshire killed 60 foxes last year compared to 25 in 2007. It costs around £100 to have a fox trapped and killed.
He said, "I think other businesses around the country have also seen an increase. Foxes have no natural predator and it is easier for them now with fortnightly bin collections and an increase in the rabbit population."
Householders troubled by foxes have to call in one of the 800 private pest controllers, as the council does not offer a service to removed urban foxes unless they are causing problems on council property.
According to Peter Crowden, Director of the National Pest Control Technicians Association, controllers in towns and cities across the country are being asked to trap one fox a week, compared to one a month.
He said most householders called in pest controllers to stop noise and disturbance to pets and gardens.
Mr Crowden's own business in Northamptonshire killed 60 foxes last year compared to 25 in 2007. It costs around £100 to have a fox trapped and killed.
He said, "I think other businesses around the country have also seen an increase. Foxes have no natural predator and it is easier for them now with fortnightly bin collections and an increase in the rabbit population."
Householders troubled by foxes have to call in one of the 800 private pest controllers, as the council does not offer a service to removed urban foxes unless they are causing problems on council property.

LINK


In addition the urban fox has been linked with a rise in the incidence of lungworm infection

Cases of lungworm are on the increase due to changes in the fox population (a major source of Crenosoma vulpis)and changes in climate and pet travel trends (Angiostrongylus vasorum was previously rare in the UK) Dogs usually become infected by eating snails or slugs (intermediate hosts); the larvae travel from the digestive tract to the lungs; eggs are subsequently coughed up and swallowed. This is why we can test for lungworm by looking for eggs in a faecal sample. The main signs of disease are coughing and shortness of breath but these worms can also cause clotting disorders and ultimately can prove fatal.

LINK

 

[millreef]

Call me cynical BUT.... Foxes are hardly going to get a fair trail on a forum called the Horse and Hound are they? And since when did the Daily Mail ever get it right? Just a bunny hugger's point of view, please don't burn effigies of me

 

[rosie fronfelen]

Another wasted opportunity to post anything worth anybodys time my dear!

When the Daily Mail where not so anti fox they published a similar story telling the truth about the lungworm carriers back in 2008 Anyway, Cameron, the champion of repeal is doing well isnt he ROTFL

Firstly, i think David Cameron has more important things on his mind with the middle east than hunting, and you write such tripe its not worth taking seriously. Is this how you are going to ramble on all summer, nothing else to do my dear?

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Firstly, i think David Cameron has more important things on his mind with the middle east than hunting, and you write such tripe its not worth taking seriously. Is this how you are going to ramble on all summer, nothing else to do my dear?

The middle east is the last of Camerons worries given his record so far. Also it was rather interesting I thought that the Mail back in 2008 printed this..

Pet owners panic as lungworm attacks cats and dogs in the soggy summer
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:36 PM on 2nd September 2008

Comments (0) Add to My Stories
The dismal summer weather has taken an unexpected toll on our pets, experts say.
Garden snail and slug populations have flourished during the damp conditions. But they can harbour a dangerous parasite.
When eaten by dogs and cats, the lungworm carried by the slugs and snails can infect the bloodstream and cause coughing and breathing problems. In some cases the condition can prove fatal.
Deadly: The lungworm carried by the slugs and snails
Veterinary charity PDSA has reported an upsurge in cases.
Senior veterinary surgeon Sean Wensley said: 'PDSA vets have seen a gradual increase in pets affected by lungworm, which was previously confined only to Wales and the South-West, but is now seen in many areas of the UK.
Seventh heaven for slugs and snails: They thrive in the wet weather - but harbour a dangerous parasite harmful to pets'This rise in the number of cases of lungworm should remind pet owners of the importance of getting their pet regularly wormed by their vet.

Seventh heaven for slugs and snails: They thrive in the wet weather - but harbour a dangerous parasite harmful to pets
'Lungworm is just one of many types of worm that are prevented by regular worming with an effective worming product.'
Lungworm cannot infect humans, although other types of worm can.
August is expected to be the least sunny in England since records began in 1912, forecasters say.
On high alert: Cats and dogs are in danger of lungworm, a parasite they can pick up from slugs and snails by eating them



Given that both foxes and dogs can get lungworm from snail and slugs then pass it on through their faeces, and there are a few hundred foxes in this country and about 8 million dogs, I wonder why the Mail blamed the foxes? Must be the agenda that one paper has at the moment!
As for 'rambling', on I havent posted for a while but can assure you I shall whenever I choose so best you get used to it if you have nothing better to do

 

[rosie fronfelen]

The middle east is the last of Camerons worries given his record so far. Also it was rather interesting I thought that the Mail back in 2008 printed this..

Pet owners panic as lungworm attacks cats and dogs in the soggy summer
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 1:36 PM on 2nd September 2008
So you assume i know nothing of this being as you have written an epistle?part of your paranoia is a dislike of Cameron, my dear-
Comments (0) Add to My Stories
The dismal summer weather has taken an unexpected toll on our pets, experts say.
Garden snail and slug populations have flourished during the damp conditions. But they can harbour a dangerous parasite.
When eaten by dogs and cats, the lungworm carried by the slugs and snails can infect the bloodstream and cause coughing and breathing problems. In some cases the condition can prove fatal.
Deadly: The lungworm carried by the slugs and snails
Veterinary charity PDSA has reported an upsurge in cases.
Senior veterinary surgeon Sean Wensley said: 'PDSA vets have seen a gradual increase in pets affected by lungworm, which was previously confined only to Wales and the South-West, but is now seen in many areas of the UK.
Seventh heaven for slugs and snails: They thrive in the wet weather - but harbour a dangerous parasite harmful to pets'This rise in the number of cases of lungworm should remind pet owners of the importance of getting their pet regularly wormed by their vet.

Seventh heaven for slugs and snails: They thrive in the wet weather - but harbour a dangerous parasite harmful to pets
'Lungworm is just one of many types of worm that are prevented by regular worming with an effective worming product.'
Lungworm cannot infect humans, although other types of worm can.
August is expected to be the least sunny in England since records began in 1912, forecasters say.
On high alert: Cats and dogs are in danger of lungworm, a parasite they can pick up from slugs and snails by eating them



Given that both foxes and dogs can get lungworm from snail and slugs then pass it on through their faeces, and there are a few hundred foxes in this country and about 8 million dogs, I wonder why the Mail blamed the foxes? Must be the agenda that one paper has at the moment!
As for 'rambling', on I havent posted for a while but can assure you I shall whenever I choose so best you get used to it if you have nothing better to do

haha i dont have to read your tripe, my dear,so dont be surprised if i dont answer you again.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

haha i dont have to read your tripe, my dear,so dont be surprised if i dont answer you again.

You are not going to answer me, AGAIN, sweetie? How many times have you said that before posting to me I wonder. Five.....Six times? I do think I have lost count

 

[rosie fronfelen]

You are not going to answer me, AGAIN, sweetie? How many times have you said that before posting to me I wonder. Five.....Six times? I do think I have lost count

Getting pretty intimate sweetie,you are clever at counting------byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-

 

[Herne]

Given that both foxes and dogs can get lungworm from snail and slugs then pass it on through their faeces, and there are a few hundred foxes in this country and about 8 million dogs, I wonder why the Mail blamed the foxes? Must be the agenda that one paper has at the moment!

Binkle, you are, as usual, parroting anti-hunt propaganda without even pausing to think whether it even begins to make sense.

We are not talking about catching lungworm here, but spreading it.

If you thought about it sensibly for even a short time, you would work out that it is not spread by marathon-running slugs and mountaineering snails - because they obviously do not travel very far.

Neither is it spread that much by dogs. If you think about it, most people restrict their dogs to their own gardens (where they don't spread anything) and to walks, where, hopefully, they poop-scoop, thus preventing the local slugs and snails from picking it up and passing it on to other canines (and felines).

Foxes, on the other hand, pass freely throughout the neighbourhood eating slugs in snails in some gardens and pooping in others, thus spreading the infection. (Seeing as the anti-hunters claim responsibility for the fox, should they not also take responsibility for pooper-scooping after them…?)

Cats, of course, are equally to blame - which could, incidentally lead us on to the ever-avoided question of why anti-hunters kick up so much stink about hound-owners letting their animals out to kill a small number selected species in a controlled way on land where they have the landowners encouragement to do so, but raise not a whimper about cat owners letting their animals out to cause mass slaughter in the countryside with no control or no permission (and cats, of course, being much more "sadistic" killers than dogs, so the "suffering" caused must be even greater...). It won't, however, lead to that question, because it is one to which you have no answer, so you will just pretend you never heard it.

And as well as lungworm, of course, there is mange to worry about, as someone else has already pointed out, and toxicara.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Binkle, you are, as usual, parroting anti-hunt propaganda without even pausing to think whether it even begins to make sense.

We are not talking about catching lungworm here, but spreading it.

If you thought about it sensibly for even a short time, you would work out that it is not spread by marathon-running slugs and mountaineering snails - because they obviously do not travel very far.

Neither is it spread that much by dogs. If you think about it, most people restrict their dogs to their own gardens (where they don't spread anything) and to walks, where, hopefully, they poop-scoop, thus preventing the local slugs and snails from picking it up and passing it on to other canines (and felines).

Foxes, on the other hand, pass freely throughout the neighbourhood eating slugs in snails in some gardens and pooping in others, thus spreading the infection. (Seeing as the anti-hunters claim responsibility for the fox, should they not also take responsibility for pooper-scooping after them…?)

Cats, of course, are equally to blame - which could, incidentally lead us on to the ever-avoided question of why anti-hunters kick up so much stink about hound-owners letting their animals out to kill a small number selected species in a controlled way on land where they have the landowners encouragement to do so, but raise not a whimper about cat owners letting their animals out to cause mass slaughter in the countryside with no control or no permission (and cats, of course, being much more "sadistic" killers than dogs, so the "suffering" caused must be even greater...). It won't, however, lead to that question, because it is one to which you have no answer, so you will just pretend you never heard it.

And as well as lungworm, of course, there is mange to worry about, as someone else has already pointed out, and toxicara.

Oh wonderful Herne. Just because your explanation of the lungworm situation is pro hunt based guess work my suggestions MUST be anti hunt????
Two weeks ago at the BSAVA Congress in Birmingham attended by nearly six thousand vets, nurses and students a lecture was given which provided a summary of the current understanding of the disease, drawing on research papers that have been published in the past six years. The lecturer STATED that although the wild fox population MAY act as a resevior for infection this WASNT regarded as a major factor.

 

[Fiagai]

BIF I have noticed you appear to be suffering from a servere speech impediment. Its called your brain. Fcs if you are quoting "facts" from" a conference in Birginham without a link to that research, then this information is as about much use as a whole lot of used loo role. If research is referenced then a LINK hust be provided. Otherwise please dont bother....

 

[Binkle&Flip]

BIF I have noticed you appear to be suffering from a servere speech impediment. Its called your brain. Fcs if you are quoting "facts" from" a conference in Birginham without a link to that research, then this information is as about much use as a whole lot of used loo role. If research is referenced then a LINK hust be provided. Otherwise please dont bother....

Is it a drain to constantly personally attack me?

http://bit.ly/hg5KFD

 

[Fiagai]

Is it a drain to constantly personally attack me?

http://bit.ly/hg5KFD

Do you have to take all comments personally? Deflecting the point about the content of the post and the lack of references is not conducive to constructive discussion. As stated do try and use the brain and provide links without someone having to ask for them to back up your arguments.

 

[Alec Swan]

B&F,

when I don't understand, then I ask. Perhaps if you were to adopt the same stance, then others may not jump on you, from such a great height.

Not all, I'll accept, but most of your posts seem to be based on theorised twaddle. You do seem to take a delight in offering up thoughts which others, those who actually speak from experience, find irritating. I have no idea if you have any experience in any specific field, but if you had, can you imagine how you would feel, if you spoke with authority, and there were those who argued with you, but from the view point of ignorance? Would you consider them to be Trolls? Most would.

Alec.

 

[Herne]

Oh wonderful Herne. Just because your explanation of the lungworm situation is pro hunt based guess work my suggestions MUST be anti hunt????
Two weeks ago at the BSAVA Congress in Birmingham attended by nearly six thousand vets, nurses and students a lecture was given which provided a summary of the current understanding of the disease, drawing on research papers that have been published in the past six years. The lecturer STATED that although the wild fox population MAY act as a resevior for infection this WASNT regarded as a major factor.

Binkle, dear heart, from the link you provide, you don't know what the lecturer STATED - you only know the second hand interpretation of what Pete Wedderburn says that he said. The fact that he put a bit in inverted commas does not necessarily mean that it was a verbatim quote, and even if it did, it is worthy to note that the part about foxes not being regarded as a major factor was not included in the inverted commas, indicating that this part is definitely Mr. Wedderburn's interpretation and not, as you claim, what the lecturer STATED.

Also, of course, the claims of one lecturer at one conference do not prove something to be a fact. As you would know, if you were involved in science at all, it is peer-reviewed printed research that is important. Got any links to that?

However, this is all bye-the-bye. The important point here is that even from Mr. Wedderburn's article alone it is apparent that you are attempting to misapply this little semi-factoid in this conversation.

When taken in context:

The disease used to be confined to the south-west regions of the UK, but it’s now being seen as far north as Scotland. ... Predictive mapping shows that the parasite will continue to spread so that within a decade it will be common across the entire country. Climate change is cited as the most likely reason for this upsurge, with “warmer, wetter weather” creating conditions that favour the environmental stage of the parasite. The lecturer did say that “the wild fox population may act as a reservoir for infection” – but this wasn’t regarded as a major factor.

It becomes apparent that the lecturer was not attributing the fox as being a major factor in causing increase in geographical incidence of the disease.

That patently does not mean, as you are trying to make out, that he is STATING that foxes do not spread the disease.

No one is claiming that foxes are solely or even mainly responsible for spreading the disease nationwide from London to Scotland. I don’t suppose there are many more inter-city foxes than there are inter-parish slugs.

What is being stated – with total reason – is that urban foxes roaming freely around people’s gardens will spread the disease from some gardens that are infected to others that are not in a way that normal dog movement will not.

This is so-self evident that your attempts to deny the obvious appear rather silly.

It is, however, completely typical of anti-hunt arguments. Taking out-of-context “scientific” snippets and trying to misapply them to prove something to which they are actually not relevant or do not apply.

A typical example is the often-spouted platitude about the ability of fox populations to control themselves by the natural availability of food. Yes this can happen in a wilderness situation – the fact that we have no wilderness in the UK being beyond their comprehension – but the question is at what level will that population “naturally” set itself? One that is acceptable to farmers and land owners? Of course not: because the lambs, chickens and pheasants etc that the foxes can catch will be included in that “availability of food”. It sounds very good and scientific, and you can just imagine David Attenborough coming out with it, but when you examine it, it’s complete and utter b*ll*x.

Anti-hunt science usually goes thus: “Scientist X has proved that elephants are sometimes grey. I think that this mouse looks grey, therefore it has been scientifically proved that this mouse is an elephant.”

 

[Binkle&Flip]

Herne, with all due respect you state..........."No one is claiming that foxes are solely or even mainly responsible for spreading the disease nationwide from London to Scotland. I don’t suppose there are many more inter-city foxes than there are inter-parish slugs."

The thread is about Urban fox reports and the report is headed by "Deadly urban fox disease spreading to dogs". I have rightly addressed that headline claim.

 

[Binkle&Flip]

B&F,

when I don't understand, then I ask. Perhaps if you were to adopt the same stance, then others may not jump on you, from such a great height.

Not all, I'll accept, but most of your posts seem to be based on theorised twaddle. You do seem to take a delight in offering up thoughts which others, those who actually speak from experience, find irritating. I have no idea if you have any experience in any specific field, but if you had, can you imagine how you would feel, if you spoke with authority, and there were those who argued with you, but from the view point of ignorance? Would you consider them to be Trolls? Most would.

Alec.

Have you anything to say on topic Al or are you just ******* trolling again yourself?!

 

[Alec Swan]

Have you anything to say on topic Al or are you just ******* trolling again yourself?!

I've nothing to say on topic, at all, because like you, I know little of the subject under debate.

Alec.