Fox attack reveals error in arguments
I FEEL that the reaction to the mauling of two babies by a fox is somewhat hysterical as this is an extremely rare event.
However, the case does highlight some of the fallacies in the arguments surrounding fox hunting.
It is often claimed by the anti- hunt lobby that foxes do not take lambs. If they can maul a baby it is obvious that they would attack a lamb.
Moreover, it is said that attacks on lambs cost the industry little. However, to an individual farmer the effect can be very bad just as it has been to individual parents.
Another aspect of this is how one would best track down the culprit. If a particular fox is the one causing problems then unless you can catch it in the act often the only way to locate it is to use scenting hounds to hunt it back to its earth from the scene of the killing/mauling.
Such 'lambing calls' were a common function of some pre-ban hunts. Now this is not legal so foxes are killed indiscriminately in the area in the hope of killing the problem fox.
Also, in the wake of the ban of terrier work, it is now illegal to flush the cubs out of the earth if a vixen has been killed.
This means they are often left to starve.
A sensible law would require the most effective means to be used with a view to necessity and animal welfare.
Giles Bradshaw
Rose Ash
Comments
by Anon, Devon
Tuesday, June 15 2010, 6:40PM
“It has been said by specialists (by this I do not mean the League Against Cruel Sports or other but someone who has impartial views) that it is likely the fox climbed into the crib which made the babies move the fox panicked and went to get out but due to panicking couldn¿t and so attacked the babies. I do not see how you can assume from this that a fox would ¿obviously¿ attack a lamb. I am not saying they haven¿t or couldn¿t but your suggestion that they defiantly would and do just because of a rare unfortunate event like this is unfounded and unnecessary. Had your sentence used the word ¿could¿ rather than ¿would¿ it would have been accurate.
I could be wrong but if farmers were struggling as much as you suggest due to foxes killing lambs I am sure it would be making the news and they would make a big issues of it which would likely result in a cull of foxes to try to remedy the situation. Since none of this has happened I doubt the issue is quite as serious as you suggest.
I do not see that the only way to catch a fox that is causing problems is to hunt it as you might not get the right fox first time and could therefore kill many others unnecessarily in the process of getting one particular fox, that is if you actually did manage to ever get the one that was causing the problems it is a possibility you might not. A more sensible solution would be a humane trap to catch the animal and then if it must be killed to do this humanly.
Yes the cubs can be left to starve but only because people with their dogs kill the parents. Surely if foxes are such a problem you shouldn¿t really care about the cubs starving, it just means the population of foxes will decrease. This comment does not surprise me though as you seem to lean towards being in favour of hunting foxes and most of those that join in with this sport are hypocrites an example being they claim numbers of foxes need to be kept down but they then stop to let them breed. If numbers needed to be decreased an outright cull would take place. Unfortunately fox hunting is no more than a cruel sport.
Such a rare and unfortunate event as babies being mulled by a fox is going to make headlines and I would suggest your article is ¿somewhat hysterical¿.”