Vicious' fox traps eight people in Cambridgeshire sports club

[Sassy]

 

Someone should have let their dog out. It would have soon absconded.
Trouble is animals are coming through from France through the tunnel putting us in danger of Rabies.. If it foams at the mouth then run... If it runs from water then lock yourself up until it is Gone.... If all fails get a cricket bat and bump the buggar on the snout it will soon run.

I remember when my daughter was about 18 months and special needs she held her hand out to an Alsatian dog which looked at her and growled. It snarled and went straight for her.
I stood in front of her trolley and as it pounced smacked it hard down on it nose. No dog was going to bite my child... It stopped dead in it's tracked took one look in my eyes and just walked quietly away. It was dumb struck... I had no fear but I did have anger that it was attacking my child...

My father use to smack the boars on the nose with a paddle when they got out of hand.
It was what he taught me which made me act as I did... It quietens the boars and worked on the dog... No need for any real violence a smack hard down on the snout would have probably stopped the fox. I would not have ran I would have faced it head on and slapped it...

So would I! However, I certainly don't think foxes in the UK are likely to have rabies!

I saw a program on tv some years back about the dangers of the tunnel. Rabies not in this country but they were affecting some other countries in Europe. They spoke about the dangers of rabies. Princess Anne has been immunised against Rabies..

[Sassy]

Someone should have let their dog out. It would have soon absconded.
Trouble is animals are coming through from France through the tunnel putting us in danger of Rabies.

Oh Sassy.

Where have you got this scaremongering rubbish from? This is pure tripe.

Do you mean rabid animals being smuggled by drivers or that wild animals are just wandering through the Tunnel? The Pet Passport scheme controls the first.

Believe it or not, the Channel Tunnel has detectors which will soon find any animal which has strayed into it which can then be caught. There is no danger.

Anyway, there is no apparent reservoir of wild animals with rabies in France where there is a continuing programme of leaving oral vaccine-baited caches of meat for wild carnivores. France has been officially rabies-free since 2001. The last time a French person caught rabies from a wild animal was in 1923. The last time a British person caught a rabies-like disease from a wild animal was in 2003 in Scotland when a man died from a variety of the disease found in bats.

Occasionally, people travelling from North Africa bring infected dogs into France and sometimes there is a human death but this is not significantly different from the occasional British death resulting from a dog or cat bite suffered when the person was in South Asia.

Rabies has nothing to do with the Cambridgeshire incident. I believe the fox concerned was eventually shot. If rabies had been found in its carcass we would all know by now.

http://www.theborneopost.com/2014/05/05/20-years-on-british-fears-over-channel-tunnel-lost-at-sea/

Would that be the species of bat found in 1996 which supposedly didn't affect humans?

In fact, a wild rabid animal was found on a beach in southern England in 1996, the first trace of rabies in the country since 1922.

All you did was google as you can see...

The fact is that rabies and animals can still get through the tunnel.
WITHOUT being captured.

If the danger is not real...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24569593

Then why are they warning us that the rules need reviewing from the danger

[Harrowby Hall]

Sass

The greatest danger for rabid animals coming into Britain is not the Channel Tunnel. That has appropriate safeguards built into it. It is also 30 miles long and that is a considerable safeguard in itself.

No, the greatest danger comes from small boats crossing the English Channel carrying undeclared pets.

ADDITION TO ORIGINAL POST

I have just read the article you cite as "evidence". It comes from a newspaper published in Borneo of all places and is a rag tag and bobtail piece about the UK's relationship with Europe - sort of ...

Your scary bit says:

In fact, a wild rabid animal was found on a beach in southern England in 1996, the first trace of rabies in the country since 1922.

But vets revealed that the offending creature, a Daubenton’s bat — an insectivore very common in France — was carrying a virus not transmissible to dogs, mammals, horses or foxes.

The animal was a bat. It could have flown or been blown across the English Channel. No evidence of any Channel Tunnel involvement at all.

No indication of where it was found either. It could have been anywhere from the Thames estuary to Lands End.

It was carrying a virus not transmissible to the animal which overwhelmingly is cause of rabies in humans - the dog.

[floo]

 

Someone should have let their dog out. It would have soon absconded.
Trouble is animals are coming through from France through the tunnel putting us in danger of Rabies.. If it foams at the mouth then run... If it runs from water then lock yourself up until it is Gone.... If all fails get a cricket bat and bump the buggar on the snout it will soon run.

I remember when my daughter was about 18 months and special needs she held her hand out to an Alsatian dog which looked at her and growled. It snarled and went straight for her.
I stood in front of her trolley and as it pounced smacked it hard down on it nose. No dog was going to bite my child... It stopped dead in it's tracked took one look in my eyes and just walked quietly away. It was dumb struck... I had no fear but I did have anger that it was attacking my child...

My father use to smack the boars on the nose with a paddle when they got out of hand.
It was what he taught me which made me act as I did... It quietens the boars and worked on the dog... No need for any real violence a smack hard down on the snout would have probably stopped the fox. I would not have ran I would have faced it head on and slapped it...

So would I! However, I certainly don't think foxes in the UK are likely to have rabies!

I saw a program on tv some years back about the dangers of the tunnel. Rabies not in this country but they were affecting some other countries in Europe. They spoke about the dangers of rabies. Princess Anne has been immunised against Rabies..

Citation?

[Anchorman]

You have an immigration problem old timer. You Brits are NOT over breeding. Get an education. Labour governments flooded your little island. You will become a minority in your own country one day. That actually has a good and bad side to it.
 


-
Scotland has no issues with immigration.
The more, the merrier.
-

Am I wrong that the UK has strong environmental regulations? That developer would have had to jump through a lot of hoops to get approval. So we know that there were no species put at risk by that development. We also know that where you live was once a field of birds and rodents, fox and flowers and so on. But you are happy to squat where you are, fully knowing what was lost so you and those before you, could have a developed place to live.

-
Yes.
Environmental issues are a devolved matter.
There are no UK wide environmental regulations.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Anchorman,
Here in Canada we have provincial and then federal environment regulations and boards that asses proposals. How does it work in the UK. Who makes the regulations and who examines development proposals? I know you must have some regulators and panels that asses? You must have, being that it is a lot tougher to develop in the UK than here.


Environmental regulations  GOV.UK

[OH MY WORLD!]

Is Sass talking about the Princess Royal or the Princess Anne Fire Dept. (smilies)

[Anchorman]

Anchorman,
Here in Canada we have provincial and then federal environment regulations and boards that asses proposals. How does it work in the UK. Who makes the regulations and who examines development proposals? I know you must have some regulators and panels that asses? You must have, being that it is a lot tougher to develop in the UK than here.


Environmental regulations  GOV.UK

-
Environmental issues are the province of the Scottish Government, as are wildlife regulations.


http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment

[OH MY WORLD!]

So you are not without government regulations. Doesn't matter what government but you have tough regulations and regulators yes?

I get that your laws are not the same as elsewhere in the UK but all of ya have to bow low to the EU.

[Anchorman]

So you are not without government regulations. Doesn't matter what government but you have tough regulations and regulators yes?

I get that your laws are not the same as elsewhere in the UK but all of ya have to bow low to the EU.

-
What does that have to do with Scotland having ultimate control over Scotland's environmental and wildlife legislation?

[BashfulAnthony]

I am amazed  (why?)  by the callous indifference by some posters to the lives of other creatures we share this planet with.  The fox is one of the most abused and vilified creatures on Earth, and in actuality, all it is doing is trying to get by.  I suppose all you upright citizens will be hoping the unctuous pro fox-huters get their amendment to the anti-hunting Act passed, so they can return to the torturing and mutilation of the wretched creatures.  You are a nasty and brutish bunch.

What an unpleasant, presumptuous, uninformed, and silly post.

In the first place you have assumed - on the basis of no information at all - that people who have views that differ from your own have motives that are opposed to yours. You do not know what my opinions are on fox hunting - because I have never volunteered them. You will get no brownie points from me for your characterisation of me - or of my fellow posters who have a greater understanding of "nature" than you have. Your postings show no development in understanding than that you probably acquired in Nature Study at your infant school.

The fact that you have chosen associate an understanding of the reality of life on this planet for one particular species with "the unspeakable in hot pursuit of the uneatable" is unfortunate.

We are not abusing or vilifying the fox. We are telling you what life in the wild is really like - it's not the Disney world of your sentimentality.

The fox is a carnivore and a predator. That means it kills other animals and eats them. It has an innate drive (you would say an instinct) to kill more than it immediately needs because, well, you never know, there might not be any food tomorrow.

In its ecological niche it is a very successful animal: it is at the top of its food chain. It will kill any animal that it perceives to be small or weaker than itself. Thus it will kill rats, mice, rabbits (a non-native introduced species), birds, small dogs, small cats, waterfowl, lambs, chickens, fawns, human babies ... you name it.

It has also learned that it can be commensal with homo sapiens. Homo sapiens leaves food waste in things called dustbins and elsewhere and it requires less effort to scavenge than to hunt. There are even specimens of homo sapiens that will give it food and save it the task of even scavenging!

This has resulted in foxes deciding to live in urban areas. Note: the fox has invaded cities. It has not had its natural environment taken from it, it has abandoned its natural environment. There is still plenty of countryside left for the fox - 93% of the total land mass of the UK. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096)

All of life depends on other life in order to survive and this usually means that a surviving organism has to work for its food. The higher up the food chain the more likely it is that protein will be provided in the form of meat. A top level predator is a meat-eater by definition.

This has consequences for all animals.

Are you aware that most male animals will die virgins? Only the strongest and most aggressive males will mate.

Are you aware that almost no animal will ever reach old age? As it ages it weakens, it will look for easier and easier prey, become predated itself - sometimes by its own species or contract some illness or suffer catastrophic injury.

Are you aware that bightly coloured male birds are advertising themselves as prey to raptors? So that the dull-plumaged females can get on with the business of safely producing offspring.

Nobody that has responded to your ill-informed and naive postings is callous or indifferent. You cannot see it as such, but it is your behaviour which is harming the fox.

I cannot abide the likes of you:  "I don't like it:  it's a nuisance:  let's kill it."  No verifiable evidence, just a crude and vicious condemnation.. You call me silly and sentimental:  I'd rather be that than intolerant, brutish, and without pity.  You sad man/woman.

[Harrowby Hall]

I cannot abide the likes of you:  "I don't like it:  it's a nuisance:  let's kill it."  No verifiable evidence, just a crude and vicious condemnation.. You call me silly and sentimental:  I'd rather be that than intolerant, brutish, and without pity.  You sad man/woman.

Where have I said "Let's kill it?"

Where have I said "It's a nuisance?"

Where have I made a "crude and vicious condemnation?"

Be careful in the way you reply, I would not want you to bear false witness. 

The replies in which you criticise me, and anyone else who suggests that your behaviour though well intentioned is misguided, are intolerant and filled with fury.


I have studied animal behaviour - ethology. I know the way that Nature works. I cannot say that it is particularly edifying, but we must accept it as it is and know that - for wild animals - life is a trial in which only the strongest and fittest survive, and then only while they stay strong and fit. I have never knowingly or intentionally killed an animal in my life and I resent the thoroughly unpleasant way in which you impute intentions or attitudes to me that I do not have.

If you really are concerned for the welfare of wild animals, you would be well advised to consider the way in which you are interfering with their normal way of life.

[Shaker]

Oh, a Social Darwinist in 2015. How quaint.

For Christ's sake don't tell Vlad; he'll be all over it like the white on rice.

[Harrowby Hall]

Oh, a Social Darwinist in 2015. How quaint.

For Christ's sake don't tell Vlad; he'll be all over it like the white on rice.

Erm ... where have I said anything that identifies me as a Social Darwinist? Where have I said anything about human society or economics?  I suppose I must count myself fortunate you didn't call me a Thatcherite.

Actually, I'm a psychologist. And probably a neo-Darwinist.

[BashfulAnthony]

I cannot abide the likes of you:  "I don't like it:  it's a nuisance:  let's kill it."  No verifiable evidence, just a crude and vicious condemnation.. You call me silly and sentimental:  I'd rather be that than intolerant, brutish, and without pity.  You sad man/woman.

Where have I said "Let's kill it?"

Where have I said "It's a nuisance?"

Where have I made a "crude and vicious condemnation?"

Be careful in the way you reply, I would not want you to bear false witness. 

The replies in which you criticise me, and anyone else who suggests that your behaviour though well intentioned is misguided, are intolerant and filled with fury.


I have studied animal behaviour - ethology. I know the way that Nature works. I cannot say that it is particularly edifying, but we must accept it as it is and know that - for wild animals - life is a trial in which only the strongest and fittest survive, and then only while they stay strong and fit. I have never knowingly or intentionally killed an animal in my life and I resent the thoroughly unpleasant way in which you impute intentions or attitudes to me that I do not have.

If you really are concerned for the welfare of wild animals, you would be well advised to consider the way in which you are interfering with their normal way of life.

Your sentiments , if that is a word that applies to you, are clear enough.  I doubt that helping  one or two foxes from going completely hungry, a few times, is exactly interfering with their normal way of life to any appreciable extent.  If you seriously claim that, then you are totally unrealistic.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Anchorman,
Calm down. I really don't get why you had to nit pick and point out that Scotlandshire has authority in that area. In that light I opted to point out that the EU has the final authority on environmental laws in your Scotlandshire. And it does or you will be kicked to the curb.

[Anchorman]

Anchorman,
Calm down. I really don't get why you had to nit pick and point out that Scotlandshire has authority in that area. In that light I opted to point out that the EU has the final authority on environmental laws in your Scotlandshire. And it does or you will be kicked to the curb.

-
In using the term 'Scotlandshire, you DO realise you are quoting from a very funny - ANTI-unionist site - BBC Scotlandshire, don't you?


And, again, because of the Scotland act 1998 (enacted by the Westminster Labour government) Westminster ceded all power over wildlife, pest control, and territorial environmental management to Scotland.
Any change would require further Westminster legislation - which will not happen in this parliament.
The present outfit's in enough trouble without starting that particular idea in motion.
Therefore, as it stands, Westminster has no legal or constitutional power to change Scottish environmental policy or legislation.