Pest control in the UK (and anywhere else)

[*SD*]

Let's say people eradicate foxes because chickens.

Let's not, because.... who said that? I certainly didn't, in fact I've stated the opposite.

it would seem to be to be worth the effort to indeed separate the fox from the easy prey (rabbits, lambs) so they'll get back to work controlling the rabbits which they should be focused on in the first place.

Ok, cool. So, how do we go about that insurmountable task? What do you want to do? Drop a strongly worded leaflet into every fox hole? Seriously dude - I'm all ears.

You're already seeing what happens to the rabbit population when they're not adequately hunted after all, why make it worse.]

Yes, we are seeing that, so can't we apply the same logic to foxes? After all - they DON'T have a natural predator whereas rabbits DO... you're almost helping make my case here.

Instead of saying you can't make a fox-proof hen house how about making fox-proof hen houses instead.

Firstly, I didn't say it was impossible, I alluded to it being impractical and surprisingly difficult. Both of which are the case.

Foxes aren't the only clever species in the UK, are they? It may cost more, but in the long run you wind up protecting not only the livestock but also the crops in the fields that the rabbits threaten.

No, they aren't - that's why they're looking down the dangerous end of the rifle rather than the scope.

Are you saying that the answer to the rabbit problem is to increase the fox population? What about the fact that foxes only go for rabbits as a last resort when there are no easier meals available? Lambs? Chickens? I'll refrain from crude analogies although I'm tempted... You don't relieve one problem by increasing the intensity of another.

If all the foxes were gone, then what?

Again, I didn't advocate for that so I'm not sure why you keep proposing it as a hypothetical when I've explicitly stated that isn't something I'd like to see.

Consider the species that prey on them, if any.

Yes! Ok let's consider them! What are they? Ah yes, there aren't any, as I've already pointed out.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

Let's say people eradicate foxes because chickens.

Let's not, because.... who said that? I certainly didn't, in fact I've stated the opposite.

Oddly enough I don't recall saying you did.

it would seem to be to be worth the effort to indeed separate the fox from the easy prey (rabbits, lambs) so they'll get back to work controlling the rabbits which they should be focused on in the first place.

Ok, cool. So, how do we go about that insurmountable task? What do you want to do? Drop a strongly worded leaflet into every fox hole? Seriously dude - I'm all ears.

You can, for example, build a better hen house.

Instead of saying you can't make a fox-proof hen house how about making fox-proof hen houses instead.

Firstly, I didn't say it was impossible, I alluded to it being impractical and surprisingly difficult. Both of which are the case.

Why, because you lack the imagination to design one that would work? It wouldn't take a whole lot of innovation at all and building one out of scrap lying around won't suffice.

Foxes aren't the only clever species in the UK, are they? It may cost more, but in the long run you wind up protecting not only the livestock but also the crops in the fields that the rabbits threaten.

No, they aren't - that's why they're looking down the dangerous end of the rifle rather than the scope.

Are you saying that the answer to the rabbit problem is to increase the fox population? What about the fact that foxes only go for rabbits as a last resort when there are no easier meals available? Lambs? Chickens? I'll refrain from crude analogies although I'm tempted... You don't relieve one problem by increasing the intensity of another.

FFS, you pay less attention than Leroy. What I'm saying is that the option could be there to cut off their access to chicken and lambs which would result in them going for the rabbits or starve.

If all the foxes were gone, then what?

Again, I didn't advocate for that so I'm not sure why you keep proposing it as a hypothetical when I've explicitly stated that isn't something I'd like to see.

At least you recognized it's a hypothetical.

Consider the species that prey on them, if any.

Yes! Ok let's consider them! What are they? Ah yes, there aren't any, as I've already pointed out.

You're getting rather dishonest, taking that snippet out of context like that and making an ass of yourself. At least you included the "if any" which showed this was a generalized way of looking at the problem overall, but I don't think that registered with you.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

With regard to controlling the population, TSR (trap/spay/return) is an effective means of controlling feral cat populations - there's no reason it couldn't be used on foxes.

It's important to focus on females rather than males - TNR (trap/neuter/return) - as castrated males can't hold their territories against intact males. Of course, it's the females that give birth - it only takes one male to get her pregnant.

Kindest regards,

James

VERY effective indeed! Except.... here vets will spey (or neuter for that matter) feral cats for free under the TSR scheme. There IS a reason it can't be used on foxes and that reason is - who gonna pay? You can't rock up to a vet clinic with a captured fox and get it speyed/neutered for free. If I'm incorrect here I'd appreciate sauce. Even if I am incorrect I don't know who you expect to actually carry out this work, it would prove expensive even if vets would sterilise for free.

In Ireland, spaying/neutering costs €65 - or ~$73. Usually, pet charities cover this if dealing with feral cats/dogs, they'll also pay if a owner is poor.

If there's an official cull of badgers or foxes, the government would pay through taxes, so there's no reason why this wouldn't cover a TSR programme for foxes.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[*SD*]

Oddly enough I don't recall saying you did.

Then why bring it up? You're trying to argue against a position I not only don't hold to, but have explicitly stated don't hold to. More than once.

You can, for example, build a better hen house.

Yes. You can also shoot the fox. The latter is cheaper. So who is right? You or I? And by what metric to you arrive at a conclusion, if any?
I've mentioned several times that making a fox proof hen house is not as easy as you might think. Some hobby hen owners do it because it's a labour of love. Free range chicken FARMS (where there are more than a handful of chickens, not your back yard hobby) would struggle to do this in a cost effective way. You can be talking about thousands of chickens. The expense of constructing such hen houses is huge, vs about 50p to take care of a problem fox.

Why, because you lack the imagination to design one that would work? It wouldn't take a whole lot of innovation at all and building one out of scrap lying around won't suffice.

My imagination has nothing to do with it, I'm not a farmer. Who is making these hen houses out of "scrap lying around" anyway? They must do things rather differently where you live because no one I know does that. Why don't you get your toolbox out and show us how it's done? Maybe patent it and make a fortune if it comes in at a reasonable price?

FFS, you pay less attention than Leroy. What I'm saying is that the option could be there to cut off their access to chicken and lambs which would result in them going for the rabbits or starve.

I'm replying to everything you've posted, not sure how that constitutes not paying attention? I'm giving you more attention than I am anyone else who's posted in this thread (although I will try to respond to everyone) because you seem to have quite the strong opinion in opposition.

So - you're going to show us how to construct a cost effective fox proof hen house, for chickens farmed on a commercial scale not just a hobby scale so we will let mr foxy woxy off with the chickens in the meantime.

Now let's discuss how we fox proof thousands of lambs out in the enormous patchwork quilt of agricultural land that is the UK. After all, chickens are not the prey that causes the most financial impact - lambs are. What is your solution to this? How do we cut off their access to lambs? Keeping in mind I've already pointed out that farmers are somewhat tolerant, knowing full well that foxes will take some lambs. Again, the acceptable loss rate doesn't have a number or percentage, each farmer will decide when enough is enough on a case by case basis. The largest farm I shoot on (for pest control) has over 2000 acres, about half of that is used for sheep, the other half for cattle (approximately). So that one farm has 1000 acres occupied by pregnant ewes. Each year they produce between 1 and 4 offspring. Triplets are common, twins even more so. This all happens at spring time (well ok not all, but mostly). So, 1000 acres with lambs all over it. Seriously, how do we keep fox from the lambs? You've suggested that we can cut off their access so I want to know how we go about that.

At least you recognized it's a hypothetical.

Well it's so far departed from anything resembling reality I'd have to take it as a hypothetical or assume you live on some far away planet. In the principal of charity, I opted for the former. Plus, I prefer talking about how things actually are and not how they "might" be in some alternate universe where anything can be achieved with the click of the fingers and money is no object.

You're getting rather dishonest, taking that snippet out of context like that and making an ass of yourself. At least you included the "if any" which showed this was a generalized way of looking at the problem overall, but I don't think that registered with you.

There's nothing dishonest about it and it's completely in context. There is only one sentence after that and it changes nothing about the sentence I quoted and replied to. There's a little sarcasm in there for sure, and I don't deny it - there'll be more in my next reply to you as well unless you get back down to earth. Pretty sure that's within the rules of this forum.

Of course I included "if any" - that's why there's nothing dishonest about it, and I could only be making an ass of my self if I were making inaccurate statements which I couldn't back up with facts. You can look at the problem in a "generalized" way to your hearts content - I'll stick with reality as it actually is and not some idealistic, unrealistic view where all of nature just gets along in perfect harmony - will that register with you?

One of us isn't paying attention and I'm fairly sure it's not me.