The Bristol Fox Deaths Report and Why It Was Blocked (Threats, Lies and Cyber Bullying)

 I have never, in 50 years as a naturalist and researcher heard of anyone sending a proof copy of a report to approve being threatened with legal action. The accusations came only a couple hours after the paper was delivered and it is 231pp in length. Every accusation made is shot down IF the paper is read.  Normally I would prefer to chat about the matter but the accuser has forwarded my private emails to him to two third parties who have nothing to do with the paper. Because of this I am making the emails public. No editing.

I will make it clear that the accusations and threats of legal action over a proof paper are unheard of and unprofessional. I am still mystified as to what caused this sudden reaction although two suggestions have been made that I will not repeat here.

Here are the email exchanges between myself and Alexander M. Barlow MRCVS, the pathologist involved.

____________________________________________________________________

I received notification from the courier service that the proof copy was delivered on the 11th March. Then

"Terry

"You've published all my reports just inder your name without my permission, this is a breach of copyright. Reports were not forwarded to WNDS all the PMs and reports were done by me ie WNDS. I'll be checking re -taking legal action against you. You won't be receiving any more reports. Alex"

I then responded:

"Hello, Alex.

"As the book was only shipped out to you on Tuesday 11th and it is the 13th today I think that you may need to actually read it.

"Hi Terry,

Your Order #GBP-C2398917 has shipped 11 March 2025

Shipping Information

Shipping Address Alexander Barlow (DELETED FOR PRIVACY)

"I do not understand why your email was also sent to two people not connected with the paper when it should have been a private one to discuss any problems you found after reading it.

"In the introduction and legalise I give yourself full credit for the PM work and even note that the work you did was exceptional and beyond what was expected.  In the paper when I quote statements from yourself I state those are quotes from you. You are credited. I am credited as the editor/compiler (adding my own notes and comments). I do not take credit for any PM work or findings.

"When you, Zoe and I met up at Langford you stated that in my end report I would need to form the results into something that the public could understand. I stated that this would require some quotes but that as far as I was concerned you would be the one to write up anything more technical for veterinary professionals on the work as I was not a vet. We shook hands and that was it.  I give you full credit for the work you did .  

"I do not understand how " Reports were not forwarded to WNDS all the PMs and reports were done by me ie WNDS"  So why do the reports have WNDS and APHA case numbers -also reports went to Paul Duff MRCVS (APHA), Cat Man MRCVS (APHA) and PM Services Bristol Vet School. The natural assumption is that these are part of the Network? I have never been told otherwise.

"I am credited as the compiler and editor and added some of my own notes on cases and this was meant to be a complete look at what we found out -fox ages, sex, weights and body conditions and so on.    I have the emails I sent you stating that I was completing the paper and even asked whether certain quotes were correct but not to respond and take time from your schedule if they were. I never received a response after two months so assumed the information was correct.

 "I have no idea how you think that as a non veterinary trained person I could explain things any simpler and in fact I provided a glossary of terms to make it more understandable. You even quoted work by others on aspects of fox health in your reports and I had to look for the full titles and credits to add so that the reader could check for themselves. The report took almost a year to write and I did message you about progress and anything I needed clearing up.

"You have a privately published proof copy (that I had to pay for and send). No one is buying the book at the moment and if you want to sue a naturalist with no financial assets that is up to you. But I did tell you that I was sending you a copy  of the paper when editing was finished.

"You also informed me last year, with no conversation on the subject, that my project was over and I believe that you now work with another rescuer.  Why I would not be getting any more PM reports I have no idea -I have all of the ones from the project.

"I gave you so much praise and not just in the book but also in conversations with other professionals.

"It may just be that you have misinterpreted or misunderstood something written but I would urge you to please read the paper as it seems a shame to say that four years worth of work is to be binned and not be seen at a time when people need to learn more about foxes.

Signed

Terry Hooper

British Fox and Wild Canid Study"

Note: remember that this response email was sent to him privately to sort out any confusion there might have been and to resolve the issue over a proof copy of a paper. However, Mr Barlow decided that this was a matter that he was unwilling to discuss privately.  He responded:

"Terry

Just to make a few things clear.

1. No amount of pushing by you managed to get fox PMs carried out.   Even if you had offered a considerable amount of money, the Bristol Vet School still wouldn't have carried out these PMs as it doesn't have the staff resources or even any specialist wildlife pathologists.  They have been done, as a colleague who used to work at the Vet School knew I did wildlife PMs and asked me if I would be interested.   I said I was but may be now I regret this.  If I hadn't agreed that would have been the end of it, no fox PMs would have been done.  You may have filled in PM consent forms for the Uni but this was mainly for their records, as wildlife don't need consent form for PM and this didn't influence if a PM was carried out or not. 
2.  I received no money for all this work either from the Vet School or APHA.   Neither the Vet School or APHA have any say in the PMs I do. Most of my PMs are done at Langford but not all.  The Vet School allow me to use their PM room and in lieu of payment for this, I give vet students, during path rotations, the opportunity to do wildlife PMs.  I also lecture without pay to the Vet Path Elective and MSc students.   I have an understanding with the APHA that they cover costs for lab work and they receive full PM reports for their data collection as they did when I was an APHA Staff member and was paid a salary.
3.  If there are any expenses I pay them myself, the main one is travel but I occasionally pay for posting parcels.
4. When I met Zoe and you at Langford there was a vague agreement that a report would be produced by the three of us sometime in the future but nothing more than this.
5.  I have received no emails or phone call re your publication.  The recent ones from you include Sarah collecting fox ears, change of your email address, complaining about Zoe and maps, salmonella and a possible poisoning case.  I've also been writing for a new book on deer disease and management.  The editor has sent me numerous drafts and phoned me to discuss possible alterations/changes. He will be credited as the editor but my name will head each chapter I was involved with. Also each of my photos that are being used will be credited individually to me. 
   This was my reply on 22/01/25 about Zoe making some maps for me; "The data from foxes or other wildlife submitted to me to necropsy, as no one owns these foxes and I’m not paid by either the university or APHA, is mine to share.  No one has to submit animals to me but if they do, I can share information as appropriate, as at that stage I’m the owner of the data.  I copy all the fox reports to you, Sarah, Zoe, APHA (as they pay for the lab work) and Bristol Vet School (who allow me to use their PM room).  I asked Zoe if she could continue to update the maps using the post codes submitted with the foxes as I don’t have the know how to do this."  Here I clearly state that I'm the owner of the data.
6. The Wildlife Network for Disease Surveillance is the name I use for all my wildlife work.  It is just me and no other people or organisations are involved in WNDS. So to reiterate all the data from my PMs is mine and all the gross and histological photographs that you used were taken and edited by me and are mine also.
7. I estimate that from receiving a call re each of the fox cases to the completion of a final PM report, I would have spent at six to seven hours on each case. So you can work out the amount of time I've spent doing this and the cost if you we're paying a specialist wildlife pathologist.
8. The WNDS case reference number is for each wildlife PM I do but when samples are submitted to a lab they give it their own reference number.  As they will receive samples from many different sources, they can't use a different numbering system for each.
9.  Zoe and Sarah were integral to this work as if they hadn't liaised with me and brought in the foxes no PMs would have been done

I hope you're now clear on all these matters and why I'm so annoyed at your actions and publication.

Alex"

Hello, Mr Barlow.

Firstly, I made it very clear that my response to your email was private and yet, again, you have responded and breached that confidentiality by copying in two people not connected in the compilation of the proof copy I sent you.  You have therefore made this a public and open matter by that action and I cannot allow these unwarranted accusations to go without doing likewise and making the matter public.

In 50 years of wildlife work and contributing to papers I have never heard of anyone submitting a proof copy of a paper for review being immediately threatened with legal action and accused of copyright infringement/plagiarism within a few hours of that paper being received. Did you really read all 231 pages?  If you had then you would have not issued such accusations and threats.

With respect let me make it clear that I have the emails and correspondence from a three year period in which I discussed and argued the need for fox post mortems with English Nature, Wildlife Incident Investigation Service and APHA. During that three year period I did not know of you or where PMs would be carried out and so you have absolutely no personal knowledge of what was going on so please do not tell me that I imagined three years worth of efforts which, I ought to point out, were documented online and in my various online groups -of which you are not a member.   

I was told, after presenting a case of possible poisoning that post mortem would be approved  if I wanted to submit. From there I was told to contact Bristol University Post Mortem Services who would discuss the matter with me. We discussed the fox in question and I was told that it could be submitted -I had to complete a Request and Consent for Diagnostic Post Mortem Examination form for each fox and was not told who would carry out necropsies and I did not know whom until I received the first PM report.

So, yes, I had a three year back and forth before I was told necropsies could be carried out and, possibly an error on the part of the person I spoke to at WIIS, I was told that post mortem examinations were expensive.

Until late 2024 when you disclosed the fact that you were not being paid to carry out PMs none of us was aware of this. At our Langford meeting you never mentioned this and up until your email it was assumed, because of what the WIIS and later APHA persons told me and Bristol University Post Mortem Services telling me that they would need a form submitted for approval of a post mortem that you were being paid.  In my response to that email  I apologised that we had submitted so many foxes and the situation as it was explained to me. Your response was that we were finding out a lot about foxes.

No one can be aware of any situation unless they are told about it and never once until that email did you utter a word. So, please, stop from trying to make me a villain who robbed you of your time and money because I did not and you were interested in seeing more foxes that met a certain criteria.

No. There was no agreement that the three of us would put together a report. I made notes at the time and my memory is quite clear on this including your telling me that I would need to make the results understandable to the public.  

Zoe Webber left the project in 2024 and told myself, Sarah Mills and a number of other people that she was concentrating on her work at Slimbridge and was out of the fox and wildlife rescue work. I did state that I hoped you would produce a more technical paper  for veterinarians who might be interested. Emily Finnegan, Zoe Webber and Sarah Mills are all fully credited in the report. I am not sure what your point is because it could be argued that without my network of contacts reporting dead or dying foxes that had to be checked there would have been no post mortems because the person carrying out the collections would never have had a fox to check and submit. EVERYONE is fully credited including Emily Finnegan who was the original collector but you have obviously not read the report or else are simply ignoring her part in this project -a case of your not crediting a contributor.

Again, when you let slip that Ms Webber was producing detailed street maps of incidents I pointed out that I could not put them into the report I was writing as I had never seen them and had no idea what data the maps were based on.   And once again, I have the full text of chats with Ms Webber apologising for giving the false impression I was not communicating with her on the project -in fact the chats show that even after she left I was updating her - and she was told that I was putting the report together. After I pointed this out you rather rudely pointed out that the PM reports were yours and you would share them with whomever you liked and that "Your fox deaths study is now concluded". No explanation. No conversation just rude. I at no time claimed only I was allowed to see the reports and did state that if you and Ms Webber were working on a separate report that was fine.

As for 6 above you never explained that. As other people from the APHA were receiving copies of the reports the natural assumption was that this was part of a network not just one man's efforts (I have operated the British Fox and Wild Canids Study since 1976 in the same way with a network of contacts). How was I to assume that "network" meant just you?

To emphasise the point; I've also worked on the fox deaths and put a lot of hours in so, while I greatly appreciate your work (for which I gave high praise to people in rescues and veterinary work) I need to point out that until you informed me that the post mortems were not being paid for I had no because it was never mentioned.

If you read the proof paper then you will see that your work on this is praised and throughout you, Ms Webber and Ms Mills are fully credited as is anyone else . The WNDS and APHA numbers are included so that if a vet wants to seek more information they have a reference number so that you are the person to contact. In some cases there was only a post code given so that involved extra work and I re-phrased and edited the reports as well as adding my own comments so they are not copied/pasted straight from your PM reports.

I added much more information from terminology used and to explain what the various diseases, etc meant and that was not from your reports. When it came to the facial injury cases I added a larger section covering the subject and how such cases have been treated successfully in the wild and similar incidents from around the UK. None of that is from your PM reports.

I also added sections looking at all the data that could be extracted from sex, age, body weight, body condition and so on and then added a table for easy reference for causes of death, etc. That did not come from your reports.

I find it difficult to believe that you have actually read through the proof copy you were sent that took me a year of compiling, editing and updating -my work not from your reports. In fact, there is no copyright infringement in the work at all -I have worked in publishing since 1984 and have a better than average knowledge of copyright law. If the PM reports were copied word for word that would be plagiarism and as a publisher I do not tolerate that. Also, there is no (c)copyright notification on the reports that I can see.and there is the "Fair Usage" clause that could be applied. But this is irrelevant because this was a proof copy -a draft- and was not for sale or published and had you asked me to make changes then I would have.

If you and Ms Webber are working on a report I have no problem with that -in fact I stated this in an email- but perhaps you ought to go back over the emails and especially last year when I asked whether a certain quote from a PM was still correct or been changed as I was finishing the editing of the paper. In fact, as this is an accusation levelled against me I will be quite willing to publish all of the email exchanges online so that everyone can judge the situation themselves because you have made a serious open accusation.

Your response is just mystifying and illogical since the paper itself refutes everything you have claimed. What is behind your recent emails I have no idea but you have never once attempted to contact me by telephone (my number is on every report and I even gave you my business card at Langford. My mail server alerts me to failed deliveries and checking not one of the dozen emails I sent you that you never responded to failed to get through. Even after we changed to gmail my emails were not being responded to as I noted in conversations with two other people. Internet and hard copy records show that I have gone out of my way to help beyond the fox deaths and to communicate with yourself and Ms Webber..

If you wish to issue a legal threat or action based on a proof copy of a paper please do because my defence against every accusation is in that proof paper.  As the designated 'owner' of the foxes submitted for research and teaching purposes I decline permission to publish information about their causes of death.

I do not expect to hear from you again on this matter. It is concluded.

Terry Hooper

British Fox and Wild Canids Study

Note. For no legitimate reason and with no attempt at discussion or conversation on the matter you filed a DCMA copyright notice against me over a proof paper that was not for sale. As a result I have now had my online account deleted. I have lost over 200+ books on my online publishing site that has taken 20+ years to create and before Spring/Summer events and as a consequence you have deprived myself as well as those who produced work for me of monies owed and potential earnings . Much needed orders are cancelled.  

You have now made this into a very personal and  public matter and a legal one. Legal action to get compensation on projected earnings for 2025 is a very clear option.  You have been the aggressor for no reason from the very outset with your totally unprofessional and irrational behaviour over a proof copy of a paper.  I now have to contact creators and explain why they will not be earning a living from their work.

You reap what you sow.

Again, there have been several suggestions as to what is going on and I do not believe that this is part of any attempt to cover up the results of the post mortem study. This stamping of feet and nasty, vindictive behaviour is not rational and there must be a reason for it but as the reader will see there are attempts to divert the subject or bring in unconnected matters while letting others believe that I have stolen copyright material -it was a proof paper for his corrections or changes and I have never heard of such behaviour from someone calling themselves a professional before.

To actually deliberately go out and destroy someone's business that has taken over 20 years to build up (and even if I won a counter claim it would take years to re-upload and promote books again so the business is gone. Heavily researched and referenced books of 200-500+ pages are lost. All because someone received a proof copy of a paper to approve but obviously never read it.

These are the facts. I submitted foxes for necropsy study to find out why they were dying and alert rescues and vets -all out of my own pocket- but it seems that Mr Barlow has decided that only he can see the reports and results.

Fox Deaths Project 2021-2024 -It CANNOT be published

 Apart from advising on foxes and recording dead badgers and foxes I am quitting.

The Fox post mortem study, the only one of its kind in the UK took seven years of my life and now I am told that if I publish the results I will be sued -in fact that threat exists for a proof copy of the book as well.

Long story. No discussion. Had it.

The UK for wildlife research and work is dead and dogma continues.

A Grammar School Is Killing Foxes (a species in decline) -Who Cares?

My attention was drawn to a news item about a grammar school (Pate's Grammar School in Cheltenham) bringing in pest controllers to kill foxes. At a time when the BNritish Trust for Ornithology, after a mammal survey, suggested foxes need to be Red Listed, a so called educational establishment is teaching kids that "If you do not like wildlife you can kill it".

Shame on Pate's Grammar School in Cheltenham.

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/cheltenham-news/womans-anger-foxes-being-shot-9996910?fbclid=IwY2xjawI9fLBleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHcihyups9rwdZHfIibEaZSIg_qToHRkNvz3tGzJOZiq4_uZOtTaeqwCuDA_aem_0QeD8POFivh_6mGUrYIYSQ

 In the UK there is a badger watch but; is there a fox watch in the UK?

Nope.

I set up the British Fox Study in 1976 and even back then it was the same response of "just foxes" and quoting all the usual rubbish about foxes. There were some wildlife groups (the sort that had people go out on field work and study foxes -the way it was done pre internet and they found out a lot about urban foxes.

I have tried every year since then for UK and EU grants for fox work. All turned down.

I had to discover the truth about British foxes and my colleague who joined me a few years ago, LM, was an incredible help with that. I read hundreds of books going back to the 18th century, trawled internet archives and after 50 years I realised the dogma that had set into zoology and publishing and, yes, I faced backlash. Truth is often never liked.

Who had a necropsy study of foxes before 2021 in the UK? No one but I fought for three years before I got the okay -and I am very grateful to the APHA, WNDS and the pathologist for the necropsy study (results in a book form now).

All the stuff we are learning about foxes has come from Bristol -I would argue, based on facts and what I have seen (not ego) far more than the old Bristol Uni study. We are still learning more.

Five years ago I had people from all over the country wanting me to sort out problems affecting foxes and I cannot be the UK Fox Police.

In Bristol far more is being done with fox health and treatment (successful) in the wild since Sarah Mills became the Bristol Fox Lady and treated well over 500 foxes and all on a voluntary basis).

Why is none of this going on in other cities and towns?

Oh. Youi have to get off of your ass and have some dedication. How stupid of me to forget.

I have tried getting other people involved but I get more feedback and cooperation from outside the UK (which is why it became the British Fox and Wild Canid Study a few years back).

I probably will email the school because the pest controllers are just using them to get money -did they tell them that more foxes will move in?

Did they say that various councils have had their health and safety people declare foxes no risk to kids or adults?

People need to stand up for wildlife but it gets in the way of fast food and alcohol.

The UK fox population decline I noted in the early 1990s as definitely happening and I told everyone I could but "just foxes". Now we are at a point where foxes could become very rare or extinct by the 2030s (like badgers) and who cares?

This is how your children and your grand children will be seeing foxes by the mid 2030s....

They May Not Be Social Media Worthy But Any Image Can Tell You A Lot About Fox Health

 "It's all about knowing your fox and placing the camera in the right place" is the usual response from the social media posters who thrive on "Likes" and post 50-100+ images a day on any fox group they can find on Face Book.

More wildlife interested people tend to post their best images. Those are the ones that count, right?

Well, in reality, many will delete hundreds of images per week because they want the "good ones". Our camera is placed to check on fox health and numbers so even the not good images tell us a lot. Here are just some from Area A for 11 03 2025

Above: nice tail no sign of mange so that is one concern checked off.

Above: as the fox moves off its condition looks good and the foxes are not given names but we go by tails to identify them.

Above: this fox is alert and looks healthy enough and one thing we check for is eye reflection. If both eyes shine reflecting the infra red camera light then they are fine.  However, there have been healthy, very active foxes with eye shine in just one eye and this indicates an eye problem and in some cases blindness.  Those foxes live quite normal lives.

Below: nice shape to back so no problem there.

Now, here is something that you might see if you have a camera hog fox. As dog as fox? If a dog has their "inner eyelid" showing, it usually means their third eyelid, also called the nictitating membrane, is visible, which could indicate a condition called "cherry eye" - a prolapsed gland on the third eyelid, often appearing as a red bump in the corner of the eye; this can be caused by inflammation, injury, or simply a genetic predisposition in certain breeds, and should be checked by a veterinarian.

The problem is that this is a wild animal so would first need to be trapped then transported to a vet, sedated and checked out and even then it would not achieve much (other than stressing the fox). So, it seems able to move around with no problems and otherwise seems quite healthy so the options are... leave it alone.

All of the above are simply showing a fox with a good, rough coat and that overall, from what we can see, in good health. However, I doubt I would get 50 "Likes" on social media for these images!

We know we have two heavily pregnant vixens and those should be birthing any time now -or may have already done so. Trail cams mean that however "not to delight the public" they may be the images will tell us how the foxes are doing and in a month or so maybe even show one or two cubs -unless the number of cats (a threat to cubs) means the parents want the young to avoid the areas until they get older.

ignore the date stamps as no matter how many times we re-do the settings these cameras reset to factory dates!

It Is A Simple Fact That Wildlife Care In The UK Is Below Third World Standards

 

I need to explain how I rate rescues and wildlife hospitals. This is based on 50 years of UK wildlife work and taking into consideration work from outside the UK.

A rating of 10 means that a rescue or wildlife hospital is excellent. I rated Vale Wildlife Hospital as 10.  This is how it works;

If a place puts a fox down due to 20% (RSPCA) or 30% (Secret World) mange they go down to 5.

   2. If they kill a fox due to a leg injury (SW and RSPCA) that will take time to heal or because it requires an amputation they go down to 3

  3. If a fox is killed (let's stop the Put To Sleep rubbish) because it is blind in one eye or has a facial wound that can be treated they go down to 2.

Amongst other rescues, I found out,  know SW is the "PTS centre" (but those centres do not offer up their fox survival rates) but Alpha (I won't name it yet) seemed to be the main hope in treating foxes even though some distance from the City. But they have gone from 10 down to 2. The reason is that they adopt 2 and 3 above.

The problem is that this is such a backward and outdated way of treating foxes. A while back I wrote a long piece about three legged foxes -legs lost through a "natural" accident or because of veterinary amputation. These foxes can get around, hunt and breed and raise young so WHY kill a fox because it will have three legs? There is even footage of three legged coyote living and hunting in the wild.

https://foxwildcatwolverineproject.blogspot.com/.../fox...

When it comes to treating facial injuries in foxes we know that can be treated successfully in the wild avoiding stress to the animal. Each case is assessed properly and it is not some fuzzy headed thinking taking over. If a wound is so severe it can not be treated the fox is taken to a vet for euthanasia. Read this post:

https://foxwildcatwolverineproject.blogspot.com/2024/08/treating-infections-facial-injuries-and.html

Killing a fox as it is blind in one eye shows such a lack of knowledge of foxes that I think some vets and people running rescues need to be made to sit through a lecture on foxes. Foxes go by sense of smell as well as hearing -watch a fox sitting and it will face one direction but its ears are constantly moving and listening out for every sound.

There are so many one eyed foxes living in the wild who hunt and survive and even raised litters that the "It only has one eye it will not survive" excuse for killing it is just that. Foxes are born in the wild and they learn all the smells and ins and outs of their territory so there is no question of it not being able to survive with just one eye. Again; a fox does not primarily hunt just on sight; they primarily rely on their sense of smell to locate prey, with hearing playing a significant role as well, meaning they use a combination of senses to find food, with vision being less dominant, especially in low-light conditions. 

It is a sad thing to say but there are third world countries where wildlife gets better treatment and a chance to survive because the people there know their wildlife and are aware of how they live and hunt/survive.

It is even sadder to have to say that it seems far better for a fox with a constriction wound (where it has been caught in netting etc.,) it seems better to try treating it in the wild and that increases its chance to survive. Finding a fox blind in one eye with an injury that is treatable -again it stands a better chance being treated in the wild.

It is around a 100 mile round trip to Alpha(not named yet) because we have no place closer. It takes a lot of fuel and time to get there. There is currently a Bristol fox there in an outside enclosure as its leg constriction heals, however, the vet is "concerned" over the sight in one eye (even though it was living with that before the net incident. If this fox is killed for that one eye then Alpha (not named yet) drops down to a rating of 1.

Brutal but we need to progress from this killing through ignorance.I have known so many (many many) foxes killed for no reason other than ignorance or it was an easy way out and I am now at the stage where, with the fox population really needing to be Red Listed  because of their decline, that I have exhausted my patience and "being nice" -it achieves nothing. It is why I have said for many years that Bristol needs its own rescue. When I explained why we needed such a place on Bristol Naturalist Society and Bristol Nature Network FB pages the post was removed (despite some Likes) as it was "campaigning". It was not campaigning but I will admit to using the dirty words "fox" and "badger".

A quiet place with no animal hating neighbours or fireworks going off overhead that is safe and secure long term is what is needed BUT the cost of vets and meds is the big hurdle as we are talking of thousands of pounds to keep things going in just one year and there is not that kind of support in Bristol.

So if things go sour we will need to adapt to new situations and luckily Sarah Mills (the Bristol Fox Lady who works alongside the  Fox Angels Foundation) is dedicated enough to give it a try but that will still need help financially .

A Line Has Been Crossed And Bristol City Council Can No Longer Sit Inactive

 Following on from The Green Party led Bristol City Council dismissing the need to protect wildlife on roads and ignoring its own supposed core values, this email has just been sent to the relevant councillors.

Well, isn't that all just dandy.  So, despite what officials at the National Green Party HQ tell me "The Green Party states as item 3 of "Our Core Values": Humankind depends on the diversity of the natural world for its existence. We do not believe that other species are expendable." this does not apply to the Bristol Green Party?

We have gone well beyond the usual Council excuses here and a lot of us voted for your party  (a lot of votes are already lost next time around). Yesterday we had a vixen hit by a car that was lactating her cubs (anywhere from 4-6) could not be found so they will slowly die.  Today another lactating vixen was struck by a car and her cubs will now slowly die. Last week a council team smashed up a shed on a property that clearly had a den under it with cubs yet it was still smashed up and the cubs left but luckily after work finished the vixen came back for them or they would have died. To knowingly interfere with a fox den during cub season when it is active constitutes a wildlife crime (look it up on DEFRA's page. It is not the only den tampered with by council crews in the past.

We are losing wildlife that are valuable to our environment and we even had one succumb to a sachet of council grain containing rodenticide (part of our fox necropsy study).  Bristol City Council loves to flaunt its environmental credentials and wildlife diversity when it suits for publicity but it has a terrible record and that is proven by field naturalists. I hounded the Labour Council on the otter situation and to be honest I suspect I will be hounding the Green Party on it.

Talk is all very nice but thousands of animals killed on Bristol roads every year is far from a matter pushed aside for "financial reasons" every single time. Action is needed and quickly -not in five or 10 years when the fox population and that of the badgers will be so low they will be disappearing from the area.  There are already calls for foxes to be Red Listed (the total known deaths in the City this year is  85) and enough badgers have died so far. These animals are dying in numbers daily while "budgets" are offered as excuses.

My social media posts, blog as well as upcoming interviews on the field work carried out will not be painting the City Council in a good light.  I have spent 8 years lobbying politely, submitting facts and reports and we have not moved a single inch on anything. 

T. Hooper