As a response to people who pointed this out to me.
A great deal of the historical information, quotes from archives, images etc that are being used on The Fox Forum are MY research. Often not accurately quoted.
Let it be a lesson in who to trust in ytour research work.
Bristol is seeing far more cooperation from vets regarding foxes and wildlife now than two years ago. It has been a slow progress with Sarah Mills by and large educating vets on foxes.
We have on record six vets who, when presented with dying foxes all declared "It's been poisoned" -in each case post mortem examination revealed the actual cause of death and not one poison related.
Friday 06 06 2025 cub wandering around cul de sac staggering. bs34 Finder took to Rowe Vets who said cub had ingested poison (no evidence) cub died with no intervention needed. The vets then allowed finder to take home to bury. Even as a suspected poisoning –the fox should have been submitted as a potential wildlife crime as well as be reported to police. This will now become yet another ‘poisoning’ rumour.
Thursday
Thursday
When asked why he felt it was poisoning (despite the obvious cause of the fox dying) the vet responded "People poison them". This means that he was simply throwing poison in as a nonsense. You CANNOT and MUST NOT state a cause of death unless you carry out a proper post mortem examination or signs (as from RTA) are obvious.The number of times vets out of sheer stupidity state "poison" causes a lot of public concern and hysteria.
If a vet suspects poisoning then it is his/her duty to report the matter to the police as a potential wildlife crime. To not do so is with holding evidence of a possible crime -to let a member of the pub take a suspected poisoned animal home to bury is so crassly stupid that the vet in question should be reprimanded by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
The problem is that it is not just vets doing this. Wildlife rescues regularly report a dead or dying fox going to a vet and they are told "its poisoning". I have asked time and again what poison was involved -that is a simple public safety question and one that might give other rescues information needed later. "the vet said it was poison" or "We are not putting the fox through a post mortem examination"(?!) are the usual two responses or simply a refusal to respond.
Vets and wildlife rescues have the same duty to make accurate statements based on solid provable facts but it seems that rumour mongering is top priority. If there is evidence of poisoning then it is the duty of vets and rescues to clearly state what the evidence is and the poison involved and that will generally involve a post mortem examination. A fox that has massive infection, and smells of infection and has had half its face smashed off by a car is not poisoning and I wonder whether that person's veterinary certificate came off the back of a cereal box.
In a six year period not one rescue claiming they have had a fox poisoned has submitted said carcass for examination to substantiate the claim and identify the poison. Not one vet I have contacted directly has ever submitted a fox for PME -most have the attitude that if they say something was poisoned then you have no right to even query that claim.
Over 80 foxes underwent PME in Bristol and only two were found to have secondary rodenticide poisoning having eaten a poisoned rat. We know that the rodenticide is used by the local authority but the Wildlife Incident Investigation Service treats its investigation and findings as secret -only they know WHO the poison was used by and the local authority. That attitude also needs to change as any death -wildlife or domestic pet- due to rodenticide used by a local authority is not a "huh up" project since those authorities are voted in by and paid by the voters.
Of course, now that a veil of secrecy has been pulled over fox death reports -unquestionably backed by the organisations involved- we will be lied to and misled. But vets and rescues need to think and get evidence before screaming "poison!" (although rescues get good press publicity following the claims).
ADDENDA
08 07 2025
Today a collapsed and dehydrated fox was taken to the vets and put on a drip. When Sarah Mills phoned to see how it was doing a rather indifferent sounding vet told her that the fox had ingested toxins (poison). Mills pointed out that there were no signs of poisoning and asked two specific questions and the negative response showed that there was no poisoning -as Mills pointed out: "We are the vets" was the response she got.
The vet promised to phone back at 2000 hrs which they did not. We are therefore unaware of whether the fox was put down or still alive. Vet euthanised fox and disposed of body. This same vet practice has now stated four times that foxes taken in were poisoned: one was allowed to be taken away and buried by a member of the public and the others disposed of.
I would draw vets attention to this:
Which means that one vet practice has now failed to inform the WIIS three times (potentially four times) of what they believe to be, and have clearly with no doubt, wildlife poisonings and disposed of the bodies including allowing a member of the public to take one animal away.
If the current fox under their care has been euthanised and disposed of then the practice will be reported to the WIIS as well as the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
