No Historical Perspective Equals False Data

  There are a large number of mistakes noted in this video. Some are simply people making a video and carrying out no real research -simply repeatr what has bbeen presented.  Other inaccuracies are down to the scientists who presented the evidence.

Firstly, the biggest clue that no research work was carried out both parties is the statement that foxes started moving into cities "about 100 years ago".  They mean the dogmatic statement that came from somewhere (I have not been able to narrow down the source)  that foxes were first sighted in cities in the early 1930s.

In The Red Paper 2022 Canids it was shown through historical records that at one time the UK had three distinct fox types (without DNA tests it is difficult to state these were Vulpes sp) the coyote like Greyhound/mountain fox, the Hill/Mastif fox and the Cur or common fox. The first two only ventured near to farms or human habitation in the most desperate times such as harsh winters.  The cur fox had always lived near human habitations such as villages where, apart from rodents, there was plentiful human food waste. Foxes are recorded as living in barns and even under farmyards (not touching chickens that were plentiful but catching rabbits).

We know from what is recorded that there were fox friendly people even on land belonging to local huntmasters and that these were "feeders". It is not a modern phenomenon. We know that foxes were living in towns and cities usually undetected until venturing out in daylight or having been locked in some premises. The excitement was always great and, rather like every jackal /exotic animal sighting of the time being blamed on a travelling menagerie, a fox sighted in the city was 'obviously' an escaped pet. End of story. "How could a wild fox survive in a city?"  Again, human waste food, rats and mice were a good diet not to mention large iunsects.

Foxes are not loud and noisy creatures and people are, on the whole, about as observant as a plank of wood. Most likely, on seeing a fox, someone would think it a pet dog or even a pet cat (we still get that in 2026 because people think foxes are wolf sized animals).

Foxes have always been near human habitation and in the early Medieval period were also "farmed" in  fox enclosures for fur and meat.  This fictitious 1930s date was likely created by someone who sat in a college or university room and had "Professor" or "Doctor" in front of his name so was never questioned.

There is another major problem in this data and that is the skull sizes noted. Very likely some areas in the UK were imnporting foxes since the late 1500s when it was reported that they were becoming scarce due to fox hunting. At the height of the importing of foxes from Europe -=all detailed in accounts of the time- Leadenhall Market were importing well opver 1000 a year whil;e smaller marrkets and dealers would add an extra 1000+ to this. France, Norway, Netherlands, Spain -any country with foxes to catch and expert to England did so. It was quite a large trade in France.

These imported foxes were again, hunted to near extinction (the Old British fox vanishing by the 1860s during "The Golden Age of Hunting") and more were imported. Various problems meant that at one point English hunts were "stealing" foxes from the territory of Irish hunts (who had depleted their opwn fopxes anyway) and this led to questions in Parliament and itr was considered a "diplomatic matter".  

This means that skul;ls tested are not of a species that has always been here but one that became native via importation to replace the 'lost' species. So DNA testing largely shows European DNA. Well, 'big shock' and waste of time and money there. We are also talking about a species that was brought to the UK from at the very least from ten (10) countries.  Some were bred in British hunt stables to avoid paying out for imports so a fox from Germanyt might be bred with a fox from the Netherlands or France or evenm Russia.  This is going to lead to some skeletal/skull changes and often features created through breeding a locally "perfect for the hunt" fox (there was no real science or knowledge here just attempts at mix and matching foxes 0they even tried to breed fox-jackal, jackal-wolf and even added coyote into the madness.

Why are foxes in the cities and towns? Already stated. They moved around and found their main food source -rabbits- on the outskirts then found rats, mice and much more including food waste. I should point out that bin raiding is very unlikely since moist of the country moved to large wheelie bins in the 1980s.  

One fact slaps the "it was safer and easier in cities" theory in the face. World War Two. Cities bombed -noise, damage and people rushing around and digging through debris cause more noise and activity than a fox can bear. Some likely could do well following the war since the big problem was rats and mice. And the rubbled ruins would be great dens -in Bristol some bomb sites were not cleared and built on until the 1970s.

Foxes have intelliegence and with farmers shooting them and their young and hunts constantly posing threats especially during the 'fun' cubbing season the species would look for a safe place where the threat was not constant, where there was food and shelter to den up and keep young safe.  Neighbours talking about seeing a fluffy tailed "big ginger tom cat" tipping over the old aluminium bins to get to food scraps makes sense. One woman asked me about an "unusual cat" that kept passing through her garden. It was a fox. "But it's so small. My cat is bigger than that!"  Also, at one point in the 1960s, some local men going out with torches to find the scream from a woman also makes sense. 

As one person put it to me in a rather belligerent way in the 1970s: "This is a city. You do not get foxes in cities. It was a cat!"

Put out all the educational material you want and people will stil;l believe what they want to.

In the case of fox skull sizes I do not think what was presented shows anything. No evolution or how this is changing foxes and how they think. After 50 yearsI can tell you that foxes come in all shapes and sizes because of their historic breeding base. The biggest changes in foxes is one the "scientists" have missed out on because they are just lookiung at skulls; colouration. The Old British fox could be brown (a mottl;ed type fure), yellowish, white but black is not rewcorded. We had a massive influx of release fox fur farm animals in the 1950s when the trade failed. Silver foxes as well as (again) imported foxes were put out into the population -descendents of some of these are quite impressive.  

In the last30 years we have seen a greadual change in fox colouration. Some local foxes are "cherry red" while others a more orange colour, there are the "salt and pepper" fur types and even white and black have been known/photographed. The surprise is that there are more grey coloured foxes around. I first noted these in the SE of England but then they have 'spread' to the South coast and aboutr six years ago images of grey coloured foxes came from Bristol. Even very dark, almost black colourations.  This is a sign of melanism and in some areas we knopw this has come about via interbreeding between red foxes and released silver foxes -the history of these is known and recorded particularly by Black Foxes UK.

The increasing prevalence of black wolves is primarily due to a genetic mutation inherited from domestic dogs, which provides advantages in certain environments, especially against canine distemper. This mutation, known as melanism, results in increased production of melanin, giving the coat a dark color. Black wolves are more common in North America, particularly in regions like Yellowstone National Park, where the gene variant enhances survival during distemper outbreaks. Additionally, the black coat can offer better camouflage in forested areas, making it easier for wolves to stalk prey. 

Now, despite the belief that a fox and a dog can successfully mate they cannot. I have spent a lot of years looking at all the Dox (dog-fox) claims and not one has proven to be true. Therefore, one has to ask why melanism is becoming far more common in UK foxes?  I think that the first reason is red fox-silver fox interbreeding so that some of the offspring are born black. The second reason may well be down to changes to fight off disease. The Bristol Fox Necropsy study showed that babesia and leptospirosis (which foxes normally have anti bodies to especially since their main food source -rats- carries  lepto)  as well as other illnesses are claiming fox lives and in part this may be due to changes in the environment -something no one has looked into because "just foxes".

The colouration changes do not indicate a seperate species as some keep thinkinjg just localised variants wherfe past gene pools, environmental changes etc may have created necessary muations.

The ominous "Something DIFFERENT"  title of this video just goes to show that a little scare factor added to a video on research results that may well be inaccurate or need re-appraing goes to show that after all this time the true history of foxes in the UK and Eire  has not been undserstood.

**************************************************************

361 pp

Paperback

Interior Color & Black and white

Dimensions A4 (8.27 x 11.69 in / 210 x 297 mm

£25.00

https://www.lulu.com/shop/terry-hooper/the-red-paper-2022-volume-1-canids/paperback/product-r97ywj.html?

 When the Doggerland bridge flooded the British Isles became separated from

Continental Europe and its wildlife developed uniquely. The British Isles, for the purpose of this work includes Ireland, and isolated the wolves on both became what would be island species not affected by the usual island dwarfism. These wolves, after millennia. Became “unwanted” and forests and woodland was burnt down or cut down for the specific purpose of lupicide; the killing of every and any wolf –and there was a bounty for “a job well done”. At the same time there also developed three unique island species of Old fox from the coyote-like Mountain or Greyhound fox, the slightly smaller but robustly built Mastiff or Bulldog fox and the smaller Common or Cur fox –the latter like today’s red foxes had a symbiotic relationship with humans. These canids were mainly ignored until it was decided that they could provide fur and meat and those things earn money. From that point onward, especially after all other game had been killed off, the fox faced what writers over the centuries referred to as vulpicide –extermination through bounties paid, trapping or hunting and despite all the hunters noting that the Old foxes were nearing extinction they continued to hunt until by the late 1880s the Old were gone and replaced by the New –foxes imported by the thousands every year for the ‘sport’ of fox hunting and this importation also led the the UK seeing the appearance of mange (unknown before the importations). The travelling British sportsmen went coyote, wolf and jackal hunting and on returning to England wanted to bring a taste of this to “the good old country”. Wolves, jackals and coyotes were set up in hunting territories from where they could learn the lay of the land and provide good sport later. Some hunts even attempted to cross-breed foxes, jackals and Coyotes. Then there were the legendary –almost mythical– “beasts”; the black beast of Edale, the killer canids of Cavan and the “girt dog” of Ennerdale. In more recent times raccoon dogs and arctic foxes have appeared in the UK; some released for ‘sport’ while others are exotic escapees long since established in the countryside. If you thought you knew what fox hunting was about prepare to be woken up by a sharp slap to the face and the reality that, by admissions of hunts themselves, this was all about fun and sport and nothing to do with “pest control”.

We Sit Back and Lose EVERYTHING

 

By 2019 I had been in touch with Avon Wildlife Trust (AWT) a number of times, especially since forming BBG in 1994 after two years of finding Avon Badger Group under Mike Collins had gone defunct. Sadly I can find nothing online about Mike or the ABGs work and the only surviving member I did find was in her 80s and told me, regarding the ABG work/results, that she was "proudly taking them to the grave".

That does not helop badgers.

Anywway, AWT never bothered responding to results of wildlife surveys or other data. and that still applies.

In 2019 they posted this on their website regarding "bovine TV" (they did correct that further down.

Saving Avon’s Badgers | Avon Wildlife Actors Trust

If you’re out for a summer’s evening walk or drive, you may be lucky enough to catch a glimpse of a black and white creature scurrying across a lane or skirting the edge of a woodland, its stocky form and short legs moving quickly. It will be a badger of course – a shy, nocturnal mammal and a wonderful animal to spot.

Badgers, like many wild animals, have plenty of myths and folklore attached to them, including the idea that if a badger walks across the path you have just walked on, you’re in for very good luck! And badgers have long been featured in literature, associated with wisdom – think badger in The Wind in the Willows who deals firmly with the mischievous Mr Toad, and the loyal Hufflepuffs in Harry Potter’s Hogwarts who have the trusty badger as their house emblem.  And badgers and the setts they live in have been protected by law in England and Wales since 1992 when The Protection of Badgers Act was passed by parliament, so they hold an important place amongst our native wildlife.

But these animals have been at the centre of much debate over the last decades. The Government’s strategy to halt the spread of bovine TV – a disease which affects cattle and causes immense hardship and devastation for farmers – has led to many thousands of badgers being killed due to the fact that badgers, like other wild animals, also suffer from bovine TB. Research however, shows that they are not the main way cattle become infected and that in fact, cows spreading the bovine TB bacteria to other cows is the key problem in herds becoming infected.

Avon Wildlife Trust – alongside the movement of 46 Wildlife Trusts across the UK – is opposed to the culling of badgers and we’ve this week started vaccinating badgers for the first time to protect badger families from the disease. We’ve started at a small scale, vaccinating badger families of adults and cubs on a woodland site at one of our nature reserves. Over the next four years, we want to extend across other nature reserves and work with other landowners and farmers to vaccinate more badgers across larger areas of landscape.

We’ve taken this step as a way to help tackle the problem of bovine TB in the Avon region and demonstrate an alternative to the cull policy – a safe alternative which is cost-effective, and which saves our wild badger populations in years to come. Several other Wildlife Trusts in different parts of the country have been running successful badger vaccination programmes for some time and research from trials carried out showed that three quarters of badgers which had been vaccinated had a reduced rate of infection. 

Our aim is to continue the work we’ve started this week and play our part in helping to find solutions to the problem of bovine TV whilst ensuring Avon’s wild badgers can thrive into the future.

To find out more about our badger vaccination work and the funding we need to do more please go to avonwildlifetrust.org.uk/saveourbadgers

Now, I have left that link as previously an "error" message was showing but I kept trying as knowing locations of badger clans it might help vaccinate the poipulation -even though there is no real threat from Bovine TB .   I sent emails asking for information on the vaccination programme.  I mentioned this to two people from AWT at the Wilkd Summit in September and they were very vague on the subject. They were "shocked" when looking at the Badger Death Register entires.  I did give my details and they promised to poass this along.

Nothing.

Today I tried the website again and clicked the link and:

"Oops. Sorry, this page couldn't be found. Here are some pages we think you might like instead."

Nothing but birds, clean water but mammals particularly foxes and badgers ...did you guess "nothing"? I was told by both people at the AWT stand "we work under Bristol city council" and we know how BCC feels about wildlife and the environment -it doesn't.

Since moving to Ashton Vale in 1994 I carried out surveys and on each occasion AWT was not interested. This all seems odd and thirty years on I still wonder wehat it does.

Stoats, hedgehogs, deer of various species, foxes and badgers -in a City and County with all of these mammals why are we not promoting education about them or letting people know they are here at least? It seems hedgehogs get some press when it might attract attention but badgers and foxes? No.

 We need wildlife groups and trusts to educate and make it clear to people that we are on the verge of losing hedgehogs, the fox population has dropped by an estimated 60% anbd the badger cull has resulted in 300,000 official deaths and a population under threat. Sitting back and doing nothing will not help unless your mind set is that you can take the grand children to see what foxes, hedgehogs and badgers looked like "when we still had them".

Imagine trhe answer you wil;l have to give when the grand kids ask "What did you do to try to save them?"

Was Mange Released Into Bristol Foxes

 

Looking at Stephen Harris and Philip Baker's Urban Foxes book there are things that are quite "off" as they state mange kills more foxes than cars. Really? Mange deaths are low but with over 270 known fox deaths this year and cars involved in 90% of them it is obvious they were not looking at the  facts (although the data they used "does not exist" -as I will explain further on)

 

At one point this claim about mange was true because up until 1994 mange was not reported in Bristol. That is the reason so many fox watchers who cared for minor injuries etc were caught off guard and could not help.

I keep stating 94% of Bristol foxes were killed off but looking at some other data the 95%+ figure for the number of foxes that died does seem more accurate.

There have been rumours for a long time that Bristol Uni and its fox study deliberately released mange into the City as part of a study to see how fast rabies would spread.  I may disagree with some of what Harris states but I would never believe that he would do such a thing (evidence seems to show that he was anti hunt).

That written, there are a LOT of questions that require answering. One fox devastated 94-95% of the urban fox population?

If you read this item you will find that the fox involved left the City then returned with mange.

There are a lot of questions that need answering as this makes no logical sense especially if you know anything about foxes. Since 2000 I have attempted to gain access to the Mammal Group study data. BristolUniversity has refused to answer emails, letters and even faxes on the matter. And the rumours grew stronger.

I took the last step of making a Freedom of Information Request.  First it was could I define and clarify what I was looking for? I told them that it was clear enough so made it even more clear. Then it was another excuse to delay. I redefined and made 100% sure that there was no way to respond other than with the data requested.

Bristol  University claimed that it had no such records. What's more there were no records from the Mammal Group.  In radio and press as well as other sources the University has claimed that all the data from all studies etc are held by them. One way or another someone is lying. The internal review officer then asked for the date when the Mammal Group was set up and ended and what years the Fox Study ran for

Absolutely nothing to do with my request.

And am I expected to believe that a university had no records and could not find even the most basic information on a group operating from its premises, using its equipment and everything that involves

From thinking I would be able to shoot down all the allegations made against the UniversityI am now in a position where it looks as though those rumours may be facts and that the University is running delays and denials.

Once the request is concluded I shall post the link to the online request and responses.

Mange may well have been deliberately released into Bristol's fox population

.

People Brag Openly Online About Wildlife Abuse

 I read an item on MSN yesterday about the RSPCA warning people to avoid grey squirrels as they might bite or scratch. The comments on this post then erupted into anti fox and anti badger comments.

People called badgers a nuisance for being in their garden and openly stated that they made as much noise around setts as they could and that over a few days the badgers or foxes moved on. They also stated how they let their children invite over friends to make as much noise in the garden as they could with the intention of driving off badgers and even blocking badger entrances into gardens and free run to their setts.

They are all describing illegal actions interrfering with bnadger and active fox dens with cubs in. Police could easily trace the accounts (I did with two) owners an initiate an investigation. But... too much hard work and even the confession online in a public forum can be dismissed as evidence.

This is the country we live in. NOT a nation of animal lovers, it never was -it is a Victorian/Edwardian chocolate box invention at a time when hunts and pro hunt supporters mocked and even got "physical" with (spat out with bile) "humanitarians". Yes, being a humanitarian was a dirty thing back then.

Badgers shot or snared and dumped by the roadside because everyone knows that drivers will not stop to check "just road-kill".

We have had foxes snared in the area but left by the road and only a post mortem revealed the cause of death. Was anything done to find out who was doing this? No.

We had an otter found dead by the roadside near afishing site. Road-kill? No. It was snared. Wildlife crime so what happened? Nothing.

We had a man set his dog onto a fox in Blaise Castle Park in front of people -good description of dog and owner. Fox torn up and thge post mortem added to eye witness reports. Action taken? None.

Another man set his dog onto a fox cub in Kingswood and killed it; and it was reported to police. Action -none.

Three foxes found one day on a local allotment that is pro rewilding and no poisons are used. Police wildlife officer went to the site and took statements. The foxes were on a compost heap 300 yards away and the allotment holders assumed the officer would take them for examination in case of wildlife crime. He would not even go and look at the foxes. He told everyone that he had "gathered intelligence" and that was it. Blind eye of the police at work and the officer never responded to messages.

It goes on and on and then we have the losses on our streets due to speed bumps having been removed and no signs about wildlife crossing or monitoring of speed of vehicles -deer, squirrels and over 270 foxes and 80+ badgers (known).

Oh, and every night across the country men and women go out to shoot and kill for 'fun' with impunity.

All of this I deal with on a weekly basis "Just foxes" and "sad about the badger, isn't it?" are responses from officials IF they respond at all.

Our fox and badger numbers are hitting all time lows and our hedgehogs are not doing much better. Hedgehogs, badgers and foxes need to be Red Listed and REALLY protected and people going out killing them for 'fun' need to be prosecuted heavily (including the off duty police officers who are in the mix).

When the public are anti wildlife and teach their kids to be anti wildlife you realise that however much you push and fight it is a losing battle.

It's Time For The Anti Fox/Pro Hunt Morons Again

 

Every year. Cub season and Dispersal season the same, almost word for word, lies about foxes attacking and killing cats.

Here is the latest post:

"FYI - I don't know much about foxes except I love them just like any living thing. However, anyone with cats please note that I had to chase off a fox attacking a cat near the Charnhill Road/Brow green area and houses Sunday /Monday night. I only hope the cat is ok as the fight went on a while before I realised it was not a cat on cat and much more violent. This was dusk to dark time, maybe keep an eye on your cats and keep a watch out for this fox - he was quite large. I did not realise foxes attacked cats but I guess they do. There are quite a few kitties in this area and may be if a fox is desperate it may behave differently - not a fox expert. I do know quite a few cats have gone missing in the Mangotsfield area, but most are traffic related. "

I noted AGAIN a FB page with no info or posts which Face Book themselves alerted people to years ago as a sure sign of a fake account.

ALWAYS the "I love foxes". Anyway, here is what I wrote in response:

"British Fox Study set up in 1976 and I run it. I have observed cat and fox interactions over 50 years and studied all the old archived material looking at this.

"The fox is at greater risk from a cat than vice versa. In 10 years I have had to stop five different cats that had cornered five different foxes. This is pure pro hunt/anti fox rubbish. Cats have four sets of claws and can reach further than a fox witrh no claws can. A cat also has teeth. Against that a fox stands no chance.

"This post is almost word for word the same as one ten other FB groups. Usually the "poor cat" is a ginger or ginger and whitye or black and white. In the last five years this rubbish has been posted 101 times that I know of and not one single piece of evidence of fox attacks or foxes tearing up a pet cat or injuring one. I check all of these claims and I check with vets to see whether they have had the alleged attacked cat brought in.

"Nope.

"Not one.

"And the "precious member of the famioly"? Look on the poster's FB page not a single photo of such a loved animal. These posts go out as cub season comes in and during dispertsal.

"We have lost through cars etc 275 foxes this year and the fox population has dropped significantly. "

PLEASE be aware that we are losing so many foxes to cars, snaring, shooting and much more and this type of post WILL be appearing on other pages -guaranteed.

I am STILL posting Just Not Rushing It Or Spending Hours Typing

 I was asked whether I had given up posting on foxes?

I HAVE been posting and on any number of topics relating to foxes. A lot of those posts are, uh, "borrowed" or info taken from them by othersbut no credit given.

There have been  365,680 and 1000 post and comments. Questions. 

ZERO. The Canid book and other related works  -no purchases. Not joking. Fully referenced and full of maps, illoes and photos and no interest.

Quite honestly it is far easier doing to work and keeping it in my head.

Why I Had To Resort To A Freedom of Information Request

  I have written before about the mange outbreak that hit Bristol in 1994/1995 and left us with 4-6% of the population (numbers vary but we lost over 90% of the fox population.  

Here is the problem: having looked at records going back into the 19th century there has never been anything similar.  Mange gradually spreads in whatever are the nites get to. It is not like some human virus that spreads across the City from Ashton to Downend in a month due to human interaction (after Covid most people will know what I am talkiung about).

Foxes have a dispersal season around July onward when young venture out to find their own territory. I concentrated on that period of the years from 2019-2025 to see if this was when the "outbreaks" peaked.  Mange in foxes is caused by parasitic mites—primarily Sarcoptes scabiei—which burrow into the skin, triggering intense itching, hair loss, and inflammation. These mites spread mainly through direct fox‑to‑fox contact and indirectly via contaminated dens or environments.

Foxes do live in family groups -leashes- or even as a permanent pair. They maintain their territory and fight off interlopers. Although nomad foxes (males with no territory) wander areas they are not "cordially invited" to stay.  If there were an outbreak of mange due to the environmental conditions being ripe for the mites then we would be aware of those conditions and could prepare. In 1994/1995 fox watchers who helped injured or sick foxes (a small number of people at the time) had never seen anything like the outbreak before.

It was so fast and hit foxes so hard that questions were asked but ignored ("just foxes").  Here is what we were told by Bristol University's then Mammal Study Group headed by Professor Stephen Harris.

A radio collared for that was part of their study "suddenly left the City" -there was no explanation as to why as a town fox is not a country fox and we are told  the radio collar was of no help tracking it. Back in those days it involved going out with detectors to pick up the sigmal.  Foxes have been known to go travelling so not exceptional. Locating radio collared animals can be problematical although the Group stated that they had everything down pat so...

A while later the wandering fox returned to the City. This in itself is all very vague and Bristol University would not allow access to records on the matter. Whatever (if the quote is accurate and not off hand) "Within weeks" mange was hitting the fox population across the City but I can find no information on mange in countryside around the City at that time. This suggests that one single fox created the mange outbreak. That is ludicrous.

For the fast spread you would need more than one infected fox. You would need to have a fox in the North, South, East and West of the City each being part of a larger group of foxes to hit the entire population of the City. That one fox supposedly travelled all around the City dropping mange mites everywhere. 

I assume that the reader will see the problem here. The area size of the City and County is roughly 110 km (40 sq mi). We are talking about urban areas, woodland, heathland, valleys and much more. One fox spread mange mites to each and every one of these areas with fox dens -dens not affected by mange before as the Group pointed out.

How?

Much more information is needed on how, where and when a radio collared fox was "lost" since with a radio collar and it being part of a study surely they should have attempted to find it -it was supposed to be a study of urban foxes and how they lived.  In what area was the fox "lost" and on what date -that is essential information in a study's records.

We then need to know how, where and when the collared fox was picked up again and also how the Group was able to state that this one fox returned to Bristol carry mange mites and its movements after it was relocated.. Again: essential data in any study.

Since 1999 Bristol university has refused to respond to letters and emails looking for access to such data. "The Mammal Group was closed down" -presumably the records were not destroyed?  Oddly, at one point the nbew members of the Mammal Study Group were announced and I contacted each one on the subject of the foxes and mange; these learned people decided the best course of action was to ingore enquiries.

Bristol University and those associated with it (yes, I have tried asking Prof Harris -you can guess the response) put up a wall of silence. Even were I not the coordinatopr of the British Fox and Wild Canids Study (set up in the 1970s and from whom the mammal group took information happily) and being as sources put it (I hate ego but I will grit my teeth) a "noted naturalist" for my work I would expect at least a corteous "go away" response.

I hope that even the casual reader will see the problem all of this shows?

Here is my big problem. I have repeatedly asked Bristol university to refute the strong rumour that has persisted since the late 1990s but after 10 attempts -no response. Someone who used to work at the University contacted me and told me that there was more than one manged fox and that the Uni were paid to release such foxes. I heard similar from a member of the faculty at Langford Veterinary School. By 2018 I had some seven people tell me the same thing.

But why would the University or its Mammal Study Group deliberately infect and then release foxes into what was always a mange free population?

These days there are a lot of papers from studies on potential zoonotic diseases. In case you are unfamiliar with the term: Zoonotic diseases, or zoonoses, are infections caused by pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites, or prions that can move between non-human animals and humans. Transmission can also occur in reverse, from humans to animals, known as reverse zoonosis. These diseases have been responsible for major historical outbreaks, including the bubonic plague and bovine tuberculosis, and continue to pose significant public health challenges globally.

Foxes are great indicators of environmental health. Historically the Old cur fox lived near human habitation until the New red fox took over.  Often blamed for any illness affecting pet dogs (a good scapegoat to take attention from the fact people do not get their pets vaccinated) it is often more likely dogs spreading illnesses to foxes. It's complex but the fox is a good sign of local conditions.  

We have not had rabies outbreaks in the UK since the 1920s and I can tell you through experience that a rabies outbreak is not something you want on your doorstep. It is not something I would like to see in the UK. There is also the danger of rabies infecting humans via bites and scratches. Literally, as in the 1970s and a rabies scare, every bird or animal sighted was shot "in case".  There has been much debate and discussion on how fast such things can spread.

Now, for a study on how fast a disease or virus can spread you need a few things;

1)  a non human affecting disease.

2) a population of target animals that are clear of the studied illness/disease so the spread, etc can be accurately recorded.  If, say, mange was regularly occurring in foxes around the City then how could you tell which was due to the study release and which normal?

3) a population of target animals that can be easily monitored for signs of outbreaks.

Bristol's urban fox population was the largest outside of London. Was monitored and mange free.  Why not London?  A massive outbreak of mange in London would be very noticable and questions asked not just by the public but poliuticians and news media -ignorant of the facts about mange "FOX DISEASE SWEEPS THROUGH LONDON!" would be an almost guaranteed headline and story. A lot of heads would roll if it was found out something had been deliberatley released in the Capitol city.

I cannot remember any stories about mange in the City of Bristol at the time and even today most people have no idea what we were witnessing at the time. One "Judas" animal seems unlikely.

Again, in case the reader is unfamiliar with  the term: a Judas animal is typically a social species individual trained or fitted with a tracking device to lead or locate other animals. The term originates from Judas Iscariot, the biblical figure who betrayed Jesus, symbolizing the act of betrayal, as the Judas animal leads its peers to a destination they would not willingly go, often to slaughter or eradication efforts Or, in the case of an experiment to see how fast a disease might spread, one or more infected Judas foxes.

Having tried for years to get data from Bristol University on the details from the fox study and had nothing but silence. I decided to make a Freedom of Information request for the data. Bristol University then asked if I could clarify my terms of what data I was looking for. I made it even clearer. Plain English and everything I wanted. Bristol University then asked again for me to clarify. This is deliberately delaying and they are also witholding data (which they have not yet done):

"University of Bristol may have refused all or part of your request under Section 40." 

You are going to now get an explanation of Section 40:

Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 pertains to personal information. It states that any information to which a request for information relates is exempt from disclosure if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject. Additionally, it is exempt if it does not fall under the first condition and satisfies certain conditions related to data protection principles and the UK GDPR. The section also includes provisions for neither confirming nor denying the existence of personal data, ensuring that public authorities can protect personal information while complying with data protection legislation.

Personal data -fine unless the person involved committed some misdeed. But I suspect that Bristol University is going to give the runaround for a simple reason: a university study group would not just release one or more foxes with mange to carry out a study as that involves a lot of potential legal problems from animal rights groups, pet owners if a pet got mange and so on. However, as part of an officially (Government) backed or approved private study it might be easier. 

Here I am clearly pointing the possible finger of accusation at the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF -which became DEFRA in 2001).  There is a long history with MAFF and certain "outbreaks" in the countryside (the late John Green an estate warden noted unmarked white vans being reported in his area of Shropshire and small white boxes being left in fields. One farmer reported that he removed a box from his land and took it to police as he thought it was all "very odd" and no permission was given to place anything on his land. After being made to wait a good while a police sergeant told him that the boxes were government property but would not say which department was involved other than "Well, it's agricultural land, isn't it?" After the boxes appeared the healthy rabbit population had an outbreak of myxomatosis which devastated it -any communications with MAFF led nowhere.

MAFF at the time is a likely but not the only culprit as we are dealing with disease and health matters.

Once the FOIA request is ended I will post all here but my question has to be why any refusal to comment or just say "Yes, this is what we have on file about 1994/1995" -end of story. Or even "That is totally untrue. We would never do that" Why do I have to go through FOIA?