NO. Never Ever Conclude "Poison" Without Evidence

 

For most vets "likely poisoned" is a "I have no idea" response. I think it is seven vets in Bristol who told people that a fox taken to them was "likely poisoned" and that is completely out of order. You TEST for poisons and then state it as fact.  Only one of over 60 foxes submitted to the Bristol study had secondary poisoning after eating a poisoned rat.

Today I see this from  Second Chance Fox Rescue:

"Had a call from Debra L Jessie this morning to say a man in southsea had got a little fox cub that he found close by an was concerned.

"So I went over and assessed the little one. Poor thing was not standing or running from me, very weak. I also witnessed him have a seizure blood was coming from his behind, …. On route to the vets he also had an another seizure. The vets assesses little one and he was not in a good place. Hi possibility of poisoning ..

"The kindest thing was to PTS. RIP little Joe"

I had to respond to this as claims of fox poisoning tend to get out of control and lead to a lot of local tension:

"There are a number of reasons why a cub/adult can have seizures as well as the blood noted. Poisoning has not been involved in any of the cases we have had post mortem examinations on.

"After almost 50 years on foxes I understand the concern but we had 6 vets at different practices declare "poisoned" and on testing they had no poison in them. We have to be very careful about claiming poison is a cause as it creates a very bad situation.

"I would suggest the cub had internal problems and may well have been hit by a car BUT that is a guess.

"Will the cub go for PM?"

The one thing you must never do is jump to a major conclusion with absolutely no scientific back-up and that is a strict rule I always have. I hope the cub is submitted for post mortem examination but to date I have found only one rescue doing that.