NOTICE: The Fox Forum and British Canid Historical Society

 Although I announce such a year or so ago I need to make it absolutely clear that I have no connection with or work with the British Canid Historical Society nor the Fox Forum.  These were supposed to continue the work I started in 1976 but I was quickly blocked from one and the other contained incorrect information that was never corrected -I had no access to any form of control on either.

It is a very sad and complicated story but I wanted to make sure people understood that I was no longer involved.

My name as well as research data used out of context is still being used.  Photographs from rescue work have also been used with no permission or credit given and, again, out of context.

Always work alone!

Wild Cats, Old Foxes and the Fear of Experts

 

I started my fox/wild canid work back in 1976 and that involved field work, observation in situ as well as a great deal (a lot!) of archival research .  Before the internet going to public libraries was the only way of finding fox related items; thousands of tightly packed and incredible small print columns.  

The main sources for information were books and those mainly pre-1900 since after that period dogma set in  and dogma repeated ad nauseum becomes 'fact'. 

Even back in the 1870s seasoned naturalists who were also, to their eternal damnation, hunters that helped wipe out species, would tour museums and explain why what those museums were displaying were not wild cats but hybrids -particularly the wild tabby. We are talking about people such as John Colquhoun and Frank Buckland who were seen as the most experienced and knowledgeable experts in the field. They had studied, hunted and killed and had wild cats stuffed and mounted and displayed in their collections. As noted in The Red Paper 2022 (Felids) at a meeting of Scottish naturalists in the 1890s a man who had studied wild cats in Scotland for 40 years presented a paper which backed up the declaration that the true Scottish wild cat had become extinct in the 1860s.

The problem was that sentimentality about "puss" our beloved pets as well as the popularisation of Scotland thanks to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert meant "everything Scottish" was grabbed at.  The tabby style wild cat you see in museums is a hybrid and nothing like the large cat that was once called "The English Tiger"/"The Highland Tiger" and which was hunted with dogs wearing metal studded or thick leather collars as the wild cat could kill them -and severely injure a human hunter. Museums wanted what the British Museum declared to be THE atypical wild cat. The tabby. Up until 1900 true wild cats were not to be found in museum displays as there was no interest.

As a young naturalist I was fooled into believing the wild tabby was the only wild cat type to have existed in the UK. Decades of research taught me a lesson.

The same applies with foxes. As a young naturalist I knew that "The Little Red Dog"; the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) was the only fox type to ever exist in the UK. I used to chuckle about the silly stories of extremely large foxes.  All the experts whose books I read ridiculed the idea of a "mountain fox" as none of them had ever seen one so...it did not exist.  All this meant that actually finding book after book, article after article and newspaper reports of Mountain foxes was a slap in the face that woke me up.   

All of the "experts" I had looked up to had not carried out even the most simple research and worse -they were cribbing from one another so that they presented false information as fact. I then managed to find photographs, often very old of wild cats that were not the wild tabby and that led to my discovering illustrations and descriptions of Old fox types -eventually taxidermy proved that those descriptions and illustrations were correct and not exaggerations. What is more there were three types of fox each literally bred for the environment they inhabited. The small Cur fox that lived near human habitation. The Hill or mastiff fox that lived in rough and hilly terrain. Then there was the largest (photo examples in The Red Paper) the Mountain or Greyhound fox -not "reds" and lacking black markings like the red fox has.

It took years to understand the various local names given these foxes and longer before the taxidermies became available. Every reference I found has been included in my work so that it can all be peer reviewed. Even the evidence of a similar fox in Western Europe has been referenced -only one European museum has bothered to cooperate(and find an 1848 British fox in its collection). The, uh, 'expert' of 30 years on red foxes who had the museums collection of taxidermy in a room behind him but refused to even get up and check sums up the situation.

Money and ego.  Publishers have paid authors -"experts"- to write books on foxes and as it was all repeated dogma who gets the biggest red face from embarrassment? The ego is a problem. Yes, they have specialised in red foxes so they know about red foxes. No problem except that they have done no real historical research so the myth of Western Europe, the UK and Ireland having only ever had red foxes is perpetuated and rather than cooperating on the research to present the true history of foxes (or wild cats) the 'experts' hide in their offices unwilling to do anything. That is not how science is supposed to work.

The extinct Hong Kong fox could not be identified by Chinese/Hong Kong museums and it took me years to finally identify the species conclusively (just search blog posts). My colleague, LM, has two foxes that should be of historical importance to French natural history as they may well be the first foxes imported from Canada (and they are NOT red foxes) or they are examples of the extinct Western European fox -we know the name, date and even location of where these ancient foxes were displayed. The Natural History Museum (Paris) had absolutely no interest and even became obstructive in searching their archives.

Scandinavian naturalists doubt that there was an Old type fox in Norway. Yet, we have accounts in newspapers and books of these foxes being imported by hunts to England and descriptions of them -it is possible that, to fulfill hunting binges, the English hunts imported so many of these Norwegian foxes that it led to their extinction there.

All of this fully referenced and details presented and yet some "experts" even refused copies of my book to check it all out.   I had to self publish as despite book company editors praising the manuscripts there was a sudden change in attitude.  UK publishers have a lot of hunt supporters and hunters on their boards.

1976-2024 is a long time researching foxes/wild canids and I have learnt that dogma is always supported.

DNA Study of Foxes -Why Context Is Important

I think that this quote from Science Open is very relevent when it comes to the paper I am about to comment on https://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/05/why-context-is-important-for-research/#:~:text=It%20comes%20from%20the%20Latin,the%20context%20of%20existing%20research.

"Context can defined as: “The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood.” Simple follow on questions might be then, what is the context of a research article? How do we define that context? How do we build on that to do science more efficiently? The whole point for the existence of research articles is that they can be understood by as broad an audience as possible so that their re-use is maximised.

"There are many things that impinge upon the context of research. Paywalls, secretive and exclusive peer review, lack of discovery, lack of inter-operability, lack of accessibility. The list is practically endless, and a general by-product of a failure for traditional scholarly publishing models to embrace a Web-based era."

The paper I am going to look at, or, rather comment on is

Population genetic structure of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the UK

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 19 December 2014

• pages 9–19, (2015)

Quoting from the abstract:

"The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is common and widely distributed within the UK. It is a carrier or potential carrier of numerous zoonotic diseases. Despite this, there are no published reports on the population genetics of foxes in Britain. 

"In this study, we aim to provide an insight into recent historical movement of foxes within Britain, as well as a current assessment of the genetic diversity and gene flow within British populations. We used 14 microsatellite markers to analyse 501 red fox samples originating from England, southern Scotland and northern France. High genetic diversity was evident within the sample set as a whole and limited population genetic structure was present in British samples analysed. 

"Notably, STRUCTURE analysis found support of four population clusters, one of which grouped two southern England sampling areas with the nearby French samples from Calais, indicating recent (post-formation of the Channel) mixing of British and French populations.

 "This may coincide with reports of large-scale translocations of foxes into Britain during the nineteenth century for sport hunting. Other STRUCTURE populations may be related to geographic features or to cultural practices such as fox hunting. In addition, the two British urban populations analysed showed some degree of differentiation from their local rural counterparts."

This 2014 paper originated from people employed by DEFRA (Department for Environment Farming and Rural Affairs).  There is a note at one point of some people considering foxes to be "pests" which felt so out of place and left me wondering what the report's intention was.  A rather neutral and less biased way of putting it would have been: "Foxes are not and have never been officially classed as vermin in the UK". Simple fact and leave peoples' personal opinions to themselves.

Why do I mention context regarding this?  Because interesting DNA showing cross-breeding but there is no real context to explain the results. I know these people were doing DNA work (always welcome on wildlife) and what they knew of Vulpes vulpes appears to be very -VERY- basic and likely from online sources.

"indicating recent (post-formation of the Channel) mixing of British and French populations" is interesting but how? Why? How long after the formation of the Channel? Here is a basic answer.

As wolves, lynx, bears and other large mammals were still being hunted but heading to the precipice of extinction there was not enough to kill for 'sport'. Otters, beavers -literally anything on the land, rivers and in the air were hunted and killed. But there was no chase or final fight that 'sportsmen and women' so enjoyed. The fox was not a wolf but it was a wild dog so it could provide a chase as well as the 'fun' of a final fight back or being ripped to pieces. And so the fox was it.

There was a shortage of foxes in many parts of England by the late 16th century (see The Red Paper 2022 vol. 1) and we know that animals were being imported at that time and it seems very likely that fox importation began around this period. Up until that time there had been three variations of Old fox in the UK; variations created by the differing habitats they lived in. 

The Cur or Common fox was small and lived near human settlements where there was an almost symbiotic relationship (as there is today with the Red fox).

The Hill or Mastiff fox. Large and heavily built and living on the hills and mountain slopes.

The Mountain or Greyhound fox. These were the foxes that the 'sportsmen' craved to chase. We have taxidermy Mountain foxes from the early 19th century and they are indeed large. A taxidermy coyotes placed next the what was described as a "perfect example" of a Mountain fox is dwarfed.

These Old foxes all had one distinction and that was the lack of the black ears, socks and muzzle markings. Grey and white are known and there are examples in taxidermy. However, the main colour was overall brown.  We have all of the archival evidence of the past as well as physical taxidermy so there is no doubt that they existed and there is strong anecdotal evidence that Western Europe had its Old type fox which would have been a relative from before the Channel was created 10,000 years or so ago.

"This may coincide with reports of large-scale translocations of foxes into Britain during the nineteenth century for sport hunting" It is not in any way coincidental. By the 1860s red squirrels, various deer and other mammals were being imported after they became locally extinct or dropped in such numbers that there was a threat of loss of 'sport'. The 1860s are noted as a period in which many extinctions took place in the UK and Ireland faced similar with some Mountain foxes being sent as gifts to Irish hunts before the true Mountain fox died out. At one point (known records) up to 2000 plus foxes were imported per year to places such as Leadenhall Market.  Some hunts employed its own fox catchers to travel over to France to trap and bring back foxes.

Also, occasionally a master of the hunt would send a friend at another hunt foxes of various origins. This continued up until the 1930s.

Therefore, DNA similarities between British and French foxes is expected -I sent DEFRA much material back in 2009 so what they did with it I have no idea.

Since the late 1970s when wildlife rescues began to set up and then more into the 1980s and ever since rescued foxes and cubs are looked after until dispersal season at which point they are released into more fox friendly areas so a fox from Kent might end up in somewhere like Gloucestershire.  So, yes, inter-breeding would take place as foxes pair up.

With context the DNA results make sense.  Laboratory work always needs archival research.

"What Is Your Salary?"

 

A rather amusing online chat was had the other day. I have stopped laughing long enough to write about it today (and take a break from post mortem reports).

I was asked about running both the Fox and Wild Canids study as well as the Bristol Fox Deaths Project. I showed a couple of photos of the bursting Lever Arch files covering much of the work and explained how things worked. I was then asked (by a zoologist): "What Is Your Salary?"  

It took a few minutes before I could respond due to the hysterical laughing.  

Let me explain something, and I believe that I have before but why not again?  A naturalist, even a field naturalist who has concentrated almost 50 years to foxes, wild felids and some mustelids does not earn a salary. Naturalists do not get any recognition.  University and college biology departments that used to have naturalists were closed down long ago and most now consider naturalists of the "old school type" bordering on extinction. Naturalists do the field work and gather data and this is what paid zoologists usually put their names to on papers that keep their funding coming in. I have faced that stealing of data several times over the years and all from people who "stick strictly to academic standards" (anyone says that these days I know they are going to steal whatever they can) and "always reference sources" -only one ever has.

If you are lucky you might get a book deal -at least in the past you might. Now you have to be a celebrity or be on TV or You Tube spouting dogma for that kind of thing.  Cut and paste and having good looks and good hair (both of those left me some while ago) is what draws in the money. I gave up watching a lot of TV wildlife programmes as the music back-track and getting as hi def footage as possible of something killing another something is what makes "sexy" and sellable TV.  You Tube? You Tubers cannot get verified factual historical events or individuals correct despite there being many books on the various topics they cover (because no one reads books now).  Lots of wildlife 'facts' are anything but and no sources are usually referenced and acting like a clown (a bad one) may be entertaining but what does it achieve?

I used to be regularly on call for the BBC, ITV and even Sky TV when it came to exotic animals on the loose in the UK and I did a lot of UK regional, local and national radio stations as well as some Australian and other countries' radio. All wanted the sensational stuff and after three interviews I knew what questions would be asked every time by journalists -and they, not me, called me "Britain's Big Cat Detective".  All unpaid and the reason the BBC was blacklisted by me was the disgusting way they treated one naturalist (making his decades of work a joke) and the fact that when I gave up hours of my time for recording they decided that after the work was done they would give me the runaround and not pay.  

I will tell you that at one time I had someone estimate how much money I had put into not just the Exotic Animals Register (EAR) work but the other wildlife work -I stopped him after he told me what I had spent in just five years!

Wildlife rescuers are not paid.  Sarah Mills the Bristol Fox Lady, gets to see some terrible injuries and is out helping foxes daily -unpaid.

It took m,e three years of day-in and day-out arguing to get the fox post mortems and I only found out this year that the pathologist carrying them out is not paid. Some tests are paid for but all the PM results we have are from unpaid work.   

This is how it works in the UK where the "nation of animal lovers" does not really care about animals, and especially wildlife. Dogma is what pays and the people pushing it have never carried out any field research or even archive research because that involves mind numbing and eye straining work. Better to cut and paste from another source (that promoted dogma).

 If you think that being a naturalist is a career it is -but "Naturalists do not make any money" but we get labels such as "environmental campaigner", "mammalogist", "environmental conservationist" as well as "tree-hugging ****" (the last one I hear so often as it seems the last and only argument small brained hunt people have).

When it comes to my yearly salary it reads "£00.00"

I hope that helps.

The crisis in physics is real: Science is failing -This Also Applies to Wildlife/Zoology

I know what you are going to ask: "What the hell has this video to do with wildlife?"   

Well, because what is said in it does not just apply to physics but sciences in general and particularly wildlife/zoology.   Science papers are researched and put together by students and put out under the name of some doctor or professor who gets all of the credit. Therefore, the ones doing the research will copy and paste or simply copy from past papers and sources.  Therefore they get the references etc. etc. that the paper also requires (makes the  top dog look good).

How many students researching a paper on, say, wildlife, will go to newspaper archives, check magazines and journals from the 18th and 19th century which is (I can attest) very time consuming and boring and ruins your eye sight?  

Researching wild cats the work looked at will be previously published work put t6ogether by, mainly, students under a professor or doctor. 1897 and the meeting of Scottish naturalists and zoologists and one fella who had studied wild cats for 40 years in which it was announced that the Scottish wild cat as it had existed had become extinct in the 1860s. That is a major announcement that every zoologist and naturalist should know -it's not secret hidden work.

Even wild cats in museums were clearly identified by experts as hybrids time and again.  Why are people talking about the few remaining "genuine Scottish wild cats" when there are none.  We have a hybrid European wild cat imported into the UK (for 'sport') and even the current European wild cat is very likely a hybrid from centuries of breeding with domestic ferals.

In my book Red Paper 2: Felids I give every reference as well as photographs of final generation wild cats before extinction -and we have taxidermy examples.

In my other Red Paper (Canids) I present evidence as well as more references than the average science paper, photographs and, yes, we have taxidermy examples, of the three original fox types from Britain and Ireland -each adapted to its own particular environment/habitat.  It is no longer "tall tales" that zoologists and naturalists can dismiss. The evidence is there.

Two European museum has cooperated with the work.  The Natural History Museum (London) wanted full details of what my books contained but would not cooperate in any7 way.  Two smaller UK museums cooperated when they discovered that they had unique specimens but that's where it ended.  One Swiss museum's expert told me that all the fox taxidermy they had was in a room behind him but that he would NOT cooperate in any way as he was a 35 years "expert" on red foxes (we are NOT discussing red foxes).

Every step of the way, from wildlife book publishers to institutions the response has been a stone wall and unwillingness to cooperate.

Discovering the evidence that an Old fox type existed in the UK and Ireland and possibly Western Europe until eradication and migration allowed red foxes to move in should be something that the "professionals" are keen on. The publishable papers, the book deals and lectures.  But, no. Dogma has stagnated genuine wildlife research -David Attenborough Productions, Chris Packham, Brian May and others have all received copies of both books but not even an acknowledgement.

False information online is taken as fact and the biggest falsehood "Red foxes have been in the UK since ancient times" persists.

If you do not read the books and do not peer review the hundreds of references and look at the taxidermy then dogma is safe.  This is not the field I entered in 1974. Ignore me and I will go away?  Not likely, it just means that when someone finally gets the back bone to follow the trail of work presented the ignorers are going to look pretty stupid and unable to justify ignoring evidence presented.