Fox Being Treated...call in another rescue that will kill it?

 Just a note for the public record.

Sarah Mills, the Bristol wildlife rescuer, was called by a lady she has helped with foxes before.   The woman wanted a fox trapped as "it has a broken leg". The video clip which I have watched several times shows no broken leg -in fact when the fox was getting under a car it used all four legs. The fox does have mange which Mills has started treating.

The woman refused to accept anything other than trapping the fox and stated she would get a trap herself. She couldn't find one (presumably cheap enough).

The law regarding interfering with wildlife rescuers treating wild animals was explained to her and the regulations on this sent to her.  Again, her attitude was that none of that matterede and that the fox needed trapping.

It does not.

Today the woman informed us that she has contacted a certain 'rescue' who say they will travel to Bristol and set up a trap. It is a big area, not in a garden.  Regarding setting traps:

"Wildlife rescuers must check traps at least once every 24 hours, with some sources recommending checks every few hours to prevent stress and injury to the trapped animal. The specific frequency can vary by location, but a daily check is a common legal and ethical requirement to provide humane care for the animal. Some regulations also specify even more frequent checks for traps submerged in water. "

Travelling back and forth twice a day? Unlikely. Every day? Unlikely. The woman will not be monitoring the trap as she appears to not be that interested in being active on the matter. So a trap will be set in an open space where any cat or other animal can enter it and be trapped. If the fox in question is trapped that rescue has a policy of killing foxes with mange and they would also breaching professional ethics by trapping and removing a fox already being treated in conjunction with veterinary advice.

The woman herself will be black listed from receiving any future help and the other rescue had better be right on the ball as the area is monitored.

Public Interfering When A wildlife rescuer is treating an animal

 

Public Interfering When A wildlife rescuer is treating an animal

A member of the public should not interfere with a rescuer who is treating wildlife in the UK. Interfering could be considered animal cruelty, as it may harm the animal and prevent it from receiving proper care. If you are concerned about an animal's welfare or think a rescuer is not acting properly, you should contact the RSPCA for advice and to report a potential issue

Reasons to not interfere

• Potential for harm: 

  Moving or touching a wild animal can cause it additional stress, injury, or pain. It can also expose the rescuer to injury or zoonotic diseases. 
• Wildlife rescue ethics: 

  The general principle is to allow the wildlife rescue to be handled by trained professionals to minimize human interference and ensure the animal's best interests are served. 
• Legal implications: 

  Interfering with a rescuer could be considered a form of animal cruelty, especially if the rescuer is in the process of providing care to a wild animal. 
• Professional expertise: 

  A wildlife rescuer is trained to handle the animal and provide the necessary care, so a member of the public should not attempt to take over or disrupt their work. 

What to do if you are concerned

• Contact the RSPCA: 

  If you are concerned about a rescuer's actions, you should report it to the RSPCA for investigation.
• Monitor the situation from a safe distance: 

  If you are not able to contact the RSPCA immediately, you should keep a safe distance and observe the situation without interfering.
• Do not intervene: 

  Unless the situation is critical and the rescuer is not responding, do not attempt to take over the situation yourself. 

What Was "The English/Highland Tiger"?

 The illustration on the left is a painting from around 1800, showing a Scottish wildcat being hunted by a pack of dogs. You will note the yellow colouration and stripes -hence the "English wild cat" becoming "the Highland Tiger".

Another thing to note is that there is a version from later on colourised a grey-brown but the colouring here is the original.

Note the size of the cat and size of the dogs. Also note that the cat is going for the hounds neck -serious wild cat hunters equipped their hounds with metal studded leather collars to stop them being attacked that way. You will also note that the cat is holding off the pack and the 'hunter' holds back with an axe to despatch the cat if it does not get away.

The fierceness of these large cats was such that even humans could fall victim to their attacks. These cats did not go out of their way to attack people but if you have someone with hounds hunting and cornering you or trying to force you out of a cave (one case notes a hunter who fought he was getting a fox from a cliff side cave (Wales 1880s) but was confronted by a large wild cat -it did not end well) or tries to kill your mate and cubs then all bets are off.

Interestingly supposed zoologists and others writing in the field of 'cryptozoology' have all tried to suggest that the wild cat was an "unknown British species now extinct" or that a real escaped tiger was being described or -as with the Girt dog of Ennerdale- that an escaped (from a zoo or travelling menagerie) was being described because "No known cat in Britain has a yellow fur and stripes".  Well, these people rarely do any research since their aim is to make money.

Wild cats are thought to have started breeding with feral domestic cats brought to Britain by the Romans and these imported cats would have been domesticated Felis libyca (North African wild cat).  This could have started any time from the 1st century on although I would guess that it would have been much later as domesticated cats would have been more isolated in farming or town areas while the wild cats were still in forests and woods or other wild areas. 

It is likely that interbreeding took longer in Scotland where, although merchants may have gifted cats, these would have initially been too few to spread out from towns. That would still give the cats, say, 100 AD to  1900 to interbreed as wild cats (male or female) looked for mates as hunting took its toll in areas. The "Kellas cat", as Di Francis described it, was a black domestic-wild cat hybrid and there are historical records of these showing that they existed for many centuries up until today

Left: mounted "zoological specimen" of a Kellas cat (c)2025 Sagaciousphil 

The Extinct Fox and Wild Cat Museum has specimens of wild cats c 1830s but it should be noted that the species was on the decline at that point due to hunting and so we are seeing possibly interbred end of species but there should be enough unique DNA to separate it from the "wild tabby" of today which is supposedly a European wild cat but as Europe had a much longer domestic-wild can interbreeding period those in Europe today are far from the original species type.  

As with foxes and wolves in Britain becoming separate island species to their West European counterparts after the flooding of the Doggerbank link with Europe, so the wild cats in Britain should have been reflected in Europe.  Unfortunately, the lack of interest in searching museum vaults and other collections means that the cat we see today is still considered the original.

The easiest way to find out more and define species we have lost in the UK and Europe is DNA study. As noted, no one is really interested in that and I have been trying to convince labs and universities for a good few years.

Never EVER wait until it is too late

 

When the environment and wildlife are under threat I have learnt after two decades that there are two ways to deal with authorities. The Left Hand and the Right Hand.

The Left is ever so polite and simply states facts trying to be as polite as possible.

The Right is the sledge hammer. I basically stop being "ever so polite" but am polite while showing my teeth. The Right Hand rarely fails.

I was alerted to a recent development but had no photos of badgers setts, no area plans showing where badgers were so as that stood I had nothing to back me up. However, I knew about badgers at the site in the 1970s and while people tend to be uninterested in them I am.

I found that BRERC had a record of badgers and though they would not give the exact location the term they used identified the spot.

The person from the old Avon Badger Group refused to allow me to see maps and info the group had gathered pre 1994 and told me "I shall proudly take them to my grave" -the logic there escapes me.

It happens that one person contacted me ands though unconnected to the group involved gave me a lot of info on badgers on the site in question.

THAT gave me ammunition.

I was polite for as long as possible but the council ignoring things I posted on all my blogs and social media, emailed and poked DEFRA, Natural England, and more for two weeks -even threatening exposure of the auction house (who claimed it was a Bristol company auctioning the site) trying to sell land illegally by not declaring badger setts.

I literally spammed several of the City Councillors who were involved with legalities and I posted here previously my "no more warnings" email to them.

Basically a couple weeks of morning until...morning and despite Chris Packham being seemingly uninterested (again) I tried everything.

I am now told that the auction is off. A little bird at the Council tells me I am a very unliked dirty word now. My big bow out fight back.

I am now awaiting the kick back ("they are going to be causing problems") as BCC do not like me and just lost £400K

Never EVER wait until it is too late to contact someone to help take action but if you do reach out you better make bloody sure you share the information you have.

It's Time To Stand Up And Ask Questions From Media Darlings to Royals

We can no longer afford to waste time with being polite or hold people in veneration because they have good PR and are TV celebrities.  Remember that many "celebrities" at the BBC and ITV love to go out shooting and killing wildlife for 'fun'. Whereas the BBC will simply not tolerate a celebrity it owns making a political statement about social wrongs on their personal social media it seems that taking part in cruel animal killing is "a private matter".

Making a lot of money from TV work while anything actually done is carried out by groups we have a naturalist  who has simply refused to make any public statement on blood sports so as not to offend the BBC and his rich friends who enjoy killing wildlife.  One condemning statement from Attenborough could shift public opinion and politicians attitudes and see an end to blood sports.

Sir David Attenborough has had long-standing friendships with various members of the British royal family, particularly King Charles III, Prince William, and the late Queen Elizabeth II, marked by a shared passion for environmental conservation. His close bond with the royals began when he met Princess Anne and Prince Charles as a child and continued through decades of mutual admiration and collaboration on conservation initiatives.

Sir David Attenborough has not made explicit public statements denouncing blood sports, but his consistent advocacy for animal welfare and conservation, and his visible support for the Royal Family to give up blood sports, strongly implies his opposition to hunting for sport.

King Charles has always been a lover of blood sports -in 2025 he sacked a gamekeeper as there were not enough pheasants to shoot. An advocate for conservation and the environment so long as he gets his 'fun'.

Prince William, like his father, has the typical hippocrit attitude and has a history of participating in traditional royal hunting and shooting sports, including deer stalking on the Balmoral Estate and grouse shoots, and he has taken his son, [Prince George] to observe these activities. While the activities are a long-standing family tradition, they have drawn criticism from animal welfare groups, particularly given Prince William's broader advocacy for wildlife conservation. Princess Katherine loves to shoot -birds and deer.

And let's not forget Harry loves a good shoot

Well, all that can be said for Attenborough's attempts is that he gets -1 because if , after many decades, he has never paused the Royals love to shoot and kill at home and abroad one can only assume Royal Patronage was more important.

Will it hit that many egos and challenge zoology and natural history and its dogma?

 The documented evidence along with full references as to the Old British foxes and Old British wild cats along with photographic evidence (added to on this blog) is contained in the 2022 Red Papers.  Interestingly, 'experts' have rejected offers to send them copies which seems very unscientific since we are all supposed to be studying the environmental and other factors from the loss of native species.

I have written articles summarising the work of the last 50 years -rejected out of hand. I suppose this is  a case of "How dare you submit an article -you are not with a university or college!"

DNA labs have all greeted by proposal to carry out DNA work on the Old fox and wild cat species held at the Extinct Fox and Wild Cats Museum  -which I can think of at least three angles for t technical papers -  all ignored.  

"Citizen Science" is another term for "You lot do all the work and we'll take the credit as the professionals".  

DNA testing could reveal the long lost species that were not just living in Ireland and Britain after the Doggerbank submergence but also lived in Western Europe.  That would, of course, smash dogma and rather than jump in and embrace any discovery (again, there are papers and possible funding in that) the attitude seems to be "If we ignore it and just keep pushing dogma our jobs will be safe".

Is Sabine Hossenfelder correct and science just can't be bothered and simply turn out nonsense papers -in zoology as in physics?

Is carrying out DNA work and studying the data that terrifying. Will it hit that many egos and challenge zoology and natural  history and its dogma?  It seems so.

Badger Sett Disruption Approved By Bristol City Council

  This is the thing that is happening and BCC KNOW they are lying which is why they never respond to evidence or emails presented. DEFRA should be informed by the locals

Local Councils: Say Nothing. Do Nothing.

 

See previous posts on this matter. The attitude of Parish and City Council (Green Party Council no less) seems to be silence.

sent to:

"cllr.mharris@longashtonparishcouncil.gov.uk"

"cllr.james@longashtonparishcouncil.gov.uk"

"cllr.abarrett@longashtonparishcouncil.gov.uk

"cllr.jfenton@longashtonparishcouncil.gov.uk"

"cllr.dwilkinson@longashtonparishcouncil.gov.uk"

Hello.

I contacted all of you on the 23rd September and so far have received no responses.

I asked that an ecological survey be carried out on the Long Ashton side of the Longmoor development. In 1998 Wessex Conservancy surveyed the area and noted badger setts (badgers have always been in the area and I first came across them in the 1970s) as well as bat nesting sites and since that time otters have returned to Colliter's Brook.

The impact of the building to be undertaken and possible pollution of water sources such as Colliter's Brook cannot be overlooked. I have been involved with wildlife as a mammalogist since 1974 and I know that these things do occur even if accidental. We lose enough protected and unprotected species each year and any and all efforts should be made to ensure that new developments do not pose a threat.

I would ask that an ecological survey is carried out to map out setts, etc. and offer suggestions. Development over our dwindling wildlife is not justifiable.

The Long Ashton side of Longmoor will be monitored but I would hope that Long Ashton Parish Council would share the concerns of some of its parishioners.

Regards

Terry Hooper

Bristol Badger Group (f 1994)

British Fox and Wild Canid Study (1974)

and

Sent to:

"Councillor Martin Fodor" <cllr.martin.fodor@bristol.gov.uk>; "Councillor Heather Mack" <cllr.heather.mack@bristol.gov.uk>; "Councillor Ed Plowden" <cllr.ed.plowden@bristol.gov.uk>; "Councillor Tony Dyer" <cllr.tony.dyer@bristol.gov.uk>; "Councillor Carla Denyer" <cllr.carla.denyer@bristol.gov.uk>

Hello.

I sent you all an email detailing the fact that the Longmoor development might impact on local badgers and otters as well as other protected species. Your response was silence.

I noted the proposal to sell off part of Eastville Park for development and that this area had established badger setts going back decades that would be impacted by development. Your response was again silence. The auctioneers have failed, despite being told, to note that the area is on active badger sett land -this should be legally declared but has not and BCC...silence again.

There is also knotweed on the nearby area. BCC -silence.

Three times this year BCC workers have destroyed dens with fox cubs in -they knew the den and cubs were there but state BCC told them they HAD to do the work. Do I really need to point out to you that this is a wildlife crime which is prosecutable?

Last week we were contacted as builders were pouring cement on a structure with an established badger sett beneath it. The concrete was broken, under our instruction, and we have camera monitored the site.

This is just part of a long list of Labour and now Green Party flouting of the law. I have tried repeatedly and politely to alert you to these matters but a line has now been drawn.

In future any suspected badger setts or fox dens must be surveyed to ensure that they are not being lived in or contain young. We can do that for BCC so it does not cost. As of 5th October, 2025 any action by BCC employees or contractors over active den/sett sites will be immediately reported to Avon and Somerset Police as a wildlife crime. The RSPCA will also be informed along with DEFRA. The sites in question (Eastville and Longmoor) are all monitored.

I have been trying to sort this out with BCC for 10 years now and we lose enough wildlife on our roads in Bristol but the local authority adding to deaths is unacceptable. I might have expected this from a Labour BCC but a Green Party run BCC?

All of this is a matter of public record now so ignore the emails but it won't help avoid legal action.

Terry Hooper

Chairman Bristol Badger Group f. 1994

Some Vets and Rescues Need To Actually Ignore Dogma To Save Wildlife

 

(c)2025 Sarah Mills

I was asked which UK wildlife hospitals/rescues I would recommend that did 100% for wildlife taken to it and specifically foxes.  

None.

There are a couple that are worth noting but I will not name as their approach is flawed and based on wildlife dogma when it comes to treatment.  I score these places 1-10 and no one has gotten a 10.  The nearest was an 8 but that dropped down to 2 for  specific reasons.

Badgers do not depend on their eyes for survival -smell and sense of hearing are the most important to them and they are, after all, mainly nocturnal animals. We had an adult badger that had fallen  into an unfenced garden of a basement flat. It was fine despite having gone unreported for 5 days and it had carried on burrowing and eating insects and worms. 

It was taken to what I had always held up as a beacon of light in wildlife rescues. It would get good care there...except the vet "thinks it's blind" so it was euthanased.  To say that I hit the roof is an understatement as this adult and healthy badger had survived (probably) its entire life blind and had it not been for a landlord not securing his property to prevent accidents, we would never have known. To kill it because it might be blind when there are also rescues or wildlife parks that might "take it on" put that wildlife hospital down to a 1.

The other reasons are that a fox blind in one eye "cannot survive in the wild" so will be killed (oops..."euthanased"). Before going on there are some rescues that will take on a fully blind fox).  The fox depends on its sense of smell and sense of hearing far more than its eye sight and if you watch a fox you will note the sniffing the air but more than that the constant ear movement: this is very obvious when a fox is hunting rats, mice and even insects -it is not depending on eye sight.

I know of a good number of foxes who are blind in one eye and are thriving and even raising cubs and providing food for them. Killing a fox for being blind in one eye is based on very outdated thinking.

A fox has a facial injury -it needs euthanasing. There are degrees of facial injury from fresh to rotting tissue and exposing of teeth etc. When necrosis has set in it is too late and it is a case of ending prolonged suffering and I have seen foxes with really bad necrosis. However, it has been proven that even treated in the wild with the right antibiotics, etc., a fox can survive and thrive -even if it carries a scar. The example of a vixen that had cubs and was treated by Sarah Mills is noted on this blog. The alternative was to trap the vixen and then euthanase as well as trapping the cubs who were quite young. The "treat in the wild" method was chosen and the face wound healed and the vixen thrived -as did her cubs. 

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

One rescue is still killing foxes with mange and telling people that "mange is a slow death and affects all the internal organs".  Perhaps they need to read a book.

We then have the policy of "Injured leg? It cannot survive in the wild -euthanase it!" The rescue mentioned re killing foxes with mange has the same policy when it comes top any type of leg injury and they have told me and others that "this is standard policy".  Even the formerly high ranked wildlife hospital takes that attitude. 

There are, and not only in the UK, three legged foxes living full lives.  I have heard "knowledgeable" people state "A fox can survive if it loses a back leg but a front leg means that it cannot -it needs to be put down". There was no "ifs" or "buts" -front leg gone kill it. Again this shows the absolute ignorance of people who might read dogma wildlife books or some blog and as far as they are concerned that is all factual. I suggest actually studying foxes and not Google search results.

Foxes with front legs missing have survived well, bred and even raised cubs. One vixen with a twisted leg a rescue (we know the one) stated would need to be trapped and put down. So the people let the fox get on with it rather than support killing it: the vixen has had at least two litters and even her adult dog fox offspring are put in their place by her. I wrote a post on leg loss in foxes (of course I did!):

https://foxwildcatwolverineproject.blogspot.com/2024/08/fox-leg-amputation-reason-to-kill.html

We have so far in 2025 lost over 300 foxes in Bristol and those are only the ones we know about. Imagine what the death toll must be like in London, Liverpool or any other large town or city.  It is estimated that we have lost between 65-70% of the UK fox population and any and every fox that can be helped to survive and bring on the next generation needs our help.

Rescues and vets (although I have found that vets at certain rescues have a massive ego and state that euthanasia is their decision) need to update their knowledge because once we lose foxes in the UK there is no more mass importing to keep the population going. Like the badger and hedgehog once gone they are gone forever so WAKE UP!