Was Mange Introduced To Bristol Foxes?

 That is a question I have heard a great deal since 1995 and in recent years people have pointed fingers.

Photo (c)2025 Sarah Mills

For 15 years Bristol University has denied access to the fox work carried out under Prof Stephen Harris -the published material did not contain much to surprise anyone who knew about foxes but it was, all said, a study of foxes. Prof Harris never responded to letters I sent him or the data included in those letters. I found it odd that the University and those involved in animal projects would not answer questions nor cooperate.

The findings of the Bristol Fox Deaths Study were supressed on the receipt of the draft and the harassment and threats I received are recorded online and very public) and I was also "banned" from submitting any further foxes or being allowed to know about future necropsies. The fact that Bristol University was aware of the threats and actions taken taken against me and felt there was no problem with this says a great deal.

A few years back I was contacted by someone who told me that there was a persistent rumour that the University mammal study group may have been paid to release mange foxes into Bristol to see how fast it, or any over disease/virus could spread amongst foxes. I asked Bristol Uni about this to set the record straight. They refused to respond.

Up until 1994 mange in foxes was hardly known in Bristol and there were people who treated minor ailments in foxes (at that time no vet would even consider allowing a fox in his/her surgery. Bristol Uni radio collared foxes and so they knew that "for some unknown reason" one of the study foxes left the City and went out into the countryside. After a few weeks it returned but with mange. The result was that Bristol lost approx 94% of the fox population to mange and that was soul destroying for all the fox carers in the City who just could not cope or treat a population.

The effects of what that one fox brought to Bristol is still felt today.

The questions I asked was WHY did a City born and bred fox with a good living and food sources suddenly decide to leave and go out into the countryside?

Study after study (however minor) have shown that a Town Fox is a Town Fox and a Country Fox is a Country fox. Pure and simple. In the years since I started the British Fox Study 1976 (later changed to British Fox and Wild Canids Study) I have never known a fox do this before although some country foxes through human expansion or constant threat will move into the outskirts of cities and towns (that is an historical fact).

In the decades since 1976 I have never heard of any town or city having 94% of its fox population die off due to a sudden start-stop mange outbreak. Bristol appears unique in that.

It was claimed that the fox was one of the study's radio monitored subjects so the question is where did it go "suddenly" and why did it "suddenly" re-appear in the City?

As it was explained it does not make sense. Suddenly it was back with mange. Bristol Uni would not answer the question of was the group able to follow the fox with its radio collar and had it mapped out where it had been. It should be noted that although the mange was noted the Mammal Group was not interested in treating the condition as it probably found it more interesting to look at how it affected the population.

The other odd thing is that it wasn't "Southville foxes have mange" followed by "foxes in Clifton have mange" and so on as it spread. This was, by all reports a major outbreak across the City and that was odd. Attempts to find out whether a spread had been noted -nothing.

I was first contacted and told that there was a persistent rumour (including amongst staff) when mange in foxes was mentioned that Bristol Uni received a grant to see how far and how fast a disease/virus could spread through the wild fox population because that would also show how fast an animal to human contagion could spread. These were "just" wild foxes after all -who cared? I didn't take the accusation seriously as the person (working at the Uni would not allow themselves to be named). That was 2020.

In 2021 I was discussing foxes and mange with someone who was a Bristol Uni graduate and studied biology. I was told by this person if I had heard about Bristol Uni releasing mange into the Bristol fox population? I was told "The Mammal Group" were the ones studying the spread. Again, I do not like rumour but in 2023 that changed.

An ex Department of Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) officer was discussing my work on 'exotic' animals in the UK and I knew this person from my time as a UK police Forces advisor on exotic wildlife (1977-(semi retirement)2018) and he noted how exotics had avoided things such as mange in the UK countryside. We discussed the rumour that to get rid of country foxes (apparently shooting them was not fast enough) some farmers had a person who travelled by car ferry to Eire and would there pick up poisonous substances that once back in England would be distributed to farmers, etc who wanted to get rid of foxes and making it cost effective and not taking up too much of their time.

We also discussed the fact that there appeared to be a deliberate release of rabbits with myxomatosis in areas of England -something I had reported to me by a forester as well as estate warden. I asked whether that was likely and after debating typical farming attitudes to anything eating crops worth money I had examples given to me of similar reports to one I had received (including one from a farmer -I won't go into details here- who had family members come across rabbits "in a miserable state and I had to finish them. If I ever get my hands on whoever is behind this they'll get both barrels!" (I never mentioned that to the local police wildlife officer in our next conversation!).

The ex DEFRA man then said "No one cares about rabbits so who is going to kick up a fuss -they never did with the mange in Bristol." I asked him what he meant and he explained that a former colleague had once shown him photocopies of data sheets with "Bristol Uni" written on them and it all pertained to mange release in Bristol and studying how fast it spread,.

Le me put this in the way that I treat the matter. I have had, in total, since 2019, five people tell me that Bristol Uni released an infected fox in Bristol to study how fast disease/virus can spread (one though it was to see how fast rabies could spread if it ever reached the UK -it hasn't since 1926). That is a lot of finger pointing but no actual factual evidence.

Bristol Uni could quite simply respond with "That is totally untrue and we would never have done that" and the matter is ended. So why will they not do that? Would it be unethical at a time when it was believed that no one cared about foxes and the old hunt propaganda was still believed?

Well, Bristol Uni does use animals in research and this is from their own web page where you can learn more: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/animal-research/areas-we-study/

Animals used in research

In 2024, the University carried out scientific procedures on 22,660 animals in research regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The vast majority of these involved fish (51.6%) and rodents (47.3%).

Number of animals used by species and purpose

Species	Number of animals
	Sub-threshold	Mild	Moderate	Severe	Non-recovery
Mouse	6,107	1,598	1,589	14	819

Unless such bodies as Bristol Uni are open about past work and are willing to release material to the public -upon whose good faith, etc- it relies then the "Bristol Uni wiped out 94% of the City's fox population" will just continue to circulate.

DEFRA and Natural England regarding this subject "Have no knowledge and cannot comment" which does not give me much faith.

Bristol Wildlife Rescue

 

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

 

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.

update

Apparently the regulations concerning members of the public interfering with wildlife being treated by rescuers also applies to other rescues. In the current case the site is being monitored as it is public land and no one can monitor a trap twice a day let alone each day so any animal can be trapped.

These traps, if we come across them will be deactivated and if continuously reset will be confiscated. We will not tolerate these people constantly sneaking around because they know we are involved but refusing to help members of the public reporting seriously injured wildlife.

The rescue involved KNOWS the fox is being treated so if they interfere and it was caught and killed simply for having mange the matter will be publicised and reported as well as a complaint to the Charity Commission.

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.