Some Karma Must Be Due

 We#ve just recorded the 270th (known) dead fox this year in Bristol. Imagine this in every UK town and city.

Hitr by a driver who could not care enough to check it was dead and being in the middle of the road it was repeatedly driven over.

Here's hoping for some Karma to hit those motorists.

Acute lethal leptospirosis

  The following is an abstract from a 2023 paper Acute lethal leptospirosis in a red fox (Vulpes vulpes) Doroteja Huber  Josipa Habuš b, Nenad Turk b, Krunoslav Vinicki , et al

The Bristol Fox Death Study revealed the number of deaths due to leptospirosis -details can be found on this blog as Causes of Fox Deaths

Abstract

Leptospirosis, caused by pathogenic spirochaetes belonging to the genus Leptospira, is a globally distributed zoonosis that can affect many species of domestic and wild animals, and humans. The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a native species in Croatia and, due to constant food availability and lack of interspecies competition, is becoming more abundant in urban and suburban areas. Although antibodies for Leptospira spp have been detected in red foxes, lethal disease has not been reported. 

We necropsied a young, male red fox that had jaundice, multifocal haemorrhages in the heart, lungs and urinary bladder, hepatomegaly, non-congestive splenomegaly and slight yellow discolouration of the renal cortex and medulla. Histology revealed multifocal haemorrhages in parenchymal organs, thrombi within lung septal capillaries and other blood vessels, interstitial lymphocytic and plasmacytic nephritis and erosions of the gastric mucosa. A microscopic agglutination test on the post-mortem cardiac blood clot revealed a high titre to Leptospira interrogans serovar Icterohaemorrhagiae, which implies contact with rats, which are natural reservoirs of this serovar in Croatia. 

The gross and histological findings in this fox were similar to those in dogs with leptospirosis, indicating that fatal leptospirosis can occur in foxes and suggesting that this species can act as a source of infection for other animals and humans.

Another Lepto Case

  

ADDITION LATE REPORT SUBMITTED) 12 08 2026 6 Bell Cl, manor farm Bristol BS10 5DF  “picked her up collapsed but she picked up in car. Was acting more like had a head injury”  PTS Duckmoor Road Vets. Submitted for PM. Results of testing: leptospirosis confirmed.

Assessment and Questions About The 1994/1995 Bristol Mange Outbreak

 

How does mange spread? There are three possible ways:

• Direct Contact: The primary route of transmission is direct contact between infected and uninfected foxes. This can occur during social interactions, mating, or fighting.
• Indirect Contact: Mites can survive for a period in the environment, particularly in bedding, dens, and shared feeding areas. Foxes can become infected by coming into contact with these contaminated surfaces.
• Mother to Pup Transmission: Infected mothers can transmit mange to their pups during nursing and close contact in the den. This vertical transmission is a significant factor in maintaining the disease within populations.

Remember by the statement of the Fox Study under Professor Stephen Harris (University of Bristol) as well as other fox watchers from the time; up until 1994 mange "was unknown in the Bristol fox population".

We need to look at facvtors that could influence the spread of mange and these are:

• Mite Density: The number of mites present on an infected fox directly affects the likelihood of transmission. Heavily infested animals are significantly more contagious.
• Environmental Conditions: Cooler, humid conditions favor mite survival outside the host, increasing the risk of indirect transmission.
• Fox Population Density: Higher fox densities, particularly in urban areas, increase the frequency of contact and thus transmission rates.
• Fox Immunity: Some foxes may have a degree of natural immunity or resistance to mange, which can influence their susceptibility to infection and transmission.

Here we can see whyt just onbe fox being blamed for a mange outbreak that killed an estimated 95% of the fox population.

1. How and why did an urban fox suddenly decide that it would leave the easier urban life and venture into the countryside?   Foxes do wander but if they have a habitat with food, shelter etc. they tend to stay reasonably close to home. How attached foxes are to home territory was shown in a 19th century hunting book in which a fox was sent to a hunt that had literally run out of foxes to kill. The fox was released and then completed an 80 miles journey home.  It did so a second time and the same fox with a nick in its ear travelled "home".

Foxes are very territorial.

2  If the fox was radio collared and the team knew it had left the City why was it not tracked since such a move from town to country could reveal unique information ?

3.  Following on from (2) above: "The fox suddenly returned " to the City and carrying mange.      This makes no sense; the fox left tyhe City and was not tracked (allegedly) but the team were on site to be able to report it had returned and also that it had mange -based on the radio collar data?  Also; just how exactly did the team know that this fox had brought mange into the city population and had not been infected by another fox in the City?

There is also the question of how this one particular fox was followed showing that it was "Patient A"?  Foxes do not just wander all over other foxes territory dropping the mites everywhere. Foxes challenge strangfe foxes entering their territory and do not let them hang around. This takes us to the next points:

4. At exactly what geographical location did this collared fox suddenly leave the City?

5. At exactly what geographical location did this wandering fox return into the City?

6. At what date was it clearly identified that this fox had mange?

7. There were fox watchers who provided basic first aid to foxes who cooperated with the University team so why was it that none of them were alerted to the presence of mange?  I was not and I know a lot of the old watchers were not told. Why?

8. At what date did this fox leave the City? During dispersal season (from June on) then one might imagine a young fox venturing out and this is mainly amongst dog foxes -we are not even told whether the fox in question was a Dog or Vixen.

9. At what date did the fox return? How long was it gone for?

No one from the old University study appears contactable and, as noted elsewhere on this blog, University of Bristol denies all knowledge and has absolutely no records on anything that was done.  

10. If this collared fox was tracked then what data was there on the movements around the City that show how it spread mange mites to an entire population? 

I have, obviously, spent more years than I care to studying this outbreak as well as discussing it with other naturalists -mainly outside the UK since no one appears to be concentrating on fox research here other than myself. In every case I have been told that based on the size of the City as well as the guessed at fox population at the time one fox coulkd not have been responsible for wiping out 94-95% of the population. 

This is the problem we are faced with. A University that had every opportunity to forward data before it was all "expunged" from the system and members of the fox study that refused to respond to plain and simple questions that anyt naturalist or zoologist would ask. This is why the Freedom of Information  Act request was made. 94-95% of an urban fox population was wiped out within a year and this has never happened in any other town or City in the UK where mange is known and all the data is...gone.

There is an alterantive and that is that the study by University Bristol (that it knows nothing about) was flawed from start to finish. Although none of the old fox watchers had ever encountered mange is it possible that it was present but that the team never bothered noticing it until "Patient A"?  It seems unlikely really since ex RSPCA Inspectors I knew had never encountered mange in Bristol before 1994 and they were shocked by how fast it spread ("It spread unbelievably quickly").

Stephen Harris and Phil Baker in Urban Foxes (Whittet Books, 2009 -updated edition)  state:

"In Bristol, for example, before mange arrived, the mortality rate of dominany=t animals was low..." (p 30)

Then:

"...in Bristol , where we were able to catch and mark nearly all of the resident adults..." (p. 30

But the book also gives a slightly different account as to "Patient A":

"Bristol was free of mange up unmtil 1994, when one of our study foxes was captured in May suffering from the diseasde and put to sleep.  Unfortunately, his arrival hertalded a dramatic downturn in the fortunes of Bristol's fox population. At the time he was caught, there were 46 adult foxes and their cubs in the groups that we were studying. From this singlke animal, the infection spread throughout his own group and to the foxes in neighbouring groups.  During the summer of 1995, three of the study groups disappeared completely, followed by another in autumn 1995. The last groups disappeared during the winter of 1995; ironically, the last two animals actually died after being hit by cars rather than from mange.  All the foxes on our study area died, and we estimated that over 95% of all the foxes in Bristol died. ..." (p 120)

In the updated edition it is stated:

"In the space of just twenty months, the population had declined from approximately 30 adults per square kilometre to less than one per square kilometre.  Six years after the disease appeare4d, the fox population is slowly recovering, but still less than 10% of what it was pre-mange"  (p 120)

I am no mathematician but May to December 1995 is not 20 months it is 8 months.  Again, this is missing data and it makes no sense when you read it. It also leaves out the leaving the City and returning part of the story.  I am somewhat shocked that they caught and had the manged fox killed. They knew that mange was treatable 

Last two foxes were "ironically" killed by cars.  Well, I find that a dumb statement and I cannot see any irony in them dying that way.

"we were able to catch and mark nearly all of the resident adults" now foxes are bloody hard to trap so I assume that they are referring to foxes in their "study groups" because if the claim was referring to the entire fox population of Bristol that would be one mighty lie.  We should also note that they refer to wandering "itinerant" foxes so we are going entirely, I believe, by the study groups -but they do state:  "over 95% of all the foxes in Bristol died. ..."  here is where all of the missing data creates a bigger problem. Yes, we know the population was devastated and I would estimate likely 96% of it but who was supplying the group with fox death numbers? How did they assess (estimate) the per centage of the popuilation that died?

I can find no data on mange outbreaks beyond the City itself at that period which raises questions. Again, Patient A is blamed for the outbreak. 

Hopefully, the Reader can see why I have been trying to get the data for over 30 years? I set up the British Fox Study in Bristol in 1976 and I did forward data to the University group and specialising in wild canids I want to know the details of how mange got into the City and how it spread and killed 95-96% of the fox population in 1995 (a year with 20 months it seems)?  It is not some silly chase for the truth but naturalists, zoologists and even wildlife rescues need to know whether such a mange epizootic can occur again.

I am in no position to point any fingers of blame and suggest that mange was released not through just one fox but several but people see the ominous side of "study groups" and a study fox suddenly getting mange that wipes out a population while a team sits back and studies the spread and result.

With the Universitystating they know nothing" and no one involved being contactable we are left with a one off event and I will point out that the spread could have been far less devastating had foxes been treated but, as will be pointed out, that would cost money and, after all "just foxes".

Freedom Of Information Act Request To University of Bristol Re. 1994 Fox Mange Outbreak Data

 

University of Bristol claim they have absolutely no records of anything relating to their Fox Study (funded) along with all its gear (funded) or.... anything. That is a good definition of the "President Nixon" denial.

I should point out that University Bristol were contacted regarding all of this back in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 and so on up until 2025. Despite receiving requests for information I received no responses of any kind (email or letter) and on the phone I was given the run around. It was for this reason that I decided to put in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request.

As a disclaimer events discussed took place between 1994/1995 and so it is very unlikely than anyone who was in authority or working on the projects at the time are still present. This does not, of course, excuse the repeatedfailures to respond to requests when they did have the records.

Thirty-two years have passed and the objective has always been to make any data relating to the massive "outbreak" of mange in 1994'1995 which killed some 94% of Bristol's fox population. A fox population in which mange was unknown up until one study fox allegedly left the City (it was radio collared but "lost") and later suddenly reappeared with mange.

I was first made aware of "strong rumours at the University" that mange was deliberately released into the population in 2004 by an ex faculty member. Two years later a former student who was involved in the biological sciences department told me the same thing. In total, some five unconnected people made this claim to me privately-one actually challenged me assumiong that I had taken part in the study. I was not.

The FOIA requests and responses can be found at this link https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/former_mammal_study_group_data_o?nocache=incoming-3618198#incoming-3618198

Below is the internal revue response.

Dear Terry

Internal review of response to freedom of information request FOI2627-120 I write in response to your request for an internal review of the University of Bristol's answer to your freedom of information request. Your Request On 24 September 2026, you submitted the following request for information, made under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act"): “I would like to request any statistics, documentation including relating to funding to Dr Stephen Harris and the University Mammal Study Group and the 1994/1995 fox mange outbreak and any involvement with this involving the University” Our Response On 29 September 2026, we wrote to seek clarification of the scope of your request, asking you to specify the nature of the ‘statistics’ you are seeking (i.e. to what topics they relate) and the types of ‘documentation’ you are seeking. You responded the same day, providing the following clarification: “I am seeking the data gathered by the University Mammal Study Group in relation to fox mange, on which their research outputs were based, as well as statistics about the Study Group and their work more broadly to sources of funding)

I am looking for correspondence, meeting notes and minutes, research papers, funding applications etc) covering research, planning, funding, publication of papers, regarding the above.” You subsequently emailed again, on 3 October, when you expanded your original request to include “…any involvement with this involving the University and the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food(MAFF)/Department of Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)” On 7 October 2026, we responded that the University does not hold information relevant to your request. On the same date, you requested an internal review of the University’s response. Internal Review To reassure you that your request for an internal review has been dealt with fairly, I confirm that I did not have any direct involvement in the handling of your freedom of information request and the response provided. I have assessed two elements of the University's response to your request as part of the internal review: · The University’s procedural compliance with the Act; · The University’s assessment that the information requested is not held. The handling of the request – procedural compliance with the Act The request was handled in a professional manner, and the response was formulated in line with the obligations conferred on the University by section 1, i.e. the response confirmed whether or not the information requested was held. The response was sent within the statutory 20 working day period during which the University was required to answer your request. The University’s assessment that the information requested is not held Following receipt of clarification of the scope of your request on 29 September 2026, we conducted relevant searches to determine in which academic School or Faculty the information you requested was likely to be held. We identified that Stephen Harris worked in the School of Biological Sciences. However, the School informed us that, having enquired with administrative staff, the current Head of School and former Heads, they had no knowledge of any relevant information held by the School. Upon receipt of your request, on 7 October 2026, for an internal review of the University’s response to your freedom of information request, we made further enquiries with the School of Biological Sciences and with the University archivists. The University archivists conducted a manual search of three boxes of papers relating to the School of Biological Sciences, and found no information relevant to your request. The School has confirmed that they have no knowledge of when information pertaining to the Mammal Study Group was transferred to the University archives, if at all, and without specific information about when this took place it will not be feasible to conduct further searches. The University’s Records Retention Schedule stipulates that information relating to project proposals should be retained for up to 10 years following the end of the research, and information relating to managing research grants for up to 6 years following the end of the research. The University’s records retention schedule is available to view here: [1]https://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/.... Given that the research to which your request relates was conducted some twenty years ago, it is highly unlikely that the University would have retained correspondence or meeting notes relating to research planning, funding, or publication of papers. However, I note that in your email of 29 September, clarifying the scope of your request, you also referred to ‘research papers’. The Bristol Research Portal ([2]https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/) is a publicly-available digital archive of research outputs from members of the University. It provides free access to abstracts, and in some cases to the full manuscript, where the publishers’ policies permit. You can read the terms of Bristol Research Portal terms of use here: [3]https://www.bristol.ac.uk/research-innov.... Information that is reasonably accessible to an applicant by means other than a request under the Act is exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the Act. In conclusion, I consider that the University’s response to your freedom of information request should be partially upheld. While I accept that the University’s response should have referred to the availability of research outputs on the Bristol Research Portal, it is reasonable to conclude, given the significant elapse of time, that no additional information relevant to your request is held by the University. Information Commissioner's Office If you remain dissatisfied with the University’s response then it is your right under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Further details can be found at [4]www.ico.org.uk, or you can write to: Information Commissioner’s Office Water Lane Wilmslow Cheshire SK9 5AF Tel: 0303 123 1113 Yours sincerely Henry --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Stuart Information Compliance Manager & Data Protection Officer Information Compliance Team- Office of the University Secretary References Visible links 1. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/... 2. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ 3. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/research-innov... 4. http://www.ico.org.uk/

Dead Fox -Poison or Car Victim?

 

A fox found dead in a garden and then the "poison" topic hits the conversation.

This is how I responded.

"Just to answer some of the remarks here. The RSPCA do nothing about dead or injured foxes -for injured foxes they pass that along to the Bristol Fox Lady Sarah Mills who also works with Fox Angels Foundation, City Council when necessary and other bodies.

I investigated the Henleaze and about 20 other fox 'poisoning' cases. It was why I argued and fought to have post mortems carried out; out of almost 100 onl;y 2 had died due to rodenticide (Gen 2 so BCC) -one from eating a poisoned rat and the secoind also the same way. That was it.

Redland had two dead foxes and a cat that the local PWLO bagged and submitted for post mortem as there was a hue and cry over a "poisoner": all three turned out to have died as a result of being hit by cars.

Initially I had reports of foxes walking into a garden, suddenly becoming unsteady, collapsing and having difficulty breathing. All of those foxes were submitted and each one was a victim of a car. Thoracic (chest) injury causes internal bleeding and damage to lungs as well as rupturing blood vessels. Liquid coming from the mouth whether clear or bloody is one of the things you see.

All causes of death are l;isted online as this was an open study. If people have any question just ASK either myself or Sarah Mills who has dealt with (it must be well past this after 3+ years) over a thopusand sick and injured foxes.

The only people interestred in Bristol foxes and their health and deaths are myself and Sarah and nop one else cares because "just foxes". If you can tell me the locationj of the dead fox I can register itso its death adds to our knowledge.

Sorry for being long winded but things need to be made clear and I am NOT having a go at anyone (other than drivers and BCC)."

Lynx Cannot Be "reintroduced" But The Ones Already Here Can stay

 

 You see, if they ignore what they know (that there are lynx in the UK already and have been for decades -I even wrote a paper on the subject) Natural England can block plans AND I even stated that it would be on the 1976 DWAA.

Nat England and landowners-farmers are hand in glove.

The High Court (Ms Justice Obi DBE) has today dismissed a judicial review challenge relating to proposals to obtain a licence to release Eurasian lynx into the wild in Kielder Forest, as part of a planned reintroduction programme to the UK.

The lynx is a large wild cat which was a native species but has been extinct in the UK for over 1,300 years. It is listed as a “dangerous wild animal” under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 (“DWAA”).

Natural England declined to assess an application for a licence to release lynx under s.16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (“WCA”) on the grounds that the applicant would be prevented from releasing lynx by the DWAA.

Ground 1 of the Claimant’s challenge alleged that on a proper construction of the legislation, the DWAA does not prohibit the release of lynx pursuant to a licence granted under the WCA. Under Ground 2, the Claimant contended that even if further authorisation were required under the DWAA, that was not a lawful reason for Natural England to have refused to determine the Claimant’s application for a licence under the WCA.

Following a rolled-up hearing, the Court dismissed the claim.

Ground 1 was rejected on its merits. Natural England had been right to conclude that there was no lawful route for the Claimant to release lynx into the wild, in circumstances where the lynx is listed as a dangerous wild animal and it was common ground that the Claimant would require a licence under the DWAA to take possession of the lynx.

Permission was refused on Ground 2 on the basis of undue delay, the application having been made in 2022. Ms Justice Obi indicated that she would have dismissed Ground 2 on its merits in any event, as Natural England had acted lawfully in declining to undertake a full assessment of the 2022 application.

The High Court’s judgment is available here.

Paul Luckhurst and Will Bordell acted for Natural England.

https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/r-lynx-uk-trust-community-interest-company-v-natural-england/?fbclid=IwY2xjawVRiRRleHRuA2FlbQIxMABwZG9mAWJyaWQRMFVKelp0Zk0wUTlhdEdOR2dzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEfvTmgi-9nWatIbJNkErwKuoMT_WVKXu34XHuoXutFA2SqSB8HHUsnMRAgLBo_aem_8oHqONL1OPb-Xo0tPbXGFw