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.
