Sniffer Dogs Unleashed In Fox Fight

[WoofnHoof]

If I believed that culling was a good long term solution I would be more supportive of more humane methods of destruction, however in open populations such as found in most regions of Australia culling is a short-term solution at best so I'd rather invest research in something that is not a simple band aid.

As far as foxes being any more 'vile' than any other carnivore, last thing I knew they generally eat their kills on the spot or drag them back to the den, unless they are disturbed in which case they have to leave it and go. Multiple kills are probably meant to go back to the dun but if the fox is disturbed it's not going to risk being shot, culling has selected out the ones who are silly enough to hang around for that so if people don't like it they only have themselves to blame for that behaviour ;)

I watched a fox at my place with a lizard, it had already killed the lizard by the time I spotted it so wasn't much point interrupting, so I stayed quiet and watched it eat pretty much the whole thing except the claws, it jumped at every sound so I don't doubt that if it was aware of my presence it would have hightailed it out of there and dropped whatever it hadn't eaten.

Anyway it's a moot point, culling is generally socially acceptable and will be for the forseeable future, and apparently now if you harbour no animosity towards introduced species you are labelled a PETA supporter! :laugh:

[Weasels]

As far as foxes being any more 'vile' than any other carnivore, last thing I knew they generally eat their kills on the spot or drag them back to the den, unless they are disturbed in which case they have to leave it and go. Multiple kills are probably meant to go back to the dun but if the fox is disturbed it's not going to risk being shot, culling has selected out the ones who are silly enough to hang around for that so if people don't like it they only have themselves to blame for that behaviour ;)

Yes, foxes will generally 'cache' their prey or baits (take it back to their den) if they have the option, i.e. aren't disturbed, can get the prey away from the kill area etc.

A lot of sheep farmers across Australia actually find dogs more 'vile' than foxes. Dogs will engage in surplus killing because the behaviour of sheep under threat triggers their predatory insticts so they kill much more than they can eat. Once that settles down they will eat the best parts out of a few sheep then leave the rest for the farmer to find in the morning.

So it's all a matter of perspective really That's the nature of predators.

Edited December 31, 2012 by TheLBD

[corvus]

As far as foxes being any more 'vile' than any other carnivore, last thing I knew they generally eat their kills on the spot or drag them back to the den, unless they are disturbed in which case they have to leave it and go. Multiple kills are probably meant to go back to the dun

Surplus killing is known in plenty of species of carnivore, particularly in relation to livestock in confined areas. Highly opportunistic predators like foxes are thought to be stimulated to make kills by the behaviour or proximity of prey animals independent of how hungry they are or whether they could possibly eat everything they kill. If you imagine a fox in a chicken coop, the chickens flapping around may well keep the predatory sequence cycling over and over again until there are no more chickens flapping around. Then the fox has more than it can eat. Obviously the fox doesn't care. The exact dynamics of this kind of thing are unknown. Maybe it depends on how lean the fox is, or the density of food opportunities in its home range, or even the fox's personality. Whatever the case, the fox is just responding to programming same as any other predatory animal, and it's not the only species that kills more than it needs. Orcas are known to kill whales just for the tongue, bears kill lots of animals for nutritionally important bits of them like fat deposits, and let's not forget humans. Some of them kill just for the sport of it.

Often in conservation people are running to stay in the same spot. Most things that can buy time are worth the effort, because it takes time to figure out lasting solutions and often things are at a crisis point by the time anyone gets to extract money out of anyone to do some research. Sometimes even then it doesn't happen. Given foxes are still one of those problems with no lasting solutions in sight despite many years of research and ongoing funding, band-aids are all we've got. I guess that this is nicer than baits, and more specific.

[WoofnHoof]

I agree that this method is better than baiting from a welfare perspective, but considering the territorial nature of foxes is there any point culling when it is only opening the niche for foxes from outside the target zone to come in and stimulating reproduction anyway? There is nothing to stop the movement of foxes across the treatment boundary so what exactly is being achieved? Does the native population have time to recover before they are under predation? Could we actually be inhibiting the ability of native species to adapt to the predator by doing this stop/start population manipulation given the very real possibility that we could be fighting a losing battle? Wouldn't we be better off creating protected zones for natives under threat and erecting physical barriers that will ensure that the introduced species can't repopulate the area?