This particular fox was large, meaning he was strong and capable enough to find food. This is remarkable since during the cold weather snap, it can’t be easy . So ‘a’ fox, to satisfy his hunger pains, manages to break through and catches chickens and later a cat.
The reason why this pathetic excuse for a vet, killed the fox, was because it was his mummy and daddy’s cat. Don’t get me wrong, I am a vegetarian, I don’t wear leather and am an extreme animal lover. Be it a pet or a wild animal, each have a place on this earth. BUT this animal killed another animal to survive. Check this out (extract from the article):
————————————————————————————-
http://skynews.com/Fox Killed By Vet – Sky News
Mr Talbot spoke about the suspected attack by the fox on their cat. He said: “The cat was on the doormat when they (his parents) went to bed and heard some commotion.
“They saw a fox going up the drive later on that night, but didn’t think anything of it. Later that morning, they came out and there was fur and bits of the cat everywhere.” The vet ended up catching two foxes after setting the trap. Both animals were humanely destroyed.
————————————————————————————–
First of all it was suspected that a fox killed it, if so, which fox ? During the current news, the police suspect that Chris Jefferies killed Miss Yeates. The police are still finding evidence before they prosecute, or clear his name. But since this case is an animal is it ok to kill ?
Yet this particular buffoon (vet) simply sees a fox coming up the path way and before you know it, sets a trap and kills not one, but two foxes. So what was it Talbot, the small fox or the larger one ? Or does it not matter you cold blooded killer. While you sit in your cosy home with a fridge full of food.
I know vets on a very friendly and professional basis and you Talbot are a disgrace and a lame excuse of a vet. You are supposed to protect pets and wildlife animals, that should be your ethics. It clearer shows you have none.
“…humanely killed’ : Says who, who witnessed the humane killed ?
Animals Do Have A Voice Blog 
i cant believe a vet has killed that animal and is pictured smiling next to its dead body
what kind of a vet is he?, just a disgrace, people should boycott his practice if they love animals
Check this out
http://cryptozoologynews.blogspot.com/2011/01/giant-fox-caught-in-maidstone.html
“The Field Sports Channel is offering £100 for the best story of the largest fox. One taker has come forward with claims he shot a fox weighting 34lb in 2009, although this has not been confirmed with photographic evidence. ” This is all you need!
The reason for ‘killing for food’ is so hypocritical. Its OK for humans to kill animals in the name of survival in the food chain, yet an animal does it to another animal (albeit a pet) its not right and its killed. Where is the justice, yet again humans do whay they wish and no law to protect them.
They call Foxes vermin. What about tramps on the streets, are they going to hug a tramp and hope they don’t catch something ?
Apparently he works in Scotland.
I have to say that I can believe the hype surrounding this chap.. if it were ” farmer kills fox for killing chickens ” no one would be making as much fuss.
The fact that Mr Talbot is a vet is neither here nor there.. If anything it acctually ment that he had a duty to make sure the fox in question did not suffer!
I for one dont condone the killing of foxes for sport but I do have an understanding of how the countryside works and unfortunatly if you take an animal of this size and nature ( foxes are predators incase anyone has forgotten that ) and place it in an urban enviroment it is going to kill domestic pets.
You Sir, who have posted you initial post on this subject are a complete buffoon! Firstly Keith is an outstanding vet but is also an experienced hunter. He would not have killed the fox if he didn’t feel he had a good reason too. Secondly when it stated the fox was killed humanely I can assure it was killed in a more humane way than many more animals are killed by motorists on a daily basis, probably 10s of foxes and badgers are killed every week in the UK and left in agony by the roadside. Due to idiots like your self posting in the way you have Keith is now sadly a hated man by many of your kin folk..in my opinion total numpties that are not worthy of worrying about. For one thing due to mans lazyness we now have far too many town foxes growing fat on our rubbish, many more of these will become pests and pet killers over the coming years if we don’t stamp down on the numbers, remember how many children had problems with foxes in HOUSES. lets see how much you hout should one come into your house and bite or kill a child of yours.Maybe then you’ll think twice about posting in this way!
Sir/Madam
Before you start name calling, you have proved exactly my point. You have no facts but verbal diarrhoea.
Thank you for sharing that Keith is a hunter, his mentality clearer shows. If he is hated its because of his wrong doing. Look at the big smile on his, clearly not smiling now. Did the he gather DNA evidence or purely, I saw a fox, I’ll catch one (in his case two) and kill it Bravo. You are the biggest fool going, get a life and live it rather than killing the innocent.
Can you read ? Because you clearly did not read the article.
Did you eat well today ? Yesterday ? Day before ? Well these creatures hunt for their food (without weapons may I add, than you sorry excuses for humans) – it does not distinguish between a pet or any other creature. It may itself have a family to feed as well as his/her hunger.
So next time you stuff your big mouth with food, think about the animals or other people for that matter, that don’t have food at their disposal.
Alex you are the biggest fool in supporting such cruelty. The good thing that Keith has hopefully done is save lives being a vet but what he did was wrong. He gives him no right to do what he did. If he is a hated figure its because of his actions and no ones elses.
Why on earth would I be the biggest fool for supporting what Keith has done? For one I see no cruelty in keeping fox numbers down it is a necessity due to the laziness of humans. Without controlling their numbers which we have artificially inflated there would be many instances like we had through last year with foxes entering people houses and attacking children, pets and at some point will get worse.
Yes Keith is a hunter, but he is also a very professional vet and did not kill these foxes in cold blood, he did so to prevent any further possible problems with them.
Yes I have eaten well all my life including a 3 year period where I was a vegetarian, however I do enjoy eating meat as do some 90% of the population of the UK, so are we all blood thirsty killers NO! We have farmers who take the time to produce some amazing meats which I for one will continue to enjoy. I will also continue to enjoy, hunting, fishing, falconry, shooting and ferreting. Everything I take from these is eaten and not wasted. As I said before I can see you shouting about 2 foxes killed, but see nowhere you shouting about roadsides being made safer for animals. in the time it took you to respond to my comment there were probably 3 or more foxes killed on the roads. It’s a fact of life whether it be foxes, crows, rats, feral pigeons, gulls, mice, cockroaches and the list goes on..there are far too many pests/vermin around our houses, streets and town due human laziness and these like all pests must be controlled to prevent, illness, disease and possible deaths.
Alex
The ‘oath’ taken by a Vet when they join the RCVS clearly states that an animal’s welfare must be their primary concern. In my opinion Keith has failed to live up to that oath.
“Inasmuch as the privilege of membership of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is about to be conferred upon me I PROMISE AND SOLEMNLY DECLARE that I will abide in all due loyalty to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and will do all in my power to maintain and promote its interests.
“I PROMISE above all that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct and that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of the animals committed to my care.”
I accept that the foxes were not in Keith’s ‘care’ but surely a Vet should be concerned with the welfare of all animals?
Under the Guidelines for Professional Conduct of the RCVS it states
“a. treat all patients of whatever species, humanely, with respect, and with welfare as the primary consideration”.
Keith had no ‘evidence’ that a fox had killed the cat and certainly no justification for killing two foxes. Would he have taken the same action if the cat’s demise was brought about as a result of his parents’ ‘belief’ that a dog had killed the cat?
I’m not a vege and I do wear leather but this is not about animal rights for me; this is about a ‘Vet’ who proudly ‘parades his kill’ for the media of two foxes with no evidence that they killed the cat. Would Keith accept a person walking into his surgery alleging a wild animal had killed their pet and merrily go out to kill the animal?
I have made a complaint to the RCVS and asked what action they intend taking against Keith for an act, in my view, which is against the what he stated when he joined the RCVS.
Alex, you write as if you know Keith, do you know where his practice is?
To all those people who have replied.
I can see how a subject like this ignites passions, but let’s not dive into name calling and have a sensible debate.
Stewart
Hi Stewart
It would be interesting to receive feedback from RCVS. And see how seriously they act on this. Its also great to receive/read comments from those who do eat meat but yet feel for the animals which don’t have a voice.
Regards
Nico
the oath states care with regard to aninals “intrusted to your care”, get your facts right sweet heart
Hi John
I did say in one of my blogs that I knew the oath stated this and that the fox was not in Keith’s ‘care’. Would it be acceptable to a Vet’s oath to go around kicking dogs simply because they were not in his ‘care’?
John
I have no idea what vets you know or have come across, but the ones I know are professional and care for all animals. If you are a vet and you don’t, you’re in it for the wrong reason and that’s money. We all know veterinary visits are not cheap.
Here is the oath :
“Inasmuch as the privilege of membership of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is about to be conferred upon me I PROMISE AND SOLEMNLY DECLARE that I will abide in all due loyalty to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and will do all in my power to maintain and promote its interests.
“I PROMISE above all that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct and that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of the animals committed to my care.”
When the oath refers to ‘in my care’ it is because of their profession, the idea is that people bring injured or ill pets to them, therefore left in his care to diagnose the problem and help cure it. BUT being a vet ( or actually being human ) you cannot go shooting, killing any animal just because you ‘think’ it attacked your parents pet! Or even for the hell of it. One would think Vets of all people would have these ethics, but I guess not, it all depends on why one becomes a vet. Being a Vet + Hunter surely show no ethics towards animals.
Stewart,
Yes I know where Keith’s practice is, I can also understand some of peoples infuriation at what they perceive what he has done. Before the hangman’s noose is tightened and the complaints flow to the RCVS, how many other vets do you think are out there that follow fox hunts, shoot, fly birds of prey, fish and get involved in many other so called blood sports. I know of at least 10, now do you think they all are blood thirsty killers..
NO! they have a job which involves animals welfare and treatment but also have a life outside of this which will include hobbies/past times which some in many ways will go against the grain of what their chosen profession. Many vets will come from a traditional country background, and with many things in life there are ways of life people grow up with which are accepted and in many ways encouraged.
Too have singled out one vet for what he has done won’t stop foxes being killed, it may however stop a very good vet from caring for injured or dying animals. So in the end how many more animals may suffer due to this complaint and series of threats including death threats which have been aimed at Keith.
Alex
Hi Alex
Thanks for your response.
It feels, from what Keith stated on the video, that this was an execution ‘because’ of the death of the cat with no evidence that these foxes were at fault. I feel Keith has been judge with no jury or exhibits.
I am not keen, although not completely anti, on animal sports; I do feel that if the animal is then used as food (pheasant, fish etc) that can justify their demise.
I disagree with the ‘way of life’ point you make. It shouldn’t necessarily continue to happen simply because it does at the moment.
I feel we should work on the premise that ‘no’ animals should be killed unless there is good reason to do so – farmed for food etc. At the moment we seem to believe that because we are humans we have a ‘right’ to do with animals as we wish – this is wrong!
I would not wish Keith any physical harm and don’t believe anyone has the right to carry out something like that. I do think he should consider whether what he has done was right in the light of his profession. As I said before, would he have done the same thing for a human client coming into his practice stating the same facts?
Stewart
Alex or shall I call you Keith Talbot…
BTW I do know of a Vet that hunts (not that I condone it) But hunting is usually controlled and you have to have a firearms license anyway. What Alex, sorry Keith has done is take matters into his own hands, snare 2 foxes and kill them, did he have a license to do that?
No need for you to respond.
Des,
I can assure you I am not Keith, however I do know him, yes Keith does have a firearms license and you do not require any further license other than the fact foxes and several other animals come under general licenses issued by DEFRA (AH) for the culling of pest or vermin species. I personally do not class foxes as either as they are a natural animal occurring within the UK, however foxes are rapidly becoming pests in most areas due to man made problems. Sadly many town foxes have become so blase about humans that they have very little if any fear of humans, which is evident in the attacks last year on several young and older children in their homes.
I doubt very much Keith would do the same for a client coming to his practice, however what happened was at his parents home and he took what action he felt was appropriate, something I would do in the same circumstances, as would many other people.
It is sad that we have to control some animals populations to protect what wild life and wild open spaces we have left, however the fact we now share our gardens with many animals which we would not normally shows a couple of things, one there are far to many people in this country like in many others, due to that fact there is way too little green belt left. And 2 also due to the number of people we have the way we deal with rubbish has to be looked at, foxes, badgers and stray animals feast on our bins every night and will continue to flourish as long as we allow them too.
I for one love to see wild animals exactly where they should be, out in the country not in the middle of a town street pulling over bins to get food.
Alex
Alex
You keep referring to several children last year being attacked by a fox. In my recollection there where 2 instances, a set of twins and another a toddler in a play group. I felt totally sorry for the parents and the children who were attacked. The toddler went to ‘stroke’ the tail it found beneath a shed. Thats simply a child being curious. The playgroup people knew that there was a fox and it had built a den. A den which it made its home and perhaps had cubs within, who knows. It was protecting itself and the little child knew no better, curious and without fear at that age. The playgroup staff should be held responsible for letting the child wonder, that’s their duty and they failed the poor boy,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/21/toddler-brighton-fox-attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10363646
In the case of the twins, the fox does not know boundaries like many other animals. Infact the bulgars and rapist no not know boundaries either and yet they are classified as humans. One day it has a home in plot A. Plot A can be destroyed for some reason and it moves to the next plot. Thats the way animals live. They don’t have permanent address. They don’t have money to go to the grocery stores to buy food, it looks and hunts for food just likes tribes in the Amazon and parts of africa.
Now who says humans have the authority to kill these animals just because their population grows. Do YOU have any idea on the human population ? We are going to end up killing ourselves since the world is going to struggle to produce enough food to feed humans in the world.
When a fox or any other animal for that nature kills, its not for fun, like Keith (and other hunters) take the pleasure of, its to feed their hunger and their child’s hunger. Put yourself in their shoes and then you will realise. I know plenty of people that feed the wildlife especially in the winter and definitely after the one we just had. So look after those that need our help. They don’t have a voice to cry for help or food nor handouts from the government.
If you had no money, would you look in areas of the wild countryside or would you use your brain and look in bins ? These animals have more intelligence than people give them credit for. So don’t go blaming them looking into bins, tramps and the homeless do the same in our streets. But yet they are humans so its ok is it ?
And your point on “I for one love to see wild animals exactly where they should be, out in the country…..” – Well when they are out in the country they are hunted by the likes of Keith so where does this leave them ?
Hi Alex
Most of animals’ problems are caused by us. There are too many people on the planet and we are the only species that is not controlled. The only reason foxes (or indeed elephants, tigers, sharks) have any issues is because we invade their territory, reduce the living space and interfere with their existence.
As I said in an earlier reply, as a species, we simply take over with no thought for the animals, kill without thought and sleep well at night not believing we’ve done anything wrong.
I am like you, the only place I love to see animals is in their natural world and not constrained by people in zoos or because their habitat is invaded. I can just about tolerate safari parks as educational establishments to teach people about wild animals and educate them to learn to live with them.
Far from increasing the human population on the planet we should be reducing and elevating animals to their rightful place – equal access to the natural resources the planet offers. Only humans erode what we have, destroy it for others (including animals) and eventually the planet will fight back.
I suspect that, by that time, we will have screwed it up so much we will be on our way to another to screw that one also.
Stewart
John is it ok for a human doctor to stab and kill other humans on the streets just because they are not in his care ? Its called ethics my dear friend, just because they are not human they do not become a sub specie. We all have just as much right on this planet as the next specie.
It appears after reading some of the comments on this matter that those objecting to the vet who culled a fox ( quite legally i might add ) seem to think that his chosen profession should preclude him from taking part in field sports of any description due to some supposed conflict of interests ?
I am completely at a loss as to where these ideas show any modicum of sense whatsoever , and i wonder if the complainers would be so quick with their keyboards or pens if they discovered anyone of the medical profession enjoying a game of rugby perhaps , or taking part in any of the martial arts – or heaven forbid getting into a ring and squaring up to an opponent under the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules ?
Surely the same rules should apply ?
If a vet can draw this much attention simply because some ill informed people think that its a conflict of interests then perhaps they should seek out sporting and atheletic doctors as well and complain to the medical council that it could be against their ethical and moral code to partake in sports where their opposite number may need the services of the local health authority ! ! !
We all know that no complaint would be written regarding the above , because it doesnt involve nice fluffy cuddly creatures , the same nice fluffy cuddly creatures that harm children , spread disease , and kill pets in a habitat that they were not designed for and most importantly shouldnt be allowed to thrive in .
I would hazard a guess that there would’nt have been a single complaint made if the vet had shot or trapped a monster rat – or even dozens of rats come to that , because rats have the same cutesy appeal as a fox do they ?
So what now ?
I think this is where i sit back and wait for all the posts to come flooding in saying that rats are gods creatures and are equally entitled to a trouble free life in our houses and gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . but not all animals are equal are they ?
Pete .
Pete
Your comparison to the Foxes being killed to those playing rugby or any sport is pathetic. In sports, the two individuals or teams both know the rules and agree to partake in the sport and abide by any rules set. So when a medic takes part in such sports, he’s intent is not to kill, its a game for pleasure AND if anyone gets hurt, its their problem since they knew what consequences.
In the foxes being trapped and killed, only Keith knew the rules and killing of any kind cannot be a sport.
You say they were killed legally, maybe they were in the human world where humans make the rules.
Hi Pete
Thanks for the contribution.
I don’t really believe you think a comparison between to adult humans voluntarily taking part in a game of sport which does not include the realistic possibility of one of them being killed is the same as what happened with Keith. Apart from the fact that it was not a field sports game he partook in, it was the exectution of two foxes his parents ‘believed’ ‘may’ have killed the family cat.
Foxes do not carry disease that passes to humans, rats do!
“We all know that no complaint would be written regarding the above , because it doesnt involve nice fluffy cuddly creatures , the same nice fluffy cuddly creatures that harm children , spread disease , and kill pets in a habitat that they were not designed for and most importantly shouldnt be allowed to thrive in .”
The only reason they are in a habitat not designed for them is because we created it without any thought for them. I am not a vege and do wear leather so don’t come at this from an extreme point of view. However, without any evidence of their guilt a person who has subscribed to the welfare of animals sought out and executed two foxes. I would have no problem with Keith taking an animals life if their was evidence that it was in the best interests of the animal itself or for a wider cull for the future protection of the herd. This was not the case.
Foxes are creatures of habit , they patrol their territories nightly and territories can and do overlap .
The foxes that were culled were on their territories when they were shot , fact – simple as – therefore one of the foxes that were shot was most probably the culprit , and i mean a percentage that would be nearer the 100% mark than closer to a 50/50 shot in the dark .
Regarding disease , thanks for the information that foxes dont carry communicable disease – but are you really sure on that one ?
I was under the impression that sarcoptic mange ( although not a disease but an infestation ) is communicable across species and your average fox does carry the above – perhaps the term scabies might ring a bell as thats the descriptive term for Sarcoptes scabiei canis when its host is human and not canine , feline , vulpine , equine , porcine , ovine , or any other mammalian order that can fall foul of these mites .
And no , ime not Keith either . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ime Spartacus lol
Pete.
Well you live and learn i suppose , silly me for believing all the science for so long .
And heres one to run with . . . . . . . . . do boxers fully understand that they may not be alive the end of the contest , and how many boxers have died in the ring after competing under the false belief that that fatalities will not and do not occur ?
Pete.
Pete
Re Boxers – they choose to fight, they know the consequences so taking part in the ring is simply their choice. If they believe they will not get hurt then they foolish since a ‘knockout’ is what both parties aim to do to the other. And to re-iterate whats been said before, both know what they are getting themselves into. In comparison, the fox knew nothing other than being trapped and killed.
Keith killed a fox(2 infact!) with no evidence of what that fox did. They normally stay clear of cats (all of this has been repeated in this forum) but we cannot predict that all foxes do not kill cats. This is the point thats being made here, the poor fox was charged guilty before any evidence.
With regards to fox and diseases, their faeces can be harmful but thats like any animal faeces since it can contains worms etc so harmful to children. But I haven’t come across anything that transmits to humans like the rat and the plague.
Scabies mites are not carried in faeces and they live on the host , and foxes are notorious carriers of this .
The bubonic plague was caused by fleas not rats , rats were merely the vehicle on which the fleas fed upon and were transported by , subsequent bites by such fleas onto a person transmitted the disease to the human host .
Could someone please tell me how they know that the fox / foxes were not responsible for the death of the cat , as stated before foxes have territories which they stick to and contrary to what you may want to believe foxes have and will take cats .
pete.
Hi Pete
No one can tell you the foxes didn’t kill the cat but no one can tell you they did either and yet they were judged and executed as if they had!! We wouldn’d do that to a dog (killing a cat) a cat (killing a family bird) etc
Pete
I’ve read the discussions and you seem to be missing the point. Are you still at school ? If so, I understand.
The point is, they were killed before proven guilty. So we don’t know whether they killed the cat or not. Its like being hung for a crime then realising there’s no proof but the person is now dead. This is the state of those poor foxes. Did one kill the cat or two ? Since Keith managed to kill 2. So which one was it ? Or you have proof it was two that killed that cat ?
Animals are carnivores and they kill other animals to eat. I have 3 cats and they are indoors at night since I cannot trust other animals of the night. But if one did get killed by another animal (be it another cat in a cat fight) I have no right to kill the other cat. That’s the way the animals kingdom works.
I think its you that are missing the point .
No crime was committed , a species didnt end up on the endangered list as a result of the foxes being dispatched , and if you had any knowledge of foxes whatsoever then you would realise that in all probability it was one of the two that were shot that killed the cat .
If foxes were declining to unacceptable levels then i could appreciate your anger and concern , but in truth the opposite is happening – foxes are increasing and will continue to do so .
I wonder what your stance would be if rabies ever crossed from Europe to this island , as foxes would carry this disease nationwide very quickly . Would you still encourage inner city foxes or would you call for the vets assistance to remove the lovely creatures living happily under your shed and playing on your lawn ?
Time to wake up and smell the coffee folks , a vet killed two foxes – classed as vermin and treated as such . There would not have been anything said had the offending creatures been rats or mice , no-one would have raised an eyebrow let alone discussed it on the internet .
The only problem here is the foxes physical appearance , i do appreciate that they are beautiful creatures but in all fairness i would have no qualms in sending them to meet their maker when they started to cause problems .
Straight answers please , if you had rats or mice living in your house , or a wasps nest in your attic would you leave well alone or remove ?
If one of the wasps stung you or one of yours would you exterminate the colony or find irrefutable evidence to determine which wasp it was that did the deed and then treat accordingly ?
I will say it again , the foxes were killed on their territories – on the very property that the cat killing incident happened as far as i am aware and that puts them squarely in the frame in my eyes . They are classed exactly the same as rats , mice , and feral pigeons for a reason and were treated as such , the only problem here is they dont look the part where others in the same category do .
Pete.
Pete
In your view it appears that is ok to kill another animal because to you it seems to fit the notion that a fox was last seen near the premises so down to your power of judgement it must have been his/her fault.
So once again to iterate, if benefit of doubt is given, Keith killed two foxes. So how come another fox had to die ? He was not sure which one killed the cat so ok we’ll kill both ?
Most animals eat other animals, that’s survival for most animals (not pets). We cannot kill other creatures because you guess it could have been the killer, nor can you blame the fox if it was the fox. It hunts for food. It eats other animals. It hunts to feeds his family and satisfy his hunger like we do.
There are far too many humans on this planet, so it is ok to murder someone ? Will the magistrate simply give the OK since the human population is growing (which is the bigger issue perhaps for a different forum) and a human is killed. Thats one less mouth to feed. Ofcourse not. There would be a case, months of human time spent on how and who done it. AND THEN when (hopefully) the criminal is found they would be charged accordingly.
This is another form of life ie. non human, it doesn’t mean we have the right to kill it.
Rabies is a virus and we can be protected from it by injection, it is a painful and deadly infection if not treated. But a measure would have to be found to eliminate the virus.
Mice / Rat – a friend had these in her property in London and I suggested to trap them in a humane way and drive them to the countryside, I would not kill them. Re bees/wasps – you call people who are able to take away the hive and relocate them. There are living beings too. But most of the times, bees die after stinging so no need to prosecute.
Pete I hope you can look outside the human race and see that others on the planet deserve to live just as much as we do.
Sally.
Hi Sally
It was great to read your contribution. You summed up a number of people’s thoughts briliantly.
There are far too many people on the planet and this is the only reason why situations such as Keith and the foxes arise.
Over many many years now all the problems that have arisen for animals have been brought about as a result of human activity and lack of thought or belief that other living creatures have a right to live just as we do.
Stewart
i would love to see these people who you say remove and relocate wasps nests actually doing the job .
i think that you may find that the nest is removed and destroyed along with its inhabitants 😉
and for the record i didnt mention bee’s . . . . . . . . .
Pete
I think Sally is taking bees/wasps as being the same. Yes there are differences in how each is handled but she means there’s no reason to kill either.(Correct me Sally if I am wrong)
The bottom line is not to be cruel to animals just because humans think they rule the world. Or because we simply can.
Just because animals do not have a voice that can be heard, it does not mean they don’t have feelings just like we do.
They need to eat just like we do.
They need to sleep just like we do.
They have children just like we do whom they work hard to bring food to them.
They have to find shelter just like the human homeless but humans have charities to help.
Animals do not have a choice. We seem to take over what little space they have. And if we don’t like it, the answer is will kill them.
Who are we to make that call ? They are only trying to survive, since that’s the key to living, survival.
If either of the foxes killed the cat, its to feed its hunger. It cannot distinguish between pets and other creatures. Put yourself in their shoes with all the knowledge you have as a human and you still would not be able to survive 1 night or 1 day.
You have to realise humans and animals are very similar. Each of our genes is set out for survival. Animals do not know human territories but they do know their own. Just because they step into our territory we cannot harm them, they are not aware. And to kill without any proof but an assumption is out of order. Those rules do not apply to humans so why to animals ? Once again because they have no voice to prove their innocence.
One day when you are hungry, infact starving (if you are ever that unlucky) think about those foxes.
They are simply another form of life, which we should all respect.
to Stewart Graham
“Alex
The ‘oath’ taken by a Vet when they join the RCVS clearly states that an animal’s welfare must be their primary concern. In my opinion Keith has failed to live up to that oath.
“Inasmuch as the privilege of membership of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is about to be conferred upon me I PROMISE AND SOLEMNLY DECLARE that I will abide in all due loyalty to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and will do all in my power to maintain and promote its interests.
“I PROMISE above all that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct and that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of the animals COMITTED TO MY CARE.” ”
Again the fact that Mr Talbot is a vet should have nothing to do with this story, the last three words of this oath should be more than clear enough.. the animal in question is a Wild fox, classed as Vermin not a pet taken into his practice..
The fact that Mr Talbot is a vet at least gives me the satisfaction in knowing that he would have treated this animal well and killed it humainly without suffering.
If you really want to do something positive to stop the suffering of foxes then lobby against the poisioning or gassing of foxes which I can assure you is a damm sight more common that having a fox humainly put down by a vet!