Some Back Information On The Current FOIA Request to Bristol University re 1994/95 Mange Outbreak

 I have written before about the mange outbreak that hit Bristol in 1994/1995 and left us with 4-6% of the population (numbers vary but we lost over 90% of the fox population.  

Here is the problem: having looked at records going back into the 19th century there has never been anything similar.  Mange gradually spreads in whatever are the nites get to. It is not like some human virus that spreads across the City from Ashton to Downend in a month due to human interaction (after Covid most people will know what I am talkiung about).

Foxes have a dispersal season around July onward when young venture out to find their own territory. I concentrated on that period of the years from 2019-2025 to see if this was when the "outbreaks" peaked.  Mange in foxes is caused by parasitic mites—primarily Sarcoptes scabiei—which burrow into the skin, triggering intense itching, hair loss, and inflammation. These mites spread mainly through direct fox‑to‑fox contact and indirectly via contaminated dens or environments.

Foxes do live in family groups -leashes- or even as a permanent pair. They maintain their territory and fight off interlopers. Although nomad foxes (males with no territory) wander areas they are not "cordially invited" to stay.  If there were an outbreak of mange due to the environmental conditions being ripe for the mites then we would be aware of those conditions and could prepare. In 1994/1995 fox watchers who helped injured or sick foxes (a small number of people at the time) had never seen anything like the outbreak before.

It was so fast and hit foxes so hard that questions were asked but ignored ("just foxes").  Here is what we were told by Bristol University's then Mammal Study Group headed by Professor Stephen Harris.

A radio collared for that was part of their study "suddenly left the City" -there was no explanation as to why as a town fox is not a country fox and we are told  the radio collar was of no help tracking it. Back in those days it involved going out with detectors to pick up the sigmal.  Foxes have been known to go travelling so not exceptional. Locating radio collared animals can be problematical although the Group stated that they had everything down pat so...

A while later the wandering fox returned to the City. This in itself is all very vague and Bristol University would not allow access to records on the matter. Whatever (if the quote is accurate and not off hand) "Within weeks" mange was hitting the fox population across the City but I can find no information on mange in countryside around the City at that time. This suggests that one single fox created the mange outbreak. That is ludicrous.

For the fast spread you would need more than one infected fox. You would need to have a fox in the North, South, East and West of the City each being part of a larger group of foxes to hit the entire population of the City. That one fox supposedly travelled all around the City dropping mange mites everywhere. 

I assume that the reader will see the problem here. The area size of the City and County is roughly 110 km (40 sq mi). We are talking about urban areas, woodland, heathland, valleys and much more. One fox spread mange mites to each and every one of these areas with fox dens -dens not affected by mange before as the Group pointed out.

How?

Much more information is needed on how, where and when a radio collared fox was "lost" since with a radio collar and it being part of a study surely they should have attempted to find it -it was supposed to be a study of urban foxes and how they lived.  In what area was the fox "lost" and on what date -that is essential information in a study's records.

We then need to know how, where and when the collared fox was picked up again and also how the Group was able to state that this one fox returned to Bristol carry mange mites and its movements after it was relocated.. Again: essential data in any study.

Since 1999 Bristol university has refused to respond to letters and emails looking for access to such data. "The Mammal Group was closed down" -presumably the records were not destroyed?  Oddly, at one point the nbew members of the Mammal Study Group were announced and I contacted each one on the subject of the foxes and mange; these learned people decided the best course of action was to ingore enquiries.

Bristol University and those associated with it (yes, I have tried asking Prof Harris -you can guess the response) put up a wall of silence. Even were I not the coordinatopr of the British Fox and Wild Canids Study (set up in the 1970s and from whom the mammal group took information happily) and being as sources put it (I hate ego but I will grit my teeth) a "noted naturalist" for my work I would expect at least a corteous "go away" response.

I hope that even the casual reader will see the problem all of this shows?

Here is my big problem. I have repeatedly asked Bristol university to refute the strong rumour that has persisted since the late 1990s but after 10 attempts -no response. Someone who used to work at the University contacted me and told me that there was more than one manged fox and that the Uni were paid to release such foxes. I heard similar from a member of the faculty at Langford Veterinary School. By 2018 I had some seven people tell me the same thing.

But why would the University or its Mammal Study Group deliberately infect and then release foxes into what was always a mange free population?

These days there are a lot of papers from studies on potential zoonotic diseases. In case you are unfamiliar with the term: Zoonotic diseases, or zoonoses, are infections caused by pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites, or prions that can move between non-human animals and humans. Transmission can also occur in reverse, from humans to animals, known as reverse zoonosis. These diseases have been responsible for major historical outbreaks, including the bubonic plague and bovine tuberculosis, and continue to pose significant public health challenges globally.

Foxes are great indicators of environmental health. Historically the Old cur fox lived near human habitation until the New red fox took over.  Often blamed for any illness affecting pet dogs (a good scapegoat to take attention from the fact people do not get their pets vaccinated) it is often more likely dogs spreading illnesses to foxes. It's complex but the fox is a good sign of local conditions.  

We have not had rabies outbreaks in the UK since the 1920s and I can tell you through experience that a rabies outbreak is not something you want on your doorstep. It is not something I would like to see in the UK. There is also the danger of rabies infecting humans via bites and scratches. Literally, as in the 1970s and a rabies scare, every bird or animal sighted was shot "in case".  There has been much debate and discussion on how fast such things can spread.

Now, for a study on how fast a disease or virus can spread you need a few things;

1)  a non human affecting disease.

2) a population of target animals that are clear of the studied illness/disease so the spread, etc can be accurately recorded.  If, say, mange was regularly occurring in foxes around the City then how could you tell which was due to the study release and which normal?

3) a population of target animals that can be easily monitored for signs of outbreaks.

Bristol's urban fox population was the largest outside of London. Was monitored and mange free.  Why not London?  A massive outbreak of mange in London would be very noticable and questions asked not just by the public but poliuticians and news media -ignorant of the facts about mange "FOX DISEASE SWEEPS THROUGH LONDON!" would be an almost guaranteed headline and story. A lot of heads would roll if it was found out something had been deliberatley released in the Capitol city.

I cannot remember any stories about mange in the City of Bristol at the time and even today most people have no idea what we were witnessing at the time. One "Judas" animal seems unlikely.

Again, in case the reader is unfamiliar with  the term: a Judas animal is typically a social species individual trained or fitted with a tracking device to lead or locate other animals. The term originates from Judas Iscariot, the biblical figure who betrayed Jesus, symbolizing the act of betrayal, as the Judas animal leads its peers to a destination they would not willingly go, often to slaughter or eradication efforts Or, in the case of an experiment to see how fast a disease might spread, one or more infected Judas foxes.

Having tried for years to get data from Bristol University on the details from the fox study and had nothing but silence. I decided to make a Freedom of Information request for the data. Bristol University then asked if I could clarify my terms of what data I was looking for. I made it even clearer. Plain English and everything I wanted. Bristol University then asked again for me to clarify. This is deliberately delaying and they are also witholding data (which they have not yet done):

"University of Bristol may have refused all or part of your request under Section 40." 

You are goingf to now get an explanation of Section 40:

Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 pertains to personal information. It states that any information to which a request for information relates is exempt from disclosure if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject. Additionally, it is exempt if it does not fall under the first condition and satisfies certain conditions related to data protection principles and the UK GDPR. The section also includes provisions for neither confirming nor denying the existence of personal data, ensuring that public authorities can protect personal information while complying with data protection legislation.

Personal data -fine unless the person involved committed some misdeed. But I suspect that Bristol University is going to give the runaround for a simple reason: a university study group would not just release one or more foxes with mange to carry out a study as that involves a lot of potential legal problems from animal rights groups, pet owners if a pet got mange and so on. However, as part of an officially (Government) backed or approved private study it might be easier. 

Here I am clearly pointing the possible finger of accusation at the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF -which became DEFRA in 2001).  There is a long history with MAFF and certain "outbreaks" in the countryside (the late John Green an estate warden noted unmarked white vans being reported in his area of Shropshire and small white boxes being left in fields. One farmer reported that he removed a box from his land and took it to police as he thought it was all "very odd" and no permission was given to place anything on his land. After being made to wait a good while a police sergeant told him that the boxes were government property but would not say which department was involved other than "Well, it's agricultural land, isn't it?" After the boxes appeared the healthy rabbit population had an outbreak of myxomatosis which devastated it -any communications with MAFF led nowhere.

MAFF at the time is a likely but not the only culprit as we are dealing with disease and health matters.

Once the FOIA request is ended I will post all here but my question has to be why any refusal to comment or just say "Yes, this is what we have on file about 1994/1995" -end of story. Or even "That is totally untrue. We would never do that" Why do I have to go through FOIA?

How Many Foxes in Bristol?

 

As a bit of an AI and statistics test I asked the total number of the fox population in Bristol based on 238 sightings -in this case dead foxes as no one can argue that they exist. Here is what AI (using a stat analysis model) came up with:

Based on 238 known fox sightings in Bristol, the estimated fox population is likely between 400 and 700 foxes. This estimate is derived from various methods of observation and tracking, including direct sightings and citizen science data. The population density in urban areas can vary significantly, but Bristol's urban environment suggests a relatively stable population size

The population would be much lower than the answer given as the 238 dead foxes need to be removed from that figure so 162-462 is the given fox population of Bristol. That would make the City's urban fox population on the verge of extinction. 

Although people are reporting regular foxes as no longer appearing in their gardens there could be any number of reasons for this but there is a decline -on a site monitoring foxes since 2020 the decline has been noticed. Foxes are known to wander about and find new places so can vanish for a few weeks or so but Area 1, although noting this, has since 14th August, 2026 only captured 3 images of a fox. Since we have had/are having disperal one would expecxt far more fox activity but it has declined.  The benefit of having seven years of camera observation is that this can all be checked back including the fact that where 2-3 cubs were observed in the past there was only 1 in 2026.

Estimating the population is impossible based on observations but I would guesstimate perhaps 1000 to 1200 across the City. In North Somerset, BANES and South Gloucestershire which is the area covered by the Fox Project Bristol as well as Bristol Badger Group the likely number of foxes is probably lower as they are more prone to being shot, snared or poisoned. BANES (Bath and NE Soimerset) we have tried to get someone to gather fox data but there seems to be a distinct lack of interest and even anti fox feeling. For that reason Bristol is the only location an estimate for population can be worked out.

Whatever the actual figure we are losing a lot of foxes and after the population grew again after losing 94% of the popul;ation due to mange in Bristol during 1994/1995 that is pretty sad since foxes are also a good indicator of environmental health.

Have We Hit An Urban Wildlife Crisis Point?

 

After five decades of monitoring wildlife in Bristol, primary foxes and badgers, I have to say that I am very concerned.

In 1994/1995 the mage outbreak that hit Bristol's urban foxes devastated up the 94% of the population. That mange outbreak may well have been created but that is a question for another time.  The fox population eventually started recovering.

There is absolutely no doubt that since the 1990s drivers have gotten worse, speeding in city streets and narrow lanes is so common that few people even bother showing concern. Night time speeding is a problem everywhere but it seems almost normal across the City of Bristol. As a result more and more wildlife is dying: struck by cars and left for dead. When I showed the Fox and Badgers Death Register at the recent Wild Summit the comments were: "You hear about it but seeing the actual figures is staggering" and "Oh, that's awful".

Yet Bristol City Council refuses to even put up wildlife crossing signs and threaten those that do with legal action.

Added to this is the fact that there are very sick individuals who go out at night setting snares (two fox victims and an otter recorded so far).  Equally sick individuals go out out in all weather every night to shoot and kill wildlife -this shooting 'sport' is decimating not just fox populations (cubs and adults are killed with no interest whether a vixen killed will lead to orphaned cubs or even if the vixen is pregnant. All done with impunity even though the wildlife (and in some cases pets) are causing no problem.

We know that there are still local "badgermen" or shooters who will disp[ose of badgers "on the quiet" for farmers and others. Most badgers are dumped at the roadside and people ignore them as "road kill".

This all adds up so that, whatever you may hear from the countryside groups and pro hunt people (the latter every cub season spamming social media with tales of foxes killing pet ginger and white, black and white or elderly "much loved" cats) foxes are not -not- increasing in numbers. We have wildlife photographers from Wales visiting English towns because Welsh foxes are "non existent" thanks to decades of shooting, snaring and poisoning. 

Bristol's badger population may all be urbanbut it has to be remembered that what are now suburbs of the City were once small villages with their local badger setts and that means badgers have survived in these locations for more than a century. The threat to badgers does not just come from poisons and cars but the local authority. Aware and repeatedly informed of established badger sett territory Bristol City Council (a Green council) attempt to sell the land to developers when there is more than enough Brown Site areas to handle new housing.

Health wise we know more now than we did in 2020 as to what illnesses are affecting foxes and killing them (a small percentage compared to cars etc) but when it comes to badgers a block was placed on any post mortems being carried out under pretence of Health and Safety and risk from Bovine TB -all while official PMs WERE being carried out on badgers.

The fact is that I would love to believe that foxes and badgers were not being seen on roads and reported because none were being killed. However, looking at the yearly total for each species in the Death Register as well as hearing reports from people who are no longer seeing their badgers and foxes I suspect that a crisis point has been reached. 

The British Trust for Ornithology did a mammal survey and concluded that foxes might need Red Listing (protection as a species under threat) and their figures along with those of others invbolved in wildlife work very strongly suggest that England has lost over 60% of its fox population. I believe that it is higher and the percentage growing by the day.

We are losing the hedgehog as well as up to 30 other species and with an estimated 300,000 badgers killed during the cull (remember that is just from the cull not cars or other illegal killings) I estimate the UK badger popu;lation has gone beyond a crisis point. An the Welsh Parliament want to wipe out their badgers now.

It is mind numbing that politicians just shrug at these facts while counting "donations" from farmers groups and lobbyists.  Concern for wildlife and the environment that were so hip, cool and trendy and a MUST promote in interviews in the 1990s to early 2000s is now "People need homes" and "We need to develop as a country" and 95% of the population shrug and sit in front of the TV not caring.

The 1860s, thanks to humans and hunting, etc. created a mass extinction of UK wildlife from foxes, deer, wild cats, hares and many other species. The answer was to import more of them from Europe to "continue the sport" and this time round "Fewer wildlife better for more development and building!"

I Did My Best But No One Listened

 I've had three requests for help to try to stop construction work on green sites.

No.

I made my position clear: for 10 years I have been telling or suggesting that Bristol groups out to save green spaces unite as it makes it harder for the Council to approve development. The Longmoor site I asked the Save Ashton Vales Environment group to help highlight the wildlife and environment but their only concern was what it would all mean for their house prices.

I got stick for being too negative but what has happened? They've sneaked in and started construction on sites which means it is far too late to do anything.

I mentioned the grabbing of green sites to Avon Wildlife Trust ("we work with Bristol City Council", Friends of the Earth and other supposed environmental/save the countryside groups at the Wild Summit. Absolutely no interest what so ever. Just disinterest.

Badger setts at risk I'll look into but that's my unpaid job. Saving green spaces when l;ocals cannot be bothered....someone else's job.

On with the wildlife work.

The Wild Summit 2026 And A Day Wasted

 

I need to apologise to Bristol Fox Lady/Bristol Wildlife Rescue Sarah Millsfor dragging her to the so called Wild Summit. I printed out a small fortune (in ink) flyers and info packs to hand out.

Avon Wildlife Trust ("We work through Bristol City Council") were not interested in the fox and badger data. In fact, no one was interested in mammals whether otters, badgers, foxes (plenty of fox photos used though) or even hedgehogs. Bees, butterflies, wild flowers, water purity and conservation nd that was it.

Fella from the Badger Trust talking about setting up a Bristol Badger Group (8 times right next to me) so I jumped in every time and pointed out that I have run BBG since 1994/1995 but he kept it up and told me to my face he had heard of my fox work but not badger work. How good is the Badger Trust when they have had emails etc off me for 30 years and been told repeatedly over the last year there was a BBG? Kept trying to talk over me every time I was amking points based on years of research and work. Nope. Well not be cooperating wityh him or BT.

So making the countryside wild friendly but no one interested in wildlife crossings/tunnels.

Basically it was badly organised and had I paid £240 for a ticket there would have been trouble.

Oh West England .Wildlife Index was not that good. Their data was a mess they noted bird decline (mentioned 8 times as frightening) no idea about mammal decline or fish decline and then they told us how their data was basically not worth much as it needed another 5 years. I think Sarah probably heard my loud grunt as the woman in charge stated "We get data from naturalists but take it with a grain of salt" Talk about insulting the dying breed of people who go out getting the real data and muddied boots. I stopped myself from standing and walking out. I did feel sorry for one of the volunteers who stepped up to exp-lain the work she had been doing but got four heckles of "stand closer to the microphone" and she was nervous enough.

The RSPCA Senior scientific advisor stodd up and I just waited for her to say the great job the RSPCA does for wildlife but in the few minutes she spoke all I learnt was her field of work was tigers. Yes, foxes and badgers and British wildlife are silly so concentrate on ovrseas wildlife (which I am told the RSPCA is doing?!)

The ex copper who said we need better organisation, etc and some forces had no wildlife crime officer well...back into the early 2000s there were plenty of good PWLOs and senior officers were involved. Now we have a situations wth four wildlife crimes in the Bristol area (including a snared otter) and a fox torn up by a dog under the command of its owner and....nothing. We had three foxes found in one day on an allotment and the Wildlife officer visited the site and made notes and was offered the foxes to take (THAT should be standard) but he would not even go and look at the foxes and his notes ("intelligence") was it. THREE suspicious death foxes and the copper would not even look at them. Interestingly a PCSO did a better job and bagged up two foxes and a cat in a suspicious death case and submitted them for post mortems. Obviously the part time policeman had a better grasp of the job than the full time professional.

At times with 'quizzes", stickers, big sheets of paper and colour pens I felt I was back at Glenfrome Road nursery school.

Radio talks the event up well but there was NOTHING to the event just "We need to jolly well show the government by sending in a petition".

I do not likke rudeness or bad manners but that was also very evident at the event.

Basically an online petition appears to have been what was needed for most talks. That a great deal of the information was old -I have sources saying the same f thing from the 1980s and that was built on from 1970s work,

Field or any type of naturalist did not seem to be present. After a remark that anything from a naturalist was taken "with a pinch of salt" that was lucky.

I left thinking that I had lost two hours or so of my rapidly decling life anjd that working by myself seems the best way to go.

I was lucky that Sarah Mills was present as even she commented "Nothing on mammals? Not even hedgehogs!"

Maybe I should have had a table there to push mammals?

"Sentinel markers for ecosystem contamination"

 

 In the past fox post mortems have revealed plastic packaging in the stomachs of foxes which resulted in their deaths. We have been noting things that could point to a problem in the ecosystem and I was just informed of the latest PM result:

"Severe chronic renal histopathology confirmed but I’m uncertain of the case. Possibly the pathology might suggest and infarct but again any cause of this is uncertain. Summary: Severe chronic renal pathology of uncertain cause. "

In case you are wondering what the mplications are: Chronic exposure to environmental pollutants is associated with renal damage, potentially affecting longevity and health of wild fox populations. This is a sentinel marker for ecosystem contamination and really should not be ignored but, as I have said over the last five decades, no one is interested "just foxes".

It's sad that back in July I noted 182 foxes had been reported dead. The current figure two months later is 230

Facial Injury In Foxes CAN Be Treated

  The old rule under certain "rescue" was a fox with a facial injury HAD to be put down. Most vets would agree.

However, things in Bristol have changed. Likely an injury from a car swipe on the nearby busy road the fox was treated for around 9 weeks given pain relief and anti biotics. All treated in situ by Sarah Mills.

With a falling fox population at least this one now has a good chance.

above during treatment

Above after treatment