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:
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment