Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Anecdotal representations have been more directly mobilised in order to court
public opinion. Here the fox is translated not into the form of scientific knowledge,
but into a narrative form which conveys a sensationalised and emotive
representation of a villainous fox. One intervention during the parliamentary debate
highlighted a recent case of a child's two pet guinea pigs killed by a fox in central
London; while an earlier incident in 1996 where a baby was attacked by an urban
fox received considerable press coverage. Although the child received only a small
scratch, the attack was reported with headlines such as 'Starving fox savages pram
tot' (Daily Star) and 'Horror of the fox that savaged my baby boy' (Daily Mail), and
comments including: 'A starving fox crept into a couple's home and savaged their
baby as he slept in his pram' (Daily Star) and '[he] was recovering at home yesterday
after being mauled by what his parents said was a fox' (Guardian) (in Rocks 1997)—
which served to translate the fox concerned into a monstrous creature. The urban
location of both incidents is significant as the reports were manipulated to produce
a representation of the fox as a menace to urban dwellers as well as to farmers.
The pest status of the fox is challenged by opponents of hunting. In contrast to
the relative paucity of statistical evidence offered in support of the representation,
scientific research has been employed to question the impact of fox attacks. A report
by biologists from Bristol University, published shortly before the parliamentary
debate, found that only 0.5-3 per cent of lambs were lost to foxes compared to 17 per
cent lost to natural causes within a day of birth, and that the estimated 32,500 hens
lost to foxes was a tiny proportion compared to other causes of death (Brown 1997:
9). The report's conclusion was quoted by Michael Foster in the debate:
Foxes do not warrant their reputation as major pests of agriculture.
Nationally, losses of lambs, piglets and poultry are insignificant relative to other
causes of mortality. Vastly greater improvements in lamb survival can be
made by improving husbandry than by fox control. Local problems of fox
predation of livestock can be prevented by electric fencing and secure
housing. Foxes can be beneficial by consuming rabbits and other pests of
agricultural crops.
( Hansard, 301, 28 November 1997: col. 1209)
'Scientific' knowledge was also mobilised to refute suggestions that most farmers
perceived foxes to be pests. The Bristol report stated that 70 per cent of farmers did
not believe that having foxes on their land was harmful, and 36 per cent considered
foxes to be useful (Brown 1997). A separate survey in Wiltshire was more equivocal,
finding that 60 per cent of non-dairy livestock farmers and 30 per cent of dairy farmers
considered the fox to be a pest, but that, overall, farmers ranked the fox as a less
significant pest than badgers and rabbits, and that in financial terms the cost of fox
damage was less than that caused by badgers, rabbits, pigeons and people (Baines
1997). Baines also concluded that even if the fox is accepted as a pest, hunting is
not an effective form of fox population control, an argument echoed by hunt
opponents in Parliament.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search