Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T12:09:17.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wounding rates in shooting foxes (Vulpes vulpes)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

NC Fox ,
N Blay ,
AG Greenwood ,
D Wise  and
E Potapov
NC Fox*
Affiliation:
International Wildlife Consultants Ltd, PO Box 19, Carmarthen SA33 5YL, UK
N Blay
Affiliation:
International Zoo Veterinary Group, Keighley Business Centre, South Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire BD21 1AG, UK
AG Greenwood
Affiliation:
International Zoo Veterinary Group, Keighley Business Centre, South Street, Keighley, West Yorkshire BD21 1AG, UK
D Wise
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK
E Potapov
Affiliation:
International Wildlife Consultants Ltd, PO Box 19, Carmarthen SA33 5YL, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: office@falcons.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One-hundred-and-ninety-nine shooters in England, Wales and Scotland shot at fox-shaped targets in 35 shotgun regimes including .410 and 12 bore using No 6, BB or AAA shot sizes at 25, 40 or 60 yards, with open and full choke barrels, and skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled shooters. A further 16 regimes used rimfire rifles at 50 yards (both supported using a gun rest and unsupported) and centrefire rifles at 100 and 150 yards, by day and by night. The targets were life-sized paper foxes, traced from a longitudinal section of a real fox and mapped with the internal anatomy. For shotgun trials, the targets were moved across a gap, allowing the shooters 3 or 3.5 s to take aim and fire. For rifle trials, the static targets were raised up for 4 s and then lowered. Fifteen dead foxes, shot with the same ammunition, ranges and angle as in the shooting regimes, were assessed for internal injuries caused by each regime. Ammunition was tested in comparative card-penetration tests. A total of 1085 shotgun shots and 885 rifle shots at the targets were scored as ‘killed’, ‘seriously wounded’, ‘lightly wounded’ or ‘missed’. As shooters' skill level increased, the ‘kill’ rate increased, the ‘miss’ rate decreased but the ‘wounding’ rates stayed much the same. No 6 shot ‘wounded’ because of poor penetration. AAA had poor pattern density at ranges beyond 40 yards. At ranges of up to 40 yards, both AAA and BB shot performed well, BB being the optimum. .410 shotguns with No 6 shot ‘wounded’ but seldom ‘killed’. Rifles ‘killed’ better than shotguns and ‘wounded’ less. There was no regime that had no probability of ‘wounding’; however, the latter varied dramatically across the trials with different types of gun, ammunition and shooters' skill level. Mitigating factors such as the use of second shots or dogs are discussed.

Keywords

animal welfarered foxrifleshootingshotgunwounding
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 2: The Three Rs: past, present and future , May 2005 , pp. 93 - 102
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon 1998 Agreement on international humane trapping standards between the European Community, Canada and the Russian Federation. Official Journal No. L 042, 14/02/1998 P. 0043 — 0057. Amendments: See 298A0214(01) (OJ L 042 14.02.98 p 42), Adopted by 398D0142 (OJ L 042 14.02.98 p 40)Google Scholar
Baker, P and Harris, S 1997 How Will a Ban on Hunting Affect the British Fox Population? Electra Publishing: Cheddar, UKGoogle Scholar
Bertsden, J (ed) 1999 Shooting of Game/Crippling/Wounding. The Ministry of Environment and Energy, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, EL and Bateson, P 2000 Welfare implications of culling red deer (Cervus elaphus). Animal Welfare 9: 3–24Google Scholar
Bucknell, R 2001 Foxing with Lamp and Rifle. Foxearth Publishing: PO Box 6419, Springfield, Chelmsford, UKGoogle Scholar
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 1997 Assessment of Humaneness of Vertebrate Control Agents. Evaluation of Fully Approved or Provisionally Approved Products under the Control of Pesticide Regulations 1986, Food and Environment Protection Act, 1985, Part III. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, G and von Essen, H 1998 Moose Shot at and not Retrieved in Sweden. Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife ManagementGoogle Scholar
Faraway Films 2003 Welfare Aspects of Shooting Foxes. Film on DVD. The All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group on Hunting with Dogs, c/o Lembit Opik MP, The House of Commons, London, UKGoogle Scholar
Fox, NC and Macdonald, H 1997 Welfare Aspects of Killing or Capturing Wild Vertebrates in Britain. The Hawk Board, PO Box 19, Carmarthen, UKGoogle Scholar
Fox, NC, Rivers, S, Blay, N, Greenwood, AG and Wise, DG 2003 Welfare Aspects of Shooting Foxes. The All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group, c/o Lembit Opik MP, The House of Commons, London, UKGoogle Scholar
Geddes, Lord 2001 Written Parliamentary Question 10 May 2001, HansardGoogle Scholar
Harris, S 2003 Verbal report to Labour Party ConferenceGoogle Scholar
Health and Safety Executive 2003 Assessment of an Experimental Permit: T3327 as a vertebrate control agent against foxes. Biocides and Pesticides Unit: Magdalen House, Bootle, Merseyside, UKGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, DW, Tattersall, F, Johnson, P, Carbone, C, Reynolds, J, Langbein, J, Rushton, S and Shirley, M 2000 Managing British Mammals: Case Studies from the Hunting Debate. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Mullineaux E, Best D and Cooper JE (eds) 2003 British Small Animal Veterinary Association Manual of Wildlife Casualties. BSAVA: Quedgeley, Gloucestershire, UKGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, J 2000 Fox control in the countryside. Special Report. The Game Conservancy Trust: Fordingbridge, Hampshire, UKGoogle Scholar
SAS 1986 SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 6 Edition. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, USAGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, AW, Bennett, PM and Kirkwood, JK 1995 The welfare of free-living wild animals in Europe: harm caused by human activities. Animal Welfare 4: 183–206Google Scholar
Swann, WJ 2000 Wounding rates from shooting in foxes. Submission to the Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs: The Burns Report. Available at: www.HuntingEnquiry\evidence2\shootingswann.htmGoogle Scholar
Urquhart, KA and McKendrick, IJ 2003 Survey of permanent wound tracts in the carcasses of culled wild red deer in Scotland. Veterinary Record 152: 497–501Google Scholar