Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Presuming you stay in a defensive posture, it seems the odds would be on you losing occasionally. The alternative response is to go on the attack and hunt down the fox. Why should the fox be the one to dictate terms? :)
    • Why should the fox be the one to dictate terms?

      Simple, council regulations. Shooting foxes is simply not allowed in suburbia, and with good reason. The chances of hitting a quickly moving fox, at night, in a built-up area, is virtually nil. The chances of hitting property, or worse still a person, is greater than nil.

      Fox poison comes with significant regulatory burdens in the country, including signage, limit to the length that bait can be left, informing of neighbours, and distance to other properties. In suburbia it's simply not allowed. The chance of someone's cat or dog finding the poison (which may be moved and partially eaten by the fox) is too high.

      We can try to trap the fox, but doing so is hard. I had previously thought that our current chicken run would trap the animal if it ever found a way in, I simply didn't anticipate it to find a way to squeeze out the leaf-exit on the roof (an opotion that has now been closed). The local council doesn't have fox traps. It's uneconomical to purchase a trap for a single fox, plus most foxes are smart enough to recognise and avoid a trap when they see one.

      To top it all off, there are plenty of foxes in Melbourne. If one disappears, there's a good chance another will move into its territory.

      So yes, I would dearly love to eliminate the fox entirely, but doing so is likely to be time-consuming, expensive, and only temporarily effective.