Talk:Red fox

Range Map

 The range map for this article does not highlight Japan, but the article specifically mentions the Japanese subspecies and has a photograph of it. Could someone rectify this?

Fox tail wagging

Hi

Could somebody answer a few questions on the Red Fox.

1) Does foxes wag their tails when pleased, the way domestic dogs do? 2) Do Foxes like tummy rubs?

Yes, these are serious questions: if the answer is no, please forgive my ignorance. I used to have a Red Fox as a pet when I was a Kid and can not remember if he liked or did that stuff.

Thanks

Corky Fox

• Did you really have a pet fox? How did you get it? User:George cowie

The answer to the first question is yes, like most canines they do. The second question answer varies from animal to animal, in the same way each person likes certain things, some foxes like tummy rubs and some don't.

Mikal

phhht- the answer to the first question is no, they don't 'wag their tails'. --Electrically Powered Fox 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you, but Foxes do wag their tails at each other, that's how they talk to each other, and to tell who's the top Fox and when She's ready for mating and let go hunting.

As the for actually coming up to you and at the same time wagging it's tail not likely - I should know, I raised a orphan Red fox Kit back in the 70s early 80s on my grandfathers farm. His name was CORKY!

The Real Corky Fox! S/E Wisconsin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.132.218 (talk • contribs) 02:03, January 1, 2006 (UTC)

(Aw man, don't make me mark articles as unsigned for a few hours, I have to convert the hour, month, day, *and* year from my local time zone! :p :p ) --AySz88^-^ 03:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I know Silver foxes Wag.--70.165.71.229 21:54, 22 January 2007 (

Well, I would know. That's a yes to both questions. Now on question 2, that's also a yes, but it depends on the fox and the way you do it. You see, foxes can get startled easily, but don't hold their anger very long. If you want to give a fox a tummy-rub, do it gradually. After two times, the fox will get used to it. After four times, the fox will really enjoy it. She or he will start to like it very much, but be careful. They like it a lot. Bye! That was embarrassing.ANNAfoxlover 01:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Red fox in Turkey

On an equally absurd note, [1] says that Turkey renamed the Vulpes vulpes kurdistanica to Vulpes vulpes in March 2005. It might be a good idea to mention that in the article. -- Wmahan. 19:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering what that "kurdistanica" bit was about, since it's unlikely that it comes from Linnaeus, and if it can be called "vulpes vulpes", like the common European red fox, what species or subspecies would deserve the additional "kurdistanica" qualification, or why a supposedly European taxonomist would have so called a species so common away from Turkey. --Svartalf 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"kurdistaica" probably because the type animal for the sub-species was probably obtained from that area. The taxonomist does not have to be European, in any case most species are not originally named by taxonomists but rather by the field scientists who discover them. The taxonomists just come along later and try and sort out relationships and whether variations are actually significant enough to be considered subspecies or not. --Michael Johnson 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is a bit of nonsense. Turkey "can't" rename animals, the scientific nomenclature is set by international agreement based on historical precedent and taxonomy. Besides with the subspecies V. vulpes kurdistanica is a subspecies (or if you like a subset) of V. vulpes. So this is not a renaming, just ignoring the fact that the red fox in Turkey is a separate subspecies. Their attempt to rename the wild sheep species name is even more silly. --Michael Johnson 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

nonsense or not... the story is there, and it has been reported by serious enough media that I'm not inclined to dismiss it as a hoax or joke, especially not given the panturanian leanings of recent Turkish governments. I don't know if they really expect the scientific community to follow suit on that kind of bullying, but ridicule is a little enough price to pay for trying.--Svartalf 17:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree the item is not a joke or a hoax, but the Turkish or any other government does not determine scientific names. In any case dropping the sub-species name does not actually change anything, presumably it is the only sub-species in Turkey. Calling it V.vulpes is quite correct in that context. As I said the renaming of the sheep is much more likely to create confusion. I think the story is more about the Turkish government than red foxes. --Michael Johnson 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it is called "Vules Fulva".Is this an old way?--70.165.71.229 01:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vulpes fulva is an alternative, but not commonly accepted, scientific name. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article. --Michael Johnson 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging Cross Fox

You know, I don't see where it's been suggested to merge the two articles together, but frankly, after reading the article on Cross Foxes, it might be a fairly good idea, y'know? Cernen 09:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears to have been done. --AySz88^-^ 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Article name capitals

Shouldn't the name of this article be Red fox, with a lowercase F? --AySz88^-^ 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), the answer is no. However, I think that maybe this should be decided on a case by case basis. "Red fox" is probably more common than "Red Fox", and I haven't ever heard anyone say "red fox" meaning foxes that are red.

I can also understand the need for conventions, so that people know, when reading Wikipedia, whether a reference to an animal is a description or a particular species.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Going by the convention that only things used as proper names in everyday speech are to be capitalized, it wouldn't be, though I wasn't aware of the naming conventions for fauna page. That page doesn't seem to have been kept up though, since some of the examples it cites countradict what the example is supposed to illustrate (i.e. what not to redirect). --AySz88^-^ 01:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Only positive thing about Foxes is Fur?

The Article states that the only thing that Foxes are liked for by Humans is their fur...

"Red Foxes have both positive and negative standing with humans; while they are vectors of disease and a bane of poultry farmers, these foxes are also important to the fur industry."

Although it may be true that they are killed for fur, I think that the General public likes them for many very different reasons. I mean speaking from personal experience people like Foxes and enjoy seeing them, it's only Farmers and some other country people who hate them.(at least that's what I've seen in my country, maybe it's different elsewhere?) I can think of at least one positive thing they do, they hunt rodents--Hibernian 03:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Foxes surely provide more important things than fur. It's usually a matter of opinion, unless you're talking to a farmer. I'm in the US, and it's either farmers or people who just don't like them. Thunderlord 13:21, 13 March 2006.

I think people mainly like foxes because they look nice, similar to dogs. User:George cowie

I agree that the sentence should be changed, but I'm not sure what it can be changed to. --AySz88^-^ 01:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at it. Any better? Coyoty 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's alot better now.--Hibernian 06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thank you so much. this site has help me so much with me project on the red fox. I got my whole project done by just using your page!! It was great!!! It made it a lot easier and faster. Thank you!!! I got a a on the project!!! Happy thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.136.161 (talk • contribs)

Red fox subspecies and distribution

Referring to the Turkish situation above, and looking at the article, this article does need the disribution section expanded, and a full list of subspecies added. Anyone up to the task? I mostly know about Aussie animals, and don't have access to any suitable texts. --Michael Johnson 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've done a bit of reorganising here:

• a whole lot of rather miscellaneous and anthropocentric stuff had got into the opening paragraph. I have shoved most of it down the end in a new section called "Foxes and humans"
• I've added some remarks in that new section about foxes in folklore. This could become a rich section if anyone would like to add to it.
• I've put a prominent remark about the Tame Silver Fox in the opening para, which seems to be enough a link to justify taking the merge proposal off.
• The earliest versions of this page seem to have used British spelling and vocabulary, so I have reverted some recent changes to US forms. Since the Red Fox is found in both continents, there is no particular case for either convention so it should go by priority.

There is still stuff that needs doing. The section on behaviour (particularly mating systems) is a mess, which is unnecessary considering how well this species has been researched. However it needs someone to read the primary literature and summarise its main trends - there are some contradictory findings out there (probably because of the adaptability of this species) and it needs a bit of work to sort out what are typical findings and what are less usual variations. seglea 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

foxes and Australia

I've edited the article to give some more emphasis to the problems of foxes in Australia, which is a far more serious problem than most editors here seem to be aware of. --Michael Johnson 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nice work, Michael - this article needs to improve. But I question putting the Australian range in the Introduction - it is already there in the Distribution section just under, which would be the usual place for it. I have moved to a more prominent place in the Distribution bit. By the way, do you happen to know if they were taken to New Zealand as well? seglea 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no foxes in New Zealand today, however I don't know if an introduction was attempted. If it was, thank goodness it failed! --Michael Johnson 00:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Foxes and humans

Repetition of a misrepresentation:

. . where fox hunting with dogs was a traditional sport, until this was made illegal on February 18 2005. . .

. . A prominent cultural impact is that on fox hunting which became illegal in Scotland in August 2002 and in England and Wales in February 2005.

The latter does not appear to be related to the first sentence of the last paragraph, so the section could end

Greater visibility in nature documentaries and sympathetic portrayals in fiction have improved the Red Fox's reputation and appeal in recent years.

(though I don't condone this conclusion).

The hunting of foxes throughout the UK is still legal, the only difference is the number of hounds and method of killing; flushing to guns with no more than two dogs.

The hunting of fox scent from the remains by a foxhound pack, (trail hunting) is still legal in the UK.

There is mention at February_18, but not 2005 so the latter wiki is unrequired. Hence let's just start this section

The Red Fox has both positive and negative standing with humans, often being loved or hated. This has been most visible in the United Kingdom where the traditional method of fox hunting became illegal in Scotland in August 2002 and in England and Wales on February 18 2005.

and new paragraph for

The fox features in much folklore, . .

This may be a suitable section to mention impact of the Urban Fox in the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanft (talk • contribs) .

Warm or Cold Blooded?

Is the Red Fox cold or warm blooded? The article doesn't seem to have this information....--Fissionfox 02:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, being a mammal, one could safely assume it is warm blooded. I don't think all the articles about mammals contain information of that nature and in my opinion it isn't really necessary-K37 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok thanks, just making sure--Fissionfox 10:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

questions

How does a red fox regulate their water balance? What are some internal responses to an external environment? How does the red fox use the circulatory and respiratory system to adjust internal conditions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.15.196 (talk • contribs).

Dispersal

"Sometimes young foxes disperse promptly on maturity (approx. 8-10 months); sometimes they remain in their natal territory and assist in raising the next year's offspring"

Is this true? This is typical pack-animal behavior, and foxes are solitary. --I80and 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've not found any information supporting the "pack" fox information, but according to OzFoxes FoxWeb, it wouldn't happen. So I'm going to remove it. --I80and 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Inapropriate image

There is an image in this article that shows "a Red Fox standing over a freshly killed animal" and is inapropriate in my opinion. It gives people a bad first impression of red foxes. Sure, we'll kill animals every now and then, but we do it to survive! No human will give us any food, except if we're in a cage! I think this image is inapropriate for this article, and I hope someone will remove it from the article soon, because I am offended by it. And one more question: Who added that image, and, more importantly, THE CAPTION??? ANNAfoxlover 23:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh please! The animal is a carnivore. They kill and eat other animals. Get over it. The image is attached to a section on the diet. Highly appropiate. --Michael Johnson 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of carnivores, Michael Johnson... ANNAfoxlover 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hu? So what is your point? --Michael Johnson 01:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

HuH? Don't you know anything? ANNAfoxlover 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about humans being carnivores also, which they are. See KFC, Burger King, Big Mac, Arby's, Thanksgiving dinner, Taco Bell, Wendy's, fried chicken, and all those other things. I'm sure foxes and humans are carnivores. You've cinvinced me that foxes are an invasive species, even though I don't like it. But now I must convince YOU that HUMANS are an invasive species. Ask some questions, okay? Thank you. ANNAfoxlover 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well humans are actually Omnivores, and often eat too much meat. And yes in many contexts they are an invasive species. However this article is about red foxes. --Michael Johnson 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

By the picture on your user page, it sure looks like you are human. Nothing wrong with that, really, but what are your favorite foods? Or at least most humans' favorite foods? By the way, the picture on the top of the omnivore page looks like what humans do naturally. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While I accept that the image is appropriate, is there evidence that this prey is freshly killed? Or is that artistic licence? MikeHobday 08:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture is a US Fisheries & Wildlife official photo, and comes with the caption "Red fox with prey", so we can take it as legitimate. Freshly killed? most probably. Foxes tend to eat and run. Prey, certainly. --Michael Johnson 09:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

US Fisheries & Wildlife have confirmed that the animal has not been freshly killed. The animal was placed there so most people would think that it had been recently killed by the fox. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 00:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)