Foxes haven been spotteted in urban settlements and stand as a symbol for the conflict of seing them as a nuisance or accepting them as integrated part of urban ecosystems.
Urban fox in a London park (Moesch 2017)
In the dense light of dawn, when the streetlights at Arlington Road in Camden Town are about to be turned on, he comes out from his home. A spark of auburn fur appears on the street, almost as if a trivial flame enlightens the grey monotone city. It is Jeffrey the urban fox. Like his neighbors the rats and pigeons, he is a citizen of the city, a citizen of London. He has lived underneath the earth, in his den, right beside the church of our Lady of Hal of Camden with his vixen for generations. His great-great-grandparents from the countryside started a journey in 1944 and followed the scent of human cuisine towards the city. Now, their great-great-grandchild Jeffrey lives in luxury. There is nothing he will not eat – dog food, cheeseburgers and lasagna from the Italian restaurant around the corner. However, tonight there seems to be no luck. It is Christmas Eve, but of course, Jeffrey will not know that restaurants are closed and trashcans are emptier than usual. He could go try to catch a rat or search the nearby bins, but he could also attempt to visit Mrs. Kingston’s Garden in Albert Street No.64a. This senior lady usually gives him cat food. Jeffrey tries his luck, lingers down the empty road, and sneaks into the garden area behind Albert Street. However, Jeffrey avoids one specific garden. One evening a few weeks ago, when Jeffrey tried to eat some sparkling fish from Mr. Miller’s koi pond, he send his dog, a pit bull named Barf, after him. This encounter left Jeffrey nasty scar and limping leg. Jeffrey arrives at the garden door of Mrs. Kingston’s house. The lights are out. She does not seem to be home, but the caring elderly woman left some cat food at the veranda for him. Grinning, he gulps down the fancy arrangement of bunny liver for senior cats. Just as he is about to fish the exquisite dinner a sudden sound echoes through the air, like a lightning but without rain or lights. Again. This time he felt something hard strive his back. It is danger. Someone is after him. Jeffrey looks up from his fancy dinner and sees a man. He wears a brown overall and towers above him, a gun in his right hand. The food can wait. Another shot fills the air but missed Jeffrey. It is time to go back home. Tonight his stomach is full. He jumps trough a bush the angry human cannot follow. It is time now to leave the city behind, just for a while. Jeffrey does not have to go far to leave the civilization, he just goes back to his little den beneath the earth right next to the church of our Lady of Hal, where there will be a Christmas mass tomorrow.
Spotted urban foxes in London (Source: Own Creation and Evaluation from Urban-Fox-Survey 2009)
Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) are common in urbanized areas like London. The map shows over 400 marked fox sightings in Greater London from the Urban-Fox-Survey in 2009 by The Telegraph. They are believed to be “the most widely distributed carnivore in the world” (Larivière & Pasitschniak-Arts 1996: 1) and “one of the best-documented examples of a species that has successfully occupied cities and their suburbs during the last century” (Wandeler et al. 2003: 647). Foxes are very adaptable to their habitat and food (Voigt & McDonald 1984). About 150,000 foxes are estimated to be living in British cities (Brinkhurst-Cuff 2017) and about 10,000 in London (Owen 2006; Jones 2016). Although, assumed an isolated phenomena, populations of foxes grew in U.K. cities since the 1930s (Harris & Rayner 1986) due to endless amounts of food waste supplies in (sub)urban areas (Wandeler et al. 2003; Deplazes et al. 2004). Similar cohabitation started in other European cities like Zurich, Switzerland, but the fox seems to have established better in British cities (Gloor et al. 2001). The University of Bristol’s “FoxWebsite” (2007-2014) states that populations have become bigger in urban than in rural areas. Furthermore, there is reduced gene flow between rural and urban fox populations (Wandeler et al. 2003). Thus, the red fox in cities becomes the urban fox. These live in residential areas and not in city centers and industrial areas, in dens underneath the earth (Harris & Rayner 1986; Trewhella & Harris 1996). They live in “families”, not in packs (NCC 2016; Harris & Smith 1987), and are monogamous during mating season (Larivière & Pasitschniak-Arts 1996). However, they are often brought into combination with rabies (Trewhella et al. 1991) and the cyclophyllid tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis (Deplazes et al. 2004), which causes a human disease called Alveolar echinococcosis (Hofer et al. 2000). Gloor et al. (2001: 164) add:
“However, urban foxes are not only a matter of concern with regard to zoonoses control, but also a challenge for people living in cities who have to reconsider their attitudes towards this medium-sized carnivore and new resident in their neighbourhood.”
Newspapers reported on foxes harming children in urban areas, but these have been exaggerated (Woods 2000). Marvin (2000: 208) discusses foxhunting and draws a comparison between the perceptions of foxes in rural areas compared to urban areas: While the fox in the countryside is seen as “pest and vermin because it is in illegitimate killer, […] [f]or many people, especially in urban Brittan, the fox is seen not as a villain but as a victim of an immoral practice.” What is the wild? Woolfson (2013) asks herself the same question in her book “Field notes from a hidden city” after she cares for an injured pigeon and “releases it to the wild”. Which Woolfson (2013) realizes is the windowsills of the church nearby. Woolfson (2013: 5) states: “I began to think about wildness in relation to creatures who live in cities, about whether or not we consider them less wild than creatures living elsewhere, or think of them as somehow a lesser part of nature itself.”
The image of a fox in cities became established in literature - like Guy (1994) and Evans (2015) - but is questioned due the nature of him being a “wild” animal. This paper tries to draw the line to the wilderness theories and wants to see if it exists in cities because of the presence of wild animals, like foxes like Jeffrey or if the wildness is urbanized by the human-animal interaction. Looking at an urban fox survey from the Telegraph in 2009 we see 415 markings in the Greater London area (figure 2) from a total 1,021 markings.
As seen in here positive and negative attitudes towards urban foxes are balanced. Although the amount of “very positive” connotations is higher than the “very negative” ones. In a closer look of some connotationswe see that survey-contributors complain that foxes “are a nuisance in the garden and we would like to get rid of them”, some are “frightened that when [their] grandchildren come they may attack at some point”. Some complain, “they leave the most disgusting scent, gig up and shit in [their] small garden” and “they take shoes and return them months later chewed up”. However, the positive comments state that some “put the dog food and biscuits and any scraps out”. Some even treat them like pets and give them names: “Lola the fox comes into the flat almost every night to say hello. Lola knocks on the window with her paws to let us know that she is there. We always let her inside” or “Joe and Moll, two Foxes who frequent the Convent Garden.”
The graph in figure sums up the most found connotations toward a human-fox-relation in the survey: More than 40 comments use the word “living” towards the foxes, while 40 as well see them as “visitors”, and around 19 comments as “raiding”, “taking over” or similar. Around 28 see them as destroying vermin and 35 that they are loud and smelly.
The wilderness and the wild in the city
Roderick Nash (1967: 3) defined wilderness “as an uncultivated and otherwise undeveloped land [where] [t]he absence of men and the presence of wild animals is assumed.” He explains that “[e]tymotically, the term means ‘wild-deor-ness’ the place of wild beasts” (Nash 1967: 2). Cronon (1996), Callicott & Nelson (1998) and Hall (1992) have cited Nash (1967), but focused on wide-open natural areas and distinguishing between wilderness and cities/civilization. The EU (2012) defines wilderness by large size where human disturbances are abundant. Cronon (1996:7) states: “wilderness stands as the last remaining place where civilization, that all too human disease, has not fully infected the earth. It is an island in the polluted sea of urban-industrial modernity, the one place we can turn for escape from our own too-muchness.” Wilderness and civilization are seen as opponents, where Wilderness is free from human control and urban areas are symbols for human dominance and order. Hinchliffe (1999) sees urban areas as symbol of civiliataion as tamer of nature. Wilderness therefore counts as escape from controlled spaces and humans are able to move between these two worlds (Hall & Frost 2009; Holden 2008; Sæþórsdóttir 2010) – as seen in figure 6. If we assume that wilderness is - as Nash (1967) explains – “the place of wild animals”, why does this need to be an opponent to civilization and cities? Although, Callicott & Nelson (1998), Hall (1992) and Sæþórsdóttir (2010; 2013) see wilderness as the vast spaces away from the city, according to Nash’s (1967) definition wilderness could be found in urban areas where it is a “place of wild beasts” or according to Cronon (1996) an “island in the polluted sea of urban-industrial modernity”. Cronon (1996) drew the picture that cities are like a disease and wilderness are uninfected parts. How can he be sure that in urban areas, in the center of the disease, no uninfected islands of wilderness exist?
The metaphor of cities as “wilderness” exists because of vast human interactions that are comparable to wild spaces (Berleant 2000). However, in this essay, we are looking for wilderness-spots in which we could possibly encounter wildness and pristine nature (Sæþórsdóttir 2010; 2013). Does this kind wilderness exist in cities? Gandy (2016) explains that “unintentional landscapes” as wastelands and former industrial spaces are places humans overlook but where sudden habitats for urban biotopes thrive. Philo & Wilbert (2000) explain that some animals live in marginal spaces, which are neither designated “wild” nor “urban”. These are spaces humans avoid and try to overlook, but at the same still code them as “out of place” and space of fear and distaste. Farley & Simmons (2012: 5) give the idea of so-called “edgelands” as “underdeveloped, unwatched territories, you know they have an edge” which are for example dens, landfill sites, sewages etc. These exist “where urban and rural negotiate and renegotiate their borders” (Farley & Simmons 2012: 5). Farley & Simmons (2012: 38) say about dens that these are “a secret place, built outside the confines of the adult world. It is a place of retreat, but also a place of togetherness, a social space, that reinforces allegiances and bonds between small groups or gangs.” They see dens as secret hiding spaces of children away from the adult world, but what if we assume that a den could be a secret hiding place for fox families away from civilization - that they created a small place of “hidden” wilderness.
In “Nighthaunts”, Sukhdev Sandhu (2010) gives a story about a night’s quest of “unseen” urban foxhunting. He meets Bruce, an experienced urban foxhunter, and writes about his excitement and guilt as he recalls positive memories about his fox encounters and witnesses the shooting of urban foxes in London. Sandhu’s story mirrors attitudes towards London’s foxes and wilderness. Bruce, the hunter sees them as unfit to urban areas and wants to shot then, while Sandhu questions these actions, feels guilt for the dead foxes and tries to convince himself that this is understandable. He sums up that a fox being shot is like a person having a sudden stroke, that he will not even realize he had been killed and that these “wild” animals can cause distress to human lives.
Due to growing urbanization impacts on wildlife grows – animals in cities become common (Wolch & Emel 1998; Philo & Wilbert 2000;). However, there are differences in human-animal relationships in urban areas, which are demonstrated in the table:
Animals like foxes live in cities but not like a cat in a house or a bear in a zoo. They seem more “wild” and more unfitting, since they were not intend to be there. Humans have categorized animals according to their use for humankind; they are allotted to specific places in which we see them having their habitat (Philo and Wilbert 2000). Michelfelder (2003: 82) explains that these animals are seen “as creatures out of place and as unwelcome visitors, somewhat akin to illegal aliens who do not speak the local language and never will”. Foxes are no city animals according the allotted-animal-space-perception and therefore are seen as “creature out of place”. Griffiths et al. (2000: 60) clarify: “Those animals which transgress the boundary between civilization and nature […], which do not stay in their allotted space, are commonly sources of abjection, engendering feelings of discomfort or even nausea” (Griffiths et al. 2000: 60).
“Wild” animals seem unfitting in cities, since humans see wildness and cities as opposites (Hall 1992; Cronon 1996) and rather accept animals which they deliberately introduced into the city like zoo animals and pets (Michelfelder 2003; Palmer 2003) – but foxes “transgress the boundary”: Like humans (figure 6) the fox can “walk” between these two worlds. The fox is boundary crosser in times of “shrinking” wilderness. Palmer (2003) explains that humans have moral responsibility towards urban wildlife, because these try to make a living in cities, like their ancestors used to in the wild. Michelfelder (2003: 83) gives the idea that “their integration into city life, rather than translocating or even eliminating them, given that they already call the city their home” is the right thing to do. Hinchliffe et al. (2005) and Hinchliffe & Whatmore (2006) see them already as “urban” and they city as their habitat instead of them as inhabitation the city. This ambiguity is also seen between the London Fox Control (2017), which offers emergency extraction, proofing and exclusion and the FoxWebsite (2007-2014), which explains how to feed urban foxes correctly.
Foxes like Jeffrey have become part of the city, like the pigeons or rats. They live beneath the surface and seek to make a living in urban areas, like his ancestors used to in the wild. Their auburn fur is like a flame in the gray city and still surprises sudden encounters because he does not blur in like pigeons or rats. However, his relationship with citizens of London is a diverse one – some want to see him dead and see him as a vicious health and safety threat while others enjoy having him around, feed him and see him like a friendly majestically neighbor. That is why the fox is neither “wild” nor “urbanized"; he is part of his own “edgeland” ecosystem, some kind of hidden urban wilderness. While Hinchliffe (1999) gives the metaphor of civilization’s tamer of nature and Cronon (1996) of a spreading disease, I rather try to think of urbanization as a “carpet that is placed over wild nature”. Underneath this “civilization-carpet” wilderness is hidden and the bigger the carpet grows the more cracks and holes appear. These show hidden wilderness in form of foxes like Jeffery. When foxes leave their “wilderness” under the carpet and come to the surface humans are surprised to see them. Only if human attitudes about urban foxes change towards one of the extremes, he truly will be wild or urbanized as demonstrate in figure 9: He will be chased away as a wild feral animal (see Mr. Miller) or greeted as an integrated neighbor into the urban ecosystem (see Mrs. Kingston). There are only two options: Help and sustain these “wilderness-cracks” in the “civilization-carpet” or try to seal them off.
References and further reading
Berleant, A. (2000). The Wilderness City: An Essay on Metaphorical Experience. The City as Cultural Metaphor.
Brinkhurst-Cuff, C. (2017). Foxes surge into England’s towns and cities. The Guardian 15 April 2017. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/16/urban-foxes-number-one-for-every-300-residents-study-suggests (11.11.17)
Callicott, J. B., & Nelson, M. P. (Eds.). (1998).The great new wilderness debate. University of Georgia Press.
Cronon, W. (1996). The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environmental History, 1(1), 7-28.
Deplazes, P., Hegglin, D., Gloor, S., & Romig, T. (2004). Wilderness in the city: the urbanization of Echinococcus multilocularis. Trends in parasitology, 20(2), 77-84.
EU – European Union (2012). Draft Guidelines for the management of wilderness and wild areas in Natura 2000. EEA Contract No07.0307/2010/576314/SER/B3. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/wilderness/pdf/guidance.pdf (Accessed 20.11.17).
Evans, Y. (2015). The Adventures of an Urban Fox: Maggie Arrives. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.
Farley, P., & Roberts, M. S. (2012).Edgelands: Journeys into England's true wilderness. Random House.
FoxWebsite (2007-2014). Urban foxes. Overview. Mammal Group, University of Bristol. Retrieved from http://www.thefoxwebsite.net//urbanfoxes/ (Accessed 13.11.16).
Gandy, M. (2002). Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Gloor, S., Bontadina, F., Hegglin, D., Deplazes, P., & Breitenmoser, U. (2001). The rise of urban fox populations in Switzerland. Mammalian Biology, 66, 155-164.
Griffiths, H.; Poulter, I. and D. Sibley (2000). Feral cats in the city. In: Philo, C., & Wilbert, C. (Eds.). Animal spaces, beastly places: new geographies of human-animal relations (Vol. 10). Psychology Press. 56-70.
Guy, J., (1994) .Rak: The Story of an Urban Fox. Julia MacRae Books.
Hall, C. M. (1992). Wasteland to World Heritage. Preserving Australia’s Wilderness. (Melbourne University Press) Melbourne, Australia.
Hall, C.M., & Frost, W. (2009). Introduction. The making of the national parks concept. In W. Frost & C. M. Hall (Eds.), Tourism and National Parks. International perspectives on development, histories and change (pp. 3–15). London: Routledge.
Harris, S., & Rayner, J. M. V. (1986). Urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) population estimates and habitat requirements in several British cities. The Journal of Animal Ecology, 575-591.
Harris, S., & Smith, G. C. (1987). Demography of two urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations. Journal of Applied Ecology, 75-86.
Hinchliffe, S. (1999).Cities and natures: intimate strangers. In Allen, J.; Massey, D. B. & Pyke, M. (Eds). Unsettling Cities: Movement/settlement. London: Routledge. 137-180.
Hinchliffe, S., & Whatmore, S. (2006). Living cities: towards a politics of conviviality. Science as Culture, 15(2), 123-138.
Hinchliffe, S., & Whatmore, S. (2006). Living cities: towards a politics of conviviality. Science as Culture, 15(2), 123-138.
Hinchliffe, S., Kearnes, M. B., Degen, M., & Whatmore, S. (2005). Urban wild things: a cosmopolitical experiment. Environment and planning D: Society and Space, 23(5), 643-658.
Hobson, S. (o.y.). www.samhobson.co.uk (Accessed 22.11.17).
Hofer, S., Gloor, S., Müller, U., Mathis, A., Hegglin, D., & Deplazes, P. (2000). High prevalence of Echinococcus multilocularis in urban red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and voles (Arvicola terrestris) in the city of Zürich, Switzerland. Parasitology, 120(2), 135-142.
Holden, A. (2008). Environment and tourism. London and New York: Routledge.
Jones, L. (2016). The secret life of London’s foxes. Time Out London 30 September 2016 Retrieved from https://www.timeout.com/london/blog/the-secret-life-of-londons-foxes-093016 (11.11.17).
Larivière, S., & Pasitschniak-Arts, M. (1996). Vulpes vulpes. Mammalian species, (537), 1-11.
London Fox Control (2017). Retrieved form http://www.urbanfoxcontrollondon.co.uk/ (Accessed 13.11.16).
Marvin, G. (2000). The problem of foxes Legitimate and illegitimate killing. Natural enemies: people-wildlife conflicts in anthropological perspective, 189.
Michelfelder, D. (2003). Valuing Wildlife Populations in Urban Environments, Journal of Social Philosophy 34:1.
Nash, R. (1967). Wilderness and the American mind: Roderick Nash. New Haven, Conn, Yale University Press.
NCC - Newcastle City Council (2016): The Urban Fox. Downloaded from https://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/default/files/wwwfileroot/planning-and-buildings/planning-applications/wildlife_the_urban_fox_web144.pdf (15.11.17).
Owen, J. (2006). 10,000 Foxes Roam London. National Geographic News May 15, 2006. Retrieved from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/foxes-london.html (accessed 13.11.17).
Palmer, C. (2003). Placing Animals in Urban Environmental Ethics, Journal of Social Philosophy 34:1.
Philo, C. (1998). Animals, Geography, and the City. Notes on Inclusions and Exclusions. In: Wolch, J. R., & Emel, J. (Eds.). Animal geographies: Place, politics, and identity in the nature-culture borderlands. Verso. 51-67.
Philo, C. and Wilbert, C. (2000). Animal Spaces, Beastly Places. London: Routledge
Sæþórsdóttir, A. D. (2010). Tourism struggling as the Icelandic wilderness is developed. In: Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3). S. 334-357.
Sæþórsdóttir, A. D. (2013). Managing popularity: Changes in tourist attitudes in a wilderness destination. Tourism Management Perspectives, 7, 47-58.
Sandhu, S. (2010). Nighthaunts. A journey through the London night. London: Artangel.
Trewhella, W. J., & Harris, S. (1990). The effect of railway lines on urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) numbers and dispersal movements. Journal of Zoology, 221(2), 321-326.
Trewhella, W. J., Harris, S., Smith, G. C., & Nadian, A. K. (1991). A field trial evaluating bait uptake by an urban fox (Vulpes vulpes) population. Journal of Applied Ecology, 454-466.
Urban-Fox-Survey (2009): Urban Fox Count: The Daily Telegraph launches study to count urban foxes. The Telegraph Online 27 Feb 2009. Retrieved from: Information: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/4862873/Urban-Fox-Count-The-DailyTelegraph-launches-study-to-count-urban-foxes.html (Accessed 20.11.17). Map:https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1JXP7z8nD9544RooQlGsC5yOR6m0&hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&ll=54.316523,-0.263672&spn=9.377341,19.248047&z=6 (Accessed 20.11.17). ).
Voigt, D. R., & Macdonald, D. W. (1984). Variation in the spatial and social behaviour of the red fox, Vulpus vulpes. Acta Zoologica Fennica [ACTA ZOOL. FENN.]. 1984.
Wandeler, P., Funk, S. M., Largiader, C. R., Gloor, S., & Breitenmoser, U. (2003). The city‐fox phenomenon: genetic consequences of a recent colonization of urban habitat. Molecular Ecology, 12(3), 647-656.
Wolch, J. (1996). Zoopolis, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 7, 21-48.
Wolch, J. R., & Emel, J. (Eds.). (1998). Animal geographies: Place, politics, and identity in the nature-culture borderlands. Verso.
Woods, M. (2000). Fantastic Mr Fox?. In: Philo, C., & Wilbert, C. (Eds.).Animal spaces, beastly places: new geographies of human-animal relations (Vol. 10). Psychology Press. 185-204.
Woolfson, E. (2013). Field notes from a hidden city. An urban nature diary. Granta Publications, London.