Author Topic: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets  (Read 7140 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Narei Mooncatt

  • Hero Member
  • Knight of the Road
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 4119
National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« on: March 09, 2011, 05:11:02 am »


Must. Resist. Making. Bad. Furry. Joke.

So I spotted this on the magazine rack about an hour ago, so obviously I had to get it. Not sure if I'll read the article before bed, since it's about that time for me. Still. The cover. Who wouldn't want a fox?  :P
I've got a 53' tail. Truck driver by trade, professional tourist by choice.

Offline Fenny the Fox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2011, 06:07:13 am »
Knew about it before. But I had gotten some bad info (darned internet is good for that  :o).
 
When we got the issue of NG, dad immediately had to show me (I literally squeaked at how cute the cover is...he was amused to say the least). Already read most of it (haven't had time to finish  :'( ).

Very interesting article if you like genetics or such, or foxes.  :D
F[Fennec]CF3a A C D H++ M- P+++ R T+ W Z! Sm RLET a cln+ d! e+ f+ h+ i+ j+ p+ sm+

P[red panda]/>F[fennec] B++ BB+ C+ E+ FF++ I+ >M MM- N+ O+ Tru* a

Offline Narei Mooncatt

  • Hero Member
  • Knight of the Road
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 4119
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2011, 06:12:20 am »
Yeah, it's pretty well known that some people do keep foxes as pets, only it's always been seen as something exotic that you have to be specially trained for and give them special care. The cover eludes to them being able to care for them no different than any other pet, more or less, and could become more of an every day pet to consider.
I've got a 53' tail. Truck driver by trade, professional tourist by choice.

Offline Shim

  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 4498
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2011, 10:50:22 am »
The caption I want to put on the cover is "yoo lookin` at ME?"

Offline Zhono Veranhaut

  • Sr. Member
  • Species: Chocobo
  • Some things never change it seems.
  • ****
  • Female
  • Posts: 310
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2011, 11:45:46 am »
 :D SSSSSSSSSQQQQQQQUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.....

I saw this in our school libraries magazine rack, I would just LOVE to own a pet fox.

Offline TCD

  • Hero Member
  • Furry Elitist
  • *****
  • Female
  • Posts: 1197
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2011, 12:10:46 pm »
Oh god, no.

National Geographic, what are you doing? What have you done?
Avatar by David Hopkins
My Furaffinity! May contain mature images.
FFLw3ad A C D+ H++ M- P+++ R++ T++ W Z- Sf+ RLGP* a cn++ d+ e++ f+ h i++ p* sm+

Offline Hayaikawa

  • Hero Member
  • May your dreams be plentiful and lucid
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 3405
    • My youtube account
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2011, 04:05:03 pm »
man this story is old as heck x.x

 If you interested in lucid dreaming just drop me a PM or stop by the lucid dreaming thread I'll be happy to answer any of your questions.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2625411/#cid:19342751
All is possible in a dream.

Offline Fenny the Fox

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2011, 06:01:05 pm »
man this story is old as heck x.x

It is, but they set the record straight on some issues (mainly being the claims that the breeding was originally intent upon more accessible fur trade/fur animals, which is not true at all). And gives some interesting insight into the overall changes the foxes underwent (that was hard to find in one place before - you kinda had to piece it all together from multiple sources) - both physical and behavioral. As well as linking this research with other, similar projects elsewhere. So it was a good article, really.

That they could actually domesticate the foxes in so little time (relatively speaking) was very interesting to me. And makes me want one all the more - with the ease of care and less propensity for instability and unpredictable behavior inherent in wild caught/early generation "tame" foxes most people have kept over the years [including the Fennecs you can buy and keep as pets: much as I want one, they are hard to take care of when you get down to it].
F[Fennec]CF3a A C D H++ M- P+++ R T+ W Z! Sm RLET a cln+ d! e+ f+ h+ i+ j+ p+ sm+

P[red panda]/>F[fennec] B++ BB+ C+ E+ FF++ I+ >M MM- N+ O+ Tru* a

Offline Lynk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Male
  • Posts: 211
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2011, 06:58:21 pm »
Well, time to re-subscribe to National Geographic...

Offline Ryffnah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Female
  • Posts: 995
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2011, 05:42:14 pm »
They're not quite the same... but, personally, I find Shelties to be a decent approximation.  And much easier to come by.
Is there really a cat paradise?  Find out in Otters In Space.

Spies!  Jet packs!  And a water-phobic feline surrounded by otters!  IN SPACE!  Experience it all in Otters In Space 2: Jupiter, Deadly

Offline Fen-Fen

  • Hero Member
  • lol u mad?
  • *****
  • Female
  • Posts: 1713
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2011, 03:49:44 pm »
Most of the foxes being bred in this experiment are being given as pets to family members or to members of the town the study is being conducted in. Some of the students who were a part of this actually took the foces home night after night until they were old enough to be placed into the cage to continue the experiment.

The foxes that are the most friendly are not red/orange and white. They are actually piebald (think of the black and white patterning on a cow) and that is one trait that has surfaced throughout mating "nice" foxes with other "nice" foxes. Their tails lack a number of vertebrate their wild family members have and they also wag much like a dog's. Their ears also tend to be lopped as well which is another interesting trait. They're also mating foxes who are aggressive with other aggressive foxes to see what genetics can be seen there. This same domestication process is occurring with boars, chickens, and other mammals.

There are critics when it comes to these experiments, of course. I can't remember what their stances were, but they had validity. I just hope they aren't the next popular pet breed. The day I see a typical furry with one is the day I cry myself to sleep.
And I’ll be wearing white when I come into your kingdom,
I’m as green as the ring on my little cold finger,
I’ve never known the lovin' of a man,
But it sure felt nice when he was holding my hand.

Offline Ryffnah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Female
  • Posts: 995
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2011, 01:03:04 am »
I'd heard about the lopped ears being associated with the "nice" fox genes, but I hadn't heard about the piebald coloring.  Interesting!
Is there really a cat paradise?  Find out in Otters In Space.

Spies!  Jet packs!  And a water-phobic feline surrounded by otters!  IN SPACE!  Experience it all in Otters In Space 2: Jupiter, Deadly

Offline Landrav

  • Hero Member
  • Flufftaur
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 2441
    • My FA
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2011, 01:04:26 am »
Without the coloring, aren't tame foxes just the same as hyper little dogs? :/
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/landrav/

I am contractually obliged to state that Fluttershy is the best pony.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2011, 02:26:00 am »
Oh, I think I saw that at the dentist's office. Didn't get a chance to read it as I had to wait only 2 minutes so...
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Fen-Fen

  • Hero Member
  • lol u mad?
  • *****
  • Female
  • Posts: 1713
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2011, 04:41:17 pm »
Without the coloring, aren't tame foxes just the same as hyper little dogs? :/

Pretty much. But even the "untouched" foxes you can still have as pets are the same way (ie Fennec Foxes) and are more able to escape from your home unless properly trained. Smart weird things, ain't they?
And I’ll be wearing white when I come into your kingdom,
I’m as green as the ring on my little cold finger,
I’ve never known the lovin' of a man,
But it sure felt nice when he was holding my hand.

Offline JontheFox

  • Newbie
  • Just being on the Internet
  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 7
    • Shift
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2011, 08:24:18 pm »
I would have multiple foxes already if they didn't cost almost $7,000!  :'(
Schloopy Loopy Arms, ACTIVATE!

Offline Storm Fox

  • The great Myrsky Kettu!
  • Species: Red Fox
  • 'Makes random fox noises'
  • *
  • Posts: 4068
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2011, 08:14:37 pm »
I would have multiple foxes already if they didn't cost almost $7,000!  :'(
Where on earth are you getting $7,000 from. :o

Many breeders in Indiana have foxes ranging from $300 to $1200 depending on age and breed.

And while I’m not sure, I think I remember seeing listings for breeders in Minnesota that were in the $600 range and went up from there.

I’m sure that there are breeders on the east coast as well,
There is no short supply of breeders in the U.S., you just have to look around a bit.

Just be warned, foxes of all breeds are not for the unenergetic and or impatient!
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 08:17:03 pm by Storm Fox »
FCF6adsw A+ C- D H M- P R++ T+++ W Z Sm# RLCT a+ cn++ d e* f h+ i+++ j++ p+ sm#

Offline Landrav

  • Hero Member
  • Flufftaur
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 2441
    • My FA
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2011, 10:24:11 pm »
I suspect there are many peripheral costs to owning a fox.  Some exotic pets can cost tens of thousands of dollars over their lifetimes.  Vet bills alone have to be way up there, since you have to have a special license to practice medicine on "exotic" animals (right?).
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/landrav/

I am contractually obliged to state that Fluttershy is the best pony.

Offline Storm Fox

  • The great Myrsky Kettu!
  • Species: Red Fox
  • 'Makes random fox noises'
  • *
  • Posts: 4068
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2011, 05:46:13 pm »
Not exactly,

Although there are peripheral costs, name me something in life that doesn’t have that.

For example,
The cost of raising a dog can easily be $1,000 per year, if not more, and if the dog were to live to be 15 years old,
That’s $15,000 (If the dog doesn’t get sick.)
The numbers I stated are averaged out from my own experiences,
This link has a considerably accurate depiction.

The cost for foxes and most other similar exotics such as raccoons and skunks, are about the same.

And as for health care,
In the U.S. any vet that has a license to treat wild animals is allowed to care for foxes, raccoons, skunks, or any other wild indigenous animal,
Unless there is a city, county, or state level statute that forbids it, and even then, it may only require an additional license.
Non indigenous animals such as coatimundi may not necessarily fall under the same rules, I honestly don’t know on that one.

But in the case of most veterinary care, it costs the same, whether it’s a fox, a raccoon, or a cat or dog.
And with the possible exception of rare conditions, they use the same medicines that they use for dogs, possibly at a slightly lower dosage.

And while anyone can charge whatever they want, the vet already has the license, and it’s unlikely they have it solely for pet foxes, there’s no market for it,
and if a vet were to take advantage of someone in such a way, I’d say, get a new vet because most veterinarians are not like that.

Other additional cost, are the licensing fees for the owner, which really are not that bad.

All states adhere to one or two of a few different rules, every state is different so you need to do your research.
1. Ownership of any kind is band. (Not common but some states do follow this rule.)
2. Ownership requires a permit or license. (Very common, Prices range from $5 to about $400 depending on how the animal is classified, wild, exotic, farm or fur-bearing, etc.)
3. Ownership requires proof of purchase from a licensed breeder to prove the animal did not come from the wild. (Also very common.)
4. There are no requirements as the local laws simply do not define such situations. (Not common but it does exist.)

In Indiana, you do not need any permit, so long as the animal is properly cared for, and is deemed to not be a threat to others.
In Illinois, it’s a $25 a year permit per animal to propagate any fur-bearing animal for any purpose, except a few that are specifically band,
The permit must be retained at all times.
Both states do require the owner to always retain proof of purchase from a licensed breeder, as it is unlawful to propagate a captured animal.
I do not know the rules for other states off hand, but they are similar.

(A lot of the numbers and rules I mentioned would be as of 2009/2010, since I haven’t download new versions of the state wildlife codes since then.)

- - - - - - - - - -

In short,
Yes, it does cost more, but I was referring to the purchases/adoption price, not the price for lifetime care.
It cost about $900 a year to about $1200 a year to raise a dog, a cat, a fox, a raccoon, or a skunk.
Exotic animals may cost a little more, but no more than 5% to 10% more than Domestic animals.
And finally, medical costs are always a huge variable, but it’s still about the same, and at the most no more than 5% to 10% more than Domestic animals,
As long as your veterinarian is a real person and not a monster, because some really are monsters. x_x
« Last Edit: April 23, 2011, 06:17:02 pm by Storm Fox »
FCF6adsw A+ C- D H M- P R++ T+++ W Z Sm# RLCT a+ cn++ d e* f h+ i+++ j++ p+ sm#

Offline Landrav

  • Hero Member
  • Flufftaur
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 2441
    • My FA
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2011, 10:33:28 pm »
Thanks for the explanation!  I guess it makes sense that the lifetime expenses are about the same.
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/landrav/

I am contractually obliged to state that Fluttershy is the best pony.

Offline Brad9995

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Male
  • Posts: 95
Re: National Geographic March 2011: Foxes as pets
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2011, 06:31:26 pm »
fox's for pets!!!! whats next a cure for all cancer!!  :D