The Fourth Red Paper That Will NEVER Be Published

I mentioned at one point a fourth Red Paper. The 2010 Red Paper basically showed all of the research I was ready to publish in 2010. That counted as Volume 1 of the Canids work.

I published the Red Paper 2022 Vol. 1 -Canids and The Red Paper 2022 Vol. 2 -Felids. These were fully comprehensive and the totality of the research from 1976-2021.  The late Dr David Bellamy described the 2010 paper as "explosive" -I wonder what he would have said of the updates?

The technically 4th Red Paper would have been the Bristol Fox Deaths Study -looking at the results of post mortems on over 80 foxes that died in Bristol. It was the first study of its kind in the UK and this quote from a post explains why it will not be printed:

Bristol Foxes Study Looking At Causes of Mortality

  The finding and notes presented here are entirely my own and based on the conclusions of post mortems carried out on foxes from Bristol which I submitted as the "owner" of and I am therefore permitted to give out this information without hinderance. No material is quoted or copied from the post mortem reports themselves.

It may be that certain parties do not wish to educate veterinarians, wildlife rescuers and the public on fox health matters (for whatever undisclosed reason) but it has been my stated aim since the outset to educate and inform.

As  Langford is listed as an APHA Post Mortem Centre and it was where the APHA told me that dead foxes would need to be taken then they have a certain responsibility in this matter especially as they received some of the PM reports. Submission forms for each fox went to Bristol University Post Mortem Services (BUPMS)   for submitting to Langford Veterinary School (LVS) and where foxes were handled by LVS staff and therefore BUPMS and LVS are also responsible for what takes place on their premises and through their service -BUPMS received copies of the PM reports.

Both LVS/BUPMS and APHA were made fully aware of the actions taken to stop use of the post mortem reports; they were furnished with a copy of the draft report as well as all email communications on the matter which included the threats made against me and uncalled for and unprofessional actions taken against myself and my publishing company.

After more than a THREE weeks I have not heard from any of the parties involved and the natural assumption is that someone they employ (LVS) and use for post mortems (APHA and BUPMS) being allowed to threaten via email and take legal actions against my company over a draft copy of a paper that was NOT published is sanctioned by them.  These bodies have all received copies of the PM reports so have taken the data from the Project.  I, as the person who started the project am not allowed to quote or "use any part" of those reports. With no response from any of the parties involved but continued threats, I have to assume that it was never intended to allow me to use information from fox post mortems even though, legally as declared on the submission forms, I was listed as the "owner".

                                                     ---------

Months later there has still been no response and when I approached one of the bodies involved about a fox that had died and the vet thought trhat it might be suffering from a disease I was told (paraphrasing) “We are not going to accept anything you submit”. I have to admit that I am still stumped about what was going on and why within a few hours of receiving the draft paper the pathologist descended into abuse and even went after my publishing business which had nothing to do with the paper –it was NOT published. I am told that my name has been maligned by a certain person  twice since this hence my needing to make the situation clear.

Here is a copy of my desk book entry –made in front of the pathologist at Langford when we met up and all confirmed as we talked. Read back to him and receiving a “fine” from him.

There are still foxes being submitted but I am not permitted to know the results or the real reason why all of this happened. I just do not think that it was expected that I would produce a full report  but maybe a “fox lover mini paper” –I have no idea but considering everything was explained and updated as I went along I have to face the fact that none of those involved intended for a serious report to be  submitted and, though I HATE to write it; a cover up followed.

I can share PM results just not the ins and outs only what I was involved in. The Fourth Red Paper is therefore not going to appear.