Oh..foxes...I hadn't thought of that! Earlier this year I planted a yew hedge in my front garden. I too planted them with bonemeal and chicken poo pellets. I also put on a cocoa shell mulch. I too found them "scratched" one day - though it only happened the once. They didn't actually dig up the bed, but the surface was all scratched like something had had a go at digging the whole bed - I assumed it was someone's dog.

You could try laying down a chicken-wire mesh over the soil and between the bushes: anchor it down with weighty rocks. Not pretty but should make it difficult for them to dig them up until they get bored with it. Maybe it's the smell of bonemeal?

Alcina

Spot on Alcina. Bonemeal does have quite a nice "eat me" smell. It could just be dogs though. However, expect many more problems in the future now that hunting with dogs has been banned. We were free-ranging hens when the ban was introduced in Scotland (and not in an area with a pack of hounds, but people did use dogs to flush foxes) and we lost over 300 hens to foxes between Easter and November by which time we had decided to sell up - we did regular counts of all stock as we had to complete monthly returns to the Ministry of Ag. Fox populations will increase and they will become much more of an urban problem because there are easier pickings there than in rural areas. Ah well, "the people" wanted it. Old McDonald.

How many hens did you normally lose before the ban came in? surely the hounds were not hunting everyday so you must have still lost a number of hens. I am sorry to hear that you had such troubles but I am one of "the people" who wanted the ban, and would still want it now.
Alison

I'd actually suspect a wandering dog, having found one of my dogs up to his ears in the bag of blood and bone two days ago.

If you have sheep manure pellets you might find those are a suitable slow-release substitute for the bonemeal. The ones with a good proportion of wool in the mix are useful.

I also read a thread from someone who had planted out and put dog hair around the planting with some success for keeping unwanted creatures away. Do you have access to someone who grooms airedales? :-)

tis' only hear-say but i've been led to believe that lion sh*t (available from garden centres) is a good way of getting the unwanted bits of bristish nature off of ya land, or you could just try vegetative fetilisers

Thanks for all your suggestions! I replanted yesterday, and at the suggestion of a friend I sprinkled some garlic flakes and pepper over the top of the beds. They remained undisturbed last night, although it may just be a coincidence. If I get a recurrence, I'll try the lion poo and alternative fertilisers you've all suggested! I want to avoid covering the bed with chicken wire unless I have to, but it's a great suggestion if all else fails. Thanks for the help.

Lots of foxes in London, they've never been hunted here! Not many chicken farms though...but I doubt the two are actually related! :)

Alcina

Alison, In the previous 5 years about one a week - plus a few to a cougar. Yes positive identification at close range on 2 separate occasions by several people. A lot of people did hunt with dogs, and there was someone with a few foxhounds, not a formal pack, that hunted on foot. No doubt foxes moved in from other areas once the hunting stopped. I am not suggesting there was a sudden increase in the birth rate of foxes, just a big decrease in the death rate. Old McDonald.

I can assure you that London foxes do live on chicken, but being better educated than their country cousins, they balance their diet with fruit.
{{gwi:2117011}}

Moriati

Sorry old Macdonald butb thats rubbish about fox numbers going up after the ban. Hunts have never really affected fox numbers and have admitted that in the past, Foxes are predators and as such control a territory which they defend against others of the same species. All predators do the same whether it be peregrines, wolves, or prides of lions.Territory is food supply and that is the limiting factor on numbers which is why territories are smaller in town ehere there is more food...I think Bristol has highest density of foxes.
Main cause of death is probably starvation - lot of cubs die in summer after being kicked out of the den and they are harrassed from one territory to the next by the sitting tenants.
I know several farmers who have never allowed hunts on their land and never allow shooting of foxes cause they are useful ie. keep down mice, voles, rabbits etc and they certainly don't get overrun with foxes. Thats also why Ministry of Agr does not register them as pest.
Also why were the hunts providing special cover for foxes to breed in and even building artificial breeding dens for the vixens???

Best way of keeping foxes of an area of land is to sprinkle the area liberally with humane urine. It works a treat on my allotment. Hugh F-W recommended it on the most recent series of River Cottage when he was wanting to protect his flock of geese from foxes on the village green.

Sorry that should have been human urine not humane urine! must have been thinking about the fox hunting debate.

I thought the suggestion of lion poo was not suitable for deterring foxes - i thought that was used to deter deer, cannot imagine too many of them in London. Lion poo might have the adverse reaction of attracting packs of Rhodesian Ridgebacks!!

GeoffHandley, Since you are in Shropshire, and I was in the Highlands of Scotland, I fail to see how you can pass comment on the number of foxes in the Highlands. You are permitted to tell me I talk rubbish because I agree with the principle of free speech. However, in this particular case, I and gamekeepers I knew, were satisfied that there were more foxes in the area during 2002 than in 2001.

My knowledge of the use of controlling fox numbers with dogs extends (in the UK) only to the Highlands and Northumberland. In both areas foxes were considered vermin to be killed by any legal means, and I never knew of any farmer who protected a fox at any time of year.

Things might be different in the South, and I too have heard of hunts artificially maintaining fox numbers - but only hearsay evidence, which as we all know is inadmissible in English law. Old McDonald.

I can pass comment on someone who is passing wrong information...and you were commenting on the situation in London. People who know me personally do know that i have a detailed knowledge of British wildlife and ecology which is based on practical observation. I do know farmers, sheep farmers at that who would never allow hunting. This may surprise you, but I also know some who are members of the League Against Cruel Sports ( Iaccidenatlly upset them by expressing surprise that farmers would be members of such an organisation).
I don't write, based on hearsay, i have actually seen it happen, in the same way I saw badgers being relocated to a new area, in the days when it was legal to hunt badgers.
Gamekeepers aren't exactly a disinterested party to ask. Course they are going to say there is an increase. That gives them an excuse as to explain why there might be fewer grouse to shoot and its not really their fault etc...

GeoffHandley, I was not "passing wrong information". I was expressing an opinion that urban dwellers in England can expect an increase in fox numbers due to the ban on hunting with dogs. If I am wrong, then time will tell. You cannot say now that I am "passing wrong information" because the ban has only very recently occurred in England. People who know me also know that I have a detailed knowledge of British (and other countries')wildlife and ecology based on practical observation, much of the observation having occured during sixty years of living on the land and farming in both hemispheres. So there we have it.

If you say you have first hand knowledge of people protecting foxes, or badgers, in your part of the world,then I believe you, but I still maintain that we experienced an increase in the number of foxes in the area in which I lived during the year following the ban on hunting with dogs in Scotland. I concluded that the same increase would occur in England. It is a reasonable supposition that a considerable number of the several thousand formerly killed each winter will survive into the next spring/summer/autumn. I would not expect numbers to dramatically increase again the next year. As you said territory and food supplies will regulate numbers too, but I expect many will adapt and find presently unoccupied territory and food sources in that territory.

You are, however, entirely out of order in accusing my friends of telling lies about the increase. Stick to facts you know and we have no argument because I will not say you are talking rubbish, nor will I accuse you of not telling the truth. Make uninformed and untrue accusations, especially against my friends, and we definitely have an argument. If you accused these fellows to their face that they were making up a story as an excuse for their failure to do their job properly, then I fear you might well meet with something more solid than a disagreement in words - and rightly so. Calling someone a liar is just asking for trouble - and using "excuse" instead of lie is merely playing with words. Old McDonald.