The Fox Forum

Across the lands now known as North America, Indigenous nations have passed down stories for countless generations—tales woven with wisdom, humour, and warnings. These stories were not merely entertainment; they shaped worldviews, taught morality, and connected people to land, spirit, and community. In this series, we explore some of these traditional stories from different tribes. Each one is presented in its original form (where available), followed by a respectful interpretation of its possible meanings and teachings. Today, we focus on Silver Fox, a powerful yet gentle figure who appears in multiple tribal traditions. Traditional Achomawi story “Silver-Fox and Coyote lived together. Silver-Fox gathered some service-berry sticks, and whittled them down nicely, working all night. The shavings were to be made into common people; the finished sticks, into the best kind of people. About sunset the next day he was ready to make them alive. They turned into people; and Silver-Fox sent them away, some in one direction, some in another. Then he and Coyote had a big feast. Coyote wanted to imitate the deed, and so copied everything he had seen Silver-Fox do. Just as before, the sticks and the shavings became people just about sunset. As soon as this happened, Coyote ran after some of the women, and after a chase caught them; but as soon as he touched them, they turned back into sticks and shavings.” Cultural and Interpretive Commentary A Tale of Creation and Purpose: Silver-Fox acts as a deliberate creator, carefully crafting beings with intention and sending them into the world. The difference between the shavings and the polished sticks may symbolise roles or stations within a community, but both are treated with care and dignity. The Trickster Archetype: Coyote is eager to copy Silver-Fox but lacks the reverence and restraint necessary for creation. His actions are selfish, driven by desire, and ultimately undo the lives he attempted to create. Moral Lessons and Reflection: • True creation involves respect, thought, and patience. • Mimicry without wisdom is hollow. • Disrespecting what is made can lead to loss. • Desire without responsibility leads to destruction. This story offers a vivid contrast between creation through care, and destruction through careless imitation. Atsugewi creation myth I "In the beginning, Silver Fox and Coyote floated on a raft above the waters. Silver Fox wanted to create the world, but Coyote hesitated. Silver Fox dropped a handful of earth into the water to make an island. He and Coyote descended to it and began to form the land. Each night, Silver Fox sang. As he sang, the land stretched further and further in all directions. He sang animals, springs, and trees into being. Coyote, impatient, tried to help, but his actions lacked the dream and care needed. Together they decided how humans would live, including how they would die and how many moons winter should last." Cultural and Interpretive Commentary Dreaming the World into Being: Silver Fox creates not through force, but through song and imagination. His nightly singing symbolises the role of dreams, meditation, or spiritual focus in bringing the world into balance. The Tension Between Impulse and Vision: Coyote, ever the impulsive one, lacks the vision and patience that Silver Fox brings. Yet both are needed. Their dialogue shapes the rhythms of life — suggesting that creation is not about domination, but about negotiation and coexistence. Moral Lessons and Reflection: • Creation is a spiritual act, requiring thought and vision. • Even impulsive or resistant forces have a role in shaping reality. • Balance comes through dialogue and complementarity. This myth reveals the sacred act of creation as one tied to dreaming, vision, and partnership — even when those partners disagree. Atsugewi Creation Myth II Among the Atsugewi people of what is now northeastern California, Silver Fox plays a key role in one of the most compelling and poetic creation stories recorded in early ethnographic accounts. In this myth, Silver Fox is not simply a trickster or a bringer of light — he is a creator, a patient and visionary figure whose collaboration with Coyote, though often difficult, results in the formation of the world as we know it. The myth opens “in the beginning there was nothing but water”, a phrase echoing the primordial waters of many global origin stories. Silver Fox and Coyote live above in the sky-world, where Silver Fox dreams of creation. Coyote, typically resistant and contrary, is against the idea. Tiring of this opposition, Silver Fox waits until Coyote is away collecting wood, then pierces a hole in the sky with an arrow-flaker and discovers the ocean below. He lowers himself down, making “a small round island” where he settles, alone. Eventually, Coyote follows, “feeling remorse”, and begs to be let down. The two cohabitate on the tiny island, hungry and cramped. Silver Fox gives Coyote some sunflower seeds, and gradually expands the land beneath them. When Coyote falls asleep, Silver Fox dresses finely, smokes ceremonially, and sings as he stretches the earth “first to the east, then to the north, then to the west, and last to the south”. Over five days, the world grows vast, its edges now too distant for Coyote to run around without growing old and grey by the time he returns. Silver Fox continues to shape the land, creating trees, springs, and animals — “merely by thinking them”. These animals are humanlike in the beginning, part of an early age of transformation. As in many Indigenous tales, this time before ‘now’ features blurred lines between species and roles. Disagreements between the pair are frequent. Coyote argues for ten moons of winter; Silver Fox retorts that there would not be enough food. Coyote shrugs: “people could make soup out of dirt.” Eventually, Silver Fox decrees a compromise: four moons in total — two winter, one spring, one autumn. One of the most significant moments arrives when Silver Fox declares that people will reproduce by placing a shell or bead between them. Coyote, grounded in realism, objects. “People must live as man and wife,” he says. In a rare yielding, Silver Fox agrees: “Let it be as you say.” Their ongoing interactions highlight a vital theme — the tension between vision and experience, between the sacred order and chaotic appetite. Coyote constantly tries to mimic Silver Fox’s foraging tricks — shaking trees for nuts, setting fires to coax out grouse, or harvesting roots with a hook — but he always fails when driven by greed or impatience. Silver Fox’s methods are tied to reverence, timing, and stillness. Coyote’s approach is hurried, hungry, and self-serving. Yet even as he burns himself, falls from trees, or eats himself sick, Coyote remains part of the creative process. He is foil, counterbalance, and often the comic warning. This story, like many in the region, ends without a clear moral, instead leaving space for reflection. Silver Fox is not omnipotent; he negotiates, experiments, and changes his mind. Coyote, for all his blundering, is not banished — he is fed, forgiven, and listened to. The world they shape together is not perfect, but it is inhabited — a place of dialogue, learning, error, and resilience. Cultural and Interpretive Commentary Dreaming the World into Being: Silver Fox creates not through force, but through song and imagination. His nightly singing symbolises the role of dreams, meditation, or spiritual focus in bringing the world into balance. This act of shaping the land by singing in four directions reflects a ceremonial worldview in which the act of creation is sacred, directional, and deeply intentional. The Tension Between Impulse and Vision: Coyote, ever the impulsive one, lacks the vision and patience that Silver Fox brings. Yet both are needed. Their dialogue shapes the rhythms of life — suggesting that creation is not about domination, but about negotiation and coexistence. Where Silver Fox dreams and prepares, Coyote challenges and tests. In doing so, he introduces chaos, but also helps define the limits of order. Moral Lessons and Reflection: • Creation is a spiritual act, requiring thought, intention, and vision. • Even impulsive or resistant forces have a role in shaping reality. • Balance comes through dialogue and complementary actions, not hierarchy. The sacred is found in relationship, not just in ritual — between beings, ideas, and the land itself. Summary Silver Fox is not the loudest figure in Indigenous myth, but his presence is unmistakable. Whether singing the world into being, whittling careful creations, or visiting in dreams, he represents a kind of wisdom that values stillness, intention, and spiritual connection. In contrast to the fast-moving, often chaotic trickster characters, Silver Fox invites us to slow down — to dream, to reflect, and to respect what we shape in the world. Across stories, he shows that true power lies not in control, but in care. Source: • Achomawi and Atsugewi Tales

Last year, Black Foxes UK assisted in the rehoming process for a fox in need of urgent placement. While we were not the legal guardians of the animal involved, we were contacted by the rescue organisation responsible, who sought help identifying a suitable and secure long-term home. Image: Fripps Farm/Instagram After reviewing available options, we provided details of a facility we had already assessed against our own internal fox welfare standards. As many will know, there are currently no formal legal minimum standards for keeping foxes in captivity in the UK, so we have developed our own framework — one that prioritises safety, security, species-specific welfare, and transparency. The facility in question, Fripps Farm, met those standards. The final decision to rehome the fox there was made by the rescue, not by us, but we supported it as a suitable and welfare-conscious option. Unfortunately, what followed was an intense wave of online trolling and misinformation, directed at both our project and the individuals involved in the fox’s care — particularly animal advocate Jodie Marsh, who runs Fripps Farm. The sustained harassment caused deep distress to those targeted, with impacts ranging from anxiety and withdrawal to formal complaints and legal threats. While the pressure on us eventually subsided, Jodie continued to face persistent abuse and false accusations. In response to the ongoing defamation, Jodie requested an official welfare inspection from the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) to independently verify the care standards at Fripps Farm. We are pleased to confirm that the facility has now passed this review with no welfare concerns noted, confirming what we already knew: that this is a space where foxes can live safely, with attentive care, and where their welfare is taken seriously. Image: Fripps Farm/Facebook This independent review reinforces the decision made by the original rescue to place the foxes in question in Jodie’s care — a decision we helped facilitate. It also vindicates those involved, and highlights the needless damage that can be caused by online misinformation and mob harassment. We understand that rescue stories can be emotionally charged, particularly when they unfold in the public eye and without full context. But let us be clear: our priority has always been, and remains, the welfare of the fox. We are grateful to those who stood by us, and we thank Jodie Marsh for her continued strength and commitment to animal welfare under such trying circumstances. She has had a lot to contend with in her first few years running a desperately needed animal rescue facility. What she has acomplished is no easy feat, even for experienced rescuers. We hope this independent clarification allows space for reflection and a renewed focus on what truly matters: compassion, collaboration, and the facts. Black Foxes UK.

The term domesticated carries weight in science, ethics, and law—but what does it really mean? A new paper by Lord and Karlsson challenges long-held assumptions, proposing that animals should be considered domesticated if they depend on humans to survive — regardless of whether that dependence arose through breeding, captivity, or other means. This proposal marks a significant departure from traditional views rooted in selective breeding and human intent. It could blur the lines between truly domesticated animals, self-domesticating animals, feral animals, wild animals and those that are merely socialised and tamed. If this shift takes hold, selectively bred silver foxes might be considered no more domesticated than animals born in the wild but they still carry genetically altered traits humans specifically selected for. However, recognition of their use and domestication is something we have been fighting to raise awareness of for over a decade. This definition has major implications—not only for animal welfare and legal classification, but for how we understand human-animal relationships altogether.   A New Way of Defining “Domesticated” Scientists are now rethinking what it really means for an animal to be domesticated. Traditionally, we’ve thought of domesticated animals as those that humans have bred and raised over generations—like dogs, cats, horses, and farm animals. Even stray or feral animals are often seen as "domesticated but gone wild." (de-evolution). But a new scientific definition, proposed by evolutionary biologists Dr. Kathryn Lord and Dr. Elinor Karlsson, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 2025, shifts that view. Their definition focuses not on breeding history, but on survival: An animal population is considered domesticated if it has evolved to depend on humans or human-made environments to survive. It’s all about ecological dependency—in other words, whether the animals could live without us. Why This Redefinition Matters At Black Foxes UK, we welcome clearer scientific terminology, but we believe this new definition overlooks key realities—especially for animals like captive-bred silver foxes. Silver foxes have not followed a single, uniform path to domestication. Instead, there are two main domesticated fox populations, both bred by humans for very different purposes—yet both irrevocably altered by our influence. There are two domesticated populations: • Russian domesticated pet foxes (Vulpes vulpes forma amicus; from lineages once considered Vulpes fulva), bred for tameness and aggression. • Farmed silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes; once considered Vulpes fulva), bred primarily for fur colour varieties (over 80 types), many suffer from serious genetic health problems, including lethal mutations, painful diseases, and reproductive issues. These foxes have been selectively bred for fur colours and other traits that do not occur naturally in the wild. Many display physical characteristics and health problems that make surviving in the wild difficult or impossible. Lord and Karlsson’s ecological dependency model states that animals are considered domesticated only if they have evolved to depend on humans or human-made environments for survival. By this definition, silver foxes that survive independently in the wild—even if selectively bred—are not considered domesticated. However, many silver foxes carry genetic changes from human influence that mark them as domesticated in a broader biological and ethical sense. This creates a grey area in classification. Therefore: • If a silver fox depends on humans (due to health or other factors), it fits the domesticated category. • If it survives fully independently, it would be classified as wild under that definition—even if selectively bred. This is exactly where the debate lies, and why some argue Lord and Karlsson’s definition is too narrow for animals like silver foxes. Not accepting their “domesticated” status risks erasing their vulnerability—and the human responsibility that comes with it. So, What Counts as Domesticated under this Framework? Domesticated animals, as detailed in the new definition for evolutionary biology, are those that can no longer survive on their own in the wild. This includes: • Sewer rats, which rely on human waste systems to survive and are rarely found outside of these environments. • Lactic acid bacteria, used in food production like yogurt and cheese. These microbes have adapted so specifically to human-made environments (like milk and fermentation tanks) that many strains can no longer survive or reproduce in the wild. • Brachycephalic dogs (such as pugs and bulldogs), whose extreme physical features—like short limbs and breathing difficulties—make it nearly impossible for them to survive, hunt, or thrive outside of human care. Animals that are not considered domesticated in the new definition, are those that live near humans but could still survive without us. These include: • Feral cats and dogs, which may have descended from pets but are able to hunt, reproduce, and survive without any human help. • Feral Pigeons, once domesticated for communication and for the creation of saltpeter, that scavenge human food but don’t rely on us directly—they nest, feed, and thrive without needing care. • Silver foxes, which are selectively bred for non-naturally occurring fur traits that live with people, but are still capable of surviving on their own in the wild. What About Feral and Stray Animals? The new definition even changes how we see strays. • A dependent stray (like a Chihuahua that can’t find food without people or human waste) would still count as domesticated. • But an independent stray (like a feral cat that hunts on its own) would not. So now, how an animal lives matters more than what it is. The same dog breed might be “domesticated” in a home but considered wild if living self-sufficiently in nature—even if genetically identical. Where the Definition Fails The new definition conflates adaptation with domestication. Urban foxes exploiting bird feeders or trash bins are adapting; silver foxes with non-molting coats or overgrowing gums are broken by design. Calling both "wild" ignores humanity’s role in creating (and often harming) the latter. • It ignores human intent and intervention • It could misrepresent genetic alteration as natural adaptation • It undermines accountability and welfare protections Domestication isn’t accidental—it’s deliberate manipulation. Russian lab foxes didn’t "evolve" tameness; humans forced it via selective breeding, with collateral damage (e.g., floppy ears = unhealthy and unintended genetic mutation). So what’s really at stake here? The Core Problem The new ecological definition is dangerously reductionist—it treats domestication as a passive accident of dependency rather than what it really is: • Active human manipulation of genomes (whether via selective breeding or CRISPR) • Intentional creation of non-wild phenotypes (regardless of survivability) • Irreversible divergence from wild ancestors (even if some traits are neutral or beneficial in nature) So how should we define domestication in a way that acknowledges both science and ethics? How to Fix This: A No-BS Definition An animal population is domesticated if: • Its genetic or behavioural traits have been deliberately shaped by humans through breeding, engineering, or other directed interventions, including the intentional creation of environments that promote dependency or tameness (e.g., proximity, provisioning, or confinement). AND • It exhibits heritable traits not found in wild populations without human influence (whether harmful, neutral, or adaptive). Ecological dependency is irrelevant to the classification—only relevant for welfare/policy considerations. An alternative approach—sometimes proposed—is to allow different fields (e.g., ecology, law, animal welfare, or genetics) to use their own definitions of domestication based on the priorities of that discipline. While this may offer short-term utility within specific contexts, it risks undermining conceptual clarity and cross-disciplinary coherence. For that reason, we do not favour this fragmented model and instead advocate for a consistent, biologically grounded definition that can be applied across domains. Populations, Not Species—But At What Cost? One positive aspect of the new definition is its emphasis on populations, not entire species. This framework is meant to serve evolutionary biology—not animal welfare or public education. This subtlety recognises that domestication is rarely absolute. Just as not every dog lives in a house, not every fox is wild. In the UK, for example, we increasingly see a blurred line between wild native foxes and the domesticated, non-native silver foxes kept as pets or animal ambassadors. However, definitions used in science don’t stay in science. They shape how animals are understood, classified, and treated. This population-level framing does little to help those of us working with silver foxes when the definition still discounts the profound effects humans have had on them. Is the silver fox wild or domesticated? If science rewrites “domesticated” to exclude animals who have not lost the ability to function outside human environments—what then happens to their legal protections, husbandry standards, or public understanding? At worst, this reframing risks obscuring the responsibilities we bear towards animals we have irreversibly altered. Definitions Shape Our Responsibilities This reclassification raises important questions: • If we exclude animals altered by humans from being called domesticated, do we risk losing legal protections and ethical care standards for them? • Does intent matter if the consequences of breeding are irreversible dependency and health needs? • Should definitions account for the ethical and welfare responsibilities humans have towards animals they have changed? The Bird Feeder Paradox The Bird Feeder Paradox A 2017 University of Oxford study found that British garden birds, like great tits, are evolving longer beaks—likely in response to widespread bird feeder use. In some areas, these birds may now depend on feeders to meet their nutritional needs. Under Lord and Karlsson’s ecological dependency model, this could signal early domestication. But that raises odd contradictions: if bird feeders can "domesticate" wild birds, while dogs, cats, and silver foxes—animals deeply shaped by human breeding—are excluded, something doesn’t add up.  A similar paradox is unfolding with released red squirrels and urban foxes. Some are becoming bolder, more human-tolerant, even food-dependent, with morphological changes appearing. Social media is filled with videos of people hand-feeding foxes everything from raw steaks to birthday cakes. This isn’t just adaptation—it’s behavioural change driven by human interaction. Some foxes now rely entirely on handouts. Like the birds, these squirrels and foxes reflect human-induced dependency. But with more direct influence—social conditioning, diet changes, and increasing conflict with people. It goes even further with the CRISPR editing of the grey squirrel to reduce reproduction. CRISPR is domestication on steroids, (human-directed evolution through genetic engineering).  Here's the deeper inconsistency: many “domesticated” animals—like feral dogs, silver foxes, and even humanised and chimeric laboratory mice—can survive in the wild. Meanwhile, wild animals are becoming dependent on us, despite no breeding history. This exposes a flaw in the ecological model: it focuses on survival, but misses the bigger picture. Domestication isn't just about where an animal can live—it's about how humans have altered their bodies, behaviour, and choices. And with that influence comes responsibility. Dependency isn’t binary. A lab mouse engineered to possess human genes (domesticated, but can still survive in the wild) and an urban fox raised to beg instead of hunt (wild, but self-domesticating), both defy neat categories. This definition draws a line that real life constantly blurs. Evolution Is Not the Whole Story Lord and Karlsson argue that domestication is “just plain old evolution”—that it is not special, merely the result of natural processes adapting animals to human environments. But it’s evolution hijacked. We cannot neatly define what constitutes a species—nor can we clearly define domestication. Generalisations are necessary, but they are not the rule. Human intent—whether driven by companionship, utility, or mere curiosity—shapes the course of adaptation in ways that demand ethical responsibility. • A wild European fox scavenging bins is a native subspecies adapted to its environment and may be partially self-domesticating through handouts, social media impacts, and close proximity to humans. • The silver fox, however, is a domesticated and intensively farmed form of a different subspecies, bred for traits and temperament that can hinder natural survival—such as overgrown gums and tameness towards humans (like the Russian domesticated pet foxes, fur foxes were also bred for even temperament, on welfare grounds under Welfur policies). Treating both as the same “wild” animal ignores these biological differences and overlooks our responsibility for the silver fox’s vulnerability. Summary At Black Foxes UK, we recognise the importance of a clear, consistent scientific framework to study domestication across species. Defining domestication through ecological dependency may help evolutionary biologists make comparisons—but scientific precision must be balanced with practical consequences. Definitions useful in research do not always translate well into the real world. Welfare, law, and public understanding can suffer when the language becomes too narrow—or too abstract. Rigour is essential, but so are compassion, clarity, and context. We urge scientists, policymakers, and animal professionals to approach this redefinition with care. Terminology shifts do not happen in isolation. They influence perception, inform policy, and ultimately affect how animals are treated. For animals like the silver fox—caught between categories of wild and domestic—the stakes are particularly high. At Black Foxes UK, we will continue to refer to silver foxes as domesticated, (as farm animals or as pets—in the case of the Russian foxes). Because they are. No matter what science calls them, their welfare depends on us understanding their domestication. And our responsibilities—to protect, care, and advocate—must not be lost in semantics. Sources: • A Universally Applicable Definition for Domestication • National Geographic: Dogs. Bedbugs. Corn. They all have this one thing in common • Definition of Domestication: Traditional Views Challenged • Unravelling domestication: introduction to the theme issue • What defines a species? Inside the fierce debate that's rocking biology to its core • American mink regrow their brains in a rare reversal of the domestication process • British birds adapt their beaks to bird feeders • Urban foxes may be self-domesticating in our midst • Feeding British red squirrels is changing their skulls • Gene tool holds promise of managing invasive species These articles are NOT AI created content. They are human written content—written by our founder and volunteers—AI edited for readability, punctuation, spelling and grammar.