"The court held that a fox is an animal ferae naturae and that property in such animals is acquired by occupancy only. Justinian, Fleta, Bracton, and Puffendorf establish that pursuit alone gives no property or right to the huntsman, and that even pursuit accompanied by wounding is ineffective unless the animal is actually taken. The court therefore concluded that mere pursuit gave Post no legal right to the fox, which became Pierson’s property when he intercepted and killed it. The court recognized, however, that actual bodily seizure is not indispensable in every case: mortal wounding by a pursuer who does not abandon the pursuit may constitute possession because it manifests an unequivocal intention to appropriate the animal, deprives it of natural liberty, and brings it within certain control. Likewise, encompassing and securing wild animals with nets, toils, or other means that make escape impossible may establish possession for those who used their industry and labor to apprehend them."