Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
Fox furore
By
Posted on
Rat
May 8, 2005 at 11:47
(Comment challenged and deleted)
David Obendorf
November 19, 2013 at 16:57
Another of Mr Nick Mooney’s early TT stories; [b]The horror of foxes[/b] [July 2004] is not available in the TT search. Was it too updated?
The originals are part of Tasmania’s rich fox tapestry.
jack
November 19, 2013 at 22:26
#1
This is more than a little bit of a personal attack that I find as unacceptable as the totally wrong headed analysis provided in the linked article.
I’m not sure that anyone has yet sunk as low as to question someone’s medical status on TT. It would be appropriate to remove this slur.
Apart from these baits never being used in Tasmania, the analysis and data is very suspect. In effect, Mr Mooney is saying that 1080 in these baits degrades so fast that they may not even be lethal to a fox in a single day. Or am I missing something here? He seems to be suggesting that 1080 concentrations plummet from 3 mg to 1 mg in a day.
This normally depends upon the bait, the bacteria in the soil, temperature and moisture etc. But Mr Mooney’s argument suggest that these baits may be sub lethal for foxes in a matter of hours.
One other thing. I note how reasonable and measured Mr Rist was in his objections. I wonder why he got so frustrated over the next 8 years? Could it have something to do with the flawed arguments, incorrect analysis, focus on the wrong baits and wrong quoll species provided in this article? Then to have the same people tell us that they had it under control?
Don’t tell me that this is the evidence that 1080 Foxoff baits won’t kill e quolls! There has to be more than this.
Ian Rist
November 19, 2013 at 23:29
Dave I have all the hard copy…”The Horror of Foxes” and others written by NJM…my original article for TT titled the Fox Report of 2004 certainly flushed a few out of the bushes………
It is amazing that if you follow all the fox scent trails they all eventually lead back to the same den.
David Obendorf
November 20, 2013 at 10:58
Jack [comment #3], I am used to personal white-anting and discreditation; that’s emblematic of how Tasmania operates – [i]Shoot the messengers[/i] and dissemble the storyline with confused, illogical argument.
The underlying psychology has been to [i]expect[/i] the general public to [i]accept[/i] the words and deeds of their public servants without scrutiny.
That [i]scrutiny[/i] of the fox issue has been contested from the start….
[b]The Fox and the Sceptic[/b] article was originally posted by the Nick Mooney on Tasmanian Times as [b]Fox Furore[/b]; it was dated late April 2005.
The original article contained this statement:
[i][b]’We undertook 1080 fox baiting alongside extensive research, turning mainland techniques to Tasmania. … We have had over 20 baits taken in absolute classic fox style.'[/b][/i]
The ‘fox furore’ subsequently became a lengthy war of words and appeared to be a stratagem for the protection of reputation rather than a open, transparent and logical dialogue of what the bureaucracy in charge of the program – DPIPWE – was claiming had happened and what objectively analysed, irrefutable evidence they had.
A decade on and a thorough back-story analysis is now occurring…
David Obendorf
November 20, 2013 at 12:59
Another no longer available Tasmanian Times article authored by Nick Mooney in his capacity as a Tasmanian public servant with Department of Primary Industry, Nature Conservation Branch was [b]The Horror of Foxes[/b] (29 July 2004).
The article commenced: [i]’Considered scepticism is healthy and positive criticism our our efforts [Nature Conservation Branch] to deal with the fox issue in Tasmania welcome but Ian Rist’s diatribe – The Fox Report – drifts downright cynicism and is helpful to no one’.[/i]
That now unavailable TT article triggered an article by [b]Rohan Wade[/b] in the Mercury on 15 August 2004 where Nick Mooney had stated:
[i]”The Longford photo of the anonymous hunters and the dead fox is indeed likely an irresponsible hoax – not at all funny since it wasted lots of effort. We had to take it seriously at the time to try and settle the issue, but I doubt we’ll ever know for sure.”[/i]
The Sunday Tasmanian article [15 August 2004] gave the context:
[i]The fox pelt was sent to the PWS in August 2001, believed to have been skinned from a fox featured in an infamous photogragh with two men near a signpost near Longford. A month later a fox was allegedly shot at Symmons Plains by Eric Bosworth and in November, then Fox Taskforce head Peter Mooney [brother] said genetic testing showed the Bosworth fox and the pelt were “almost certainly siblingsâ€.
This appeared to confirm fears that deliberate attempts to introduce foxes to Tasmania had established a breeding population.
Nick Mooney’s comment has distanced the [Bosworth] fox and the pelt.[/i]
[i]”The Longford photo of the anonymous hunters and the dead fox is indeed likely an irresponsible hoax – not at all funny since it wasted lots of effort. We had to take it seriously at the time to try and settle the issue, but I doubt we’ll ever know for sure.
“The Longford photo of the anonymous hunters and the dead fox is indeed likely an irresponsible hoax – not at all funny since it wasted lots of effort. We had to take it seriously at the time to try and settle the issue, but I doubt we’ll ever know for sure.”
Nick Mooney told the Sunday Tasmanian last week [9 August 2004] that authorities could never be certain of the authenticity of the fox pelt.[/i]
Penelope Marshall
November 20, 2013 at 14:00
“In particular,I worry the sceptics will drive the standards of evidence needed to trigger another response so high that it will all be for nothing.
1.What evidence collected in what circumstance by whom would they accept?
2.What would the level of evidence suggest about foxes in Tasmania?
3.What could then be done about foxes and their effects?
Answers might better explain our actions than I can.”
The author claims sceptics require too high a standard, but if these standards had been applied to the program from the start there would be no room for the so called sceptics to question the evidence or motivations of the program from the start.
The problem arises when you have a chain of events that are full of holes and discrepancies. Storyline’s changed continually. What possible excuse could you have for putting Tasmania’s wildlife at an even higher risk of population decrease by laying 1080 baits when you have no evidence at all of Foxes to begin with.
If the first scat found in 2002 was deemed to have been such a definite piece of evidence why were the standards not lifted then? Surely real independent forensic science protocol should have been warranted and applied.
The questions above have been answered many times over by people with the knowledge and integrity to do so, but never taken on board by the program, why not!
David Obendorf
November 20, 2013 at 16:10
Penelope, I received an email from Mr Mooney in April 2005 that indicated he believed the 1998 live fox entry, the discovery of a single confirmed fox scat in 2002 on Ogden Road, Upper Burnie and the dead fox found on the Bass Highway in Burnie was “evidence that there is a low level fox presence in Burnie”.
Somehow DPIPWE have never found any confirmatory evidence that any foxes were living and breeding successfully in the Burnie environs.
It should have been [i]Ground Zero[/i] for thorough investigations for fox presence – a just-cause to employ experienced mainland fox trackers like John Robinson and Eddie Juras. In essense – Get Real!
The Fox-Free Taskforce and the Fox Eradication Program publicly proclaimed expertise with trained sniffer dogs to detect fox scats and fox scent; had over 100 sensor cameras; used sand pads and scent-lures yet they could not demonstrate fox presence at this site in over 15 years.
PB
November 20, 2013 at 17:17
The Fox and the Sceptic:
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/the-fox-and-the-sceptic/
PB
November 20, 2013 at 17:24
Eco-Terrorism Blamed for Tasmania Red Fox Release:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2003/01/0130_030123_fox_2.html
David Obendorf
November 20, 2013 at 17:50
Before it was removed [b]Fox Furore[/b] had this last paragraph:
[i]Finally, I take umbridge with David Obendorf’s “Weapons of Mass Deception” quip because it implies [b]fraud[/b]. Like most big, new organisations the Fox Taskforce has made mistakes but we don’t deserve that.[/i]
At the time I responded directly in writing to Mr Mooney explaining why I used the “Weapons of Mass Deception”.
Email 9 May 2005: We live in a time when not so long ago, a few nations decided to launch a war and an invasion on the country of Iraq. The ‘clear and present danger’ of Weapons of Mass Destruction held by Saddam Hussein was the justification for this action. For several years the world media was bombarded with remorseless journalism backed up by government media releases from the Coalition countries (USA, Britain and Australia) that stated the evidence was conclusive and damming. We had Tony Blair’s ‘dossier’, Colin Powell’s theatrical presentation to the UnitedNations’ Security Council, and locally Alexander Downer & John Howard’s own intelligence data – all confirming that Saddam Hussien had WMDs and would use them. It was described as a: Slam Dunk!
‘Fraud’ I would suggest can be exercised through the power of mass media.
After dogged persistent harrying – remember all the Intelligence whistleblowers that came forward including Australian [b]Andrew Wilkie[/b] – ‘the Coalition’ was forced to conduct reviews of the evidence for the existence of WMDs and therefore the justification for their War against Iraq. Through the passage of time and these reviews the clear evidence was shown to be non-existent or insubstantial…there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of all this war-mongering talk. And so the rhetoric changed to the ‘threat’ of WMDs and ‘regime change for Iraq’. Again the power of mass media was needed to confuse the masses with Alzheimer’s short-term memory deficits.
Would you call this ‘a fraud’? It was certainly a ‘misrepresentation’ based on the facts and a ‘corruption’ of reality. Some would say it constituted ‘a fraud’. It certainly cost billions of dollars, employed hundreds of thousands of people in the war’s prosecution and killed many, many thousands of human lives (let’s not include the collateral damage to the environment or any non-human creatures). They were the consequences.
Nick, if I came to you with ‘evidence’ that demonstrated that thylacines still existed in the wild in Tasmania you would naturally want to verify & check the credibility of individual, the prima facie evidence (evidence sufficient to establish a fact), the documentation, the methodology and the continuity of the evidence stream. You would expect that, I would require my findings to be critically assessed and so not doubt would everyone else!
What’s the difference in applying that rigor to ‘the rules of evidence’ for thylacines and foxes? [ENDS]
Ian Rist
November 20, 2013 at 19:50
Well National Geo. were certainly bull shitted to then weren’t they…..
Re #10.
“Two foxes were shot in northern Tasmania in 2001; since then hundreds of sightings have been reported. What many had been dreading had happened—foxes had made it onto the Ark”.
“There is evidence indicating that several litters of fox cubs were intentionally—and illegally—smuggled on to the island, reared, and then released at several locations across the state”.
“It’s more or less eco-terrorism,” said Nick Mooney, scientific advisor to the Tasmanian Fox Free Taskforce set up in 2001 in response to the emergency”.
To explain the “two foxes” that “were shot” in Northern Tasmania as per the National Geo. article they were two of three foxes that were shot in Victorian and brought to Tasmania dead under the seat of a vehicle on the TT Line.
The first one appeared in the papers in July 2001 held up by two “anonymous hunters” and was used to test the waters for a reward in circulation at the time (this is the rotting skin that was sent to DPIPWE at Prospect, later DNA matched to the second fox allegedly shot at Symmons Plains)…the second was frozen and kept until September when it was allegedly found two weeks after the alleged Symmons Plains shooting incident.
We all know the 19 fox cubs import and release incident just didn’t happen… six Tasmania Police
Detectives never found one shred of evidence to corroborate this NPWS claimed event.
All these years the Police have been not allowed to become involved after they gave the truth in July 2001 to the Minister of the day and it didn’t suit him…subsequently the Police were told to “keep out of it, this is no longer a Police matter it is a Political matter”.
William Boeder
November 21, 2013 at 00:55
As each day goes by the more and more that is said about the infamous David (Chemical Ali)Llewellyn approved mainland imported Fox-scats, tells me that we have been fed Bull-scat all the way through this humbugging 15 year long DPIPWE Federal Funding Scam.
David Obendorf
November 21, 2013 at 12:04
When unpacking the story broadcast world-wide in [i]National Geographic News[/i] published 13 January 2003 some matters need to be understood fully – particularly by the politicians and bean counters responsible for this eradication effort.
As Mr Rist [comment above] has cited the [b]NatGeo News[/b] article refers to the back-story that DPIPWE was relying on.
A few salient matters need to be teased out:
1. By 2003 the DPIPWE was still driven by their sense that the Eric Bosworth dead fox [September 2001] was a ‘sibling’ to a posted fox pelt sent to Peter Mooney of DPIPWE in July 2001. The FOI documents held by DPIPWE and received in 2010 demonstrates that that association was a confused and totally wrong repsentation by Peter Mooney as fox taskforce leader in his interview with media in 2002; most notably the ABC-RN Earthbeat program broadcast on 24 November 2001.
2. The claim that [i]’a group of environmental vandals committed an unthinkable crime. They hand reared up to 19 fox cubs and released them into the previously fox-free Tasmanian wilderness'[/i] [ABC TV Catalyst, September 2002] had been fully investigated by Tasmania Police. The serious allegation that named several Tasmanians allegedly responsible was contained in the [i]Confidential Briefing Note[/i] prepared by DPIPWE and given to Tas Police. It was found to be ‘baseless’ and the Minister subsequently told Parliament it was an ‘unsubstantiated’ claim.
3. Fox spokesperson, Nick Mooney’s comments [comment #6 here] – reported by journalist Rohan Wade on 15 August 2004 – confirmed that DPIPWE had now realised that their ‘sibling’ theory was now untenable.
So, how could they [i]still remain[/i] committed that the Eric Bosworth dead fox was authentic evidence – i.e. a live fox shot dead in Tasmania?
What corroboration did DPIPWE have to demonstrate the Bosworth exhibit was indeed a fox that lived in and was shot in Tasmania?
(a) DPIPWE had Mr Bosworth’s and his accomplice’s storyline and (b) a PWS ranger extracted an important exhibit of an endemic mouse from this fox corpse. [Regrettably that important exhibit no longer exists.]
The Bosworh fox [September 2001] was, as it was described to me, “a major step up” in the fox-evidence dossier after the Chris Spencer’s sighting report [May 2001] “triggered” the Incident Control Response by DPIPWE in May 2001.
Nick Mooney’s [i]Longford Review[/i] of the evidence was the document that guided decision-making in 2001-02. A fox taskforce manager in 2002 tells senior bureaucrats and government the ‘The Longford Review’ is the ‘primary source’ and that it was [i]’widely circulated and agreed [that] the Longford Review explained the development of the problem.'[/i]
Yet the ‘Longford Review’ remains an internal DPIPWE document that is relied upon and is quoted as a key reference by subsequent reviewers and several review reports of the decade-long fox program. [There are several interations of this Longford Review dated August and September 2001.]
[to be continued…]