TASMANIA’S fox experts, Tim Bloomfield, Nick Mooney and Chris Emms recently stated their opinions on the public scepticism about foxes in Tasmania*.
“Super-scepticism of Tasmanians makes it more likely evidence of foxes will be overlooked because people are less likely to come forward. Attendant public criticism of the response also means the public and authorities may not again respond unless evidence is overwhelming (satisfying the lowest common denominator) meaning it will likely be too late.
Super-scepticism exists because of the small amount of hard evidence of foxes, decades of “cry-wolf” with Thylacines, hoaxes of both foxes and Thylacines and outlandish claims on both sides of conservation politics; most people don’t know what to believe.
The use of 1080 poison is extremely contentious in Tasmania because it primarily targets native animals. Some people see the use of 1080 for fox baiting as a deliberate attempt at legitimising the pesticide. Therefore, they oppose the fox eradication program.
Foxes, especially pups, are “cute” to many people and on an animal rights basis oppose their destruction, especially by 1080.
Feral cats are obvious to Tasmanians and a lack of experience with and understanding of foxes means people wish to divert the fox response to tackle the obvious cat problem, waiting until foxes are actually causing damage before tackling them.”
Sceptical
The Tasmanian fox story has many of the hallmarks of “The Boy that Cried Wolf” fable … a sceptical public; most people not knowing what to believe; a lack of experience; the small amount of hard evidence; but ever the possibility that it might just be true!
But who metaphorically is ‘the boy’ crying fox here?
Human nature, being what it is, at the first cry for help, people tend to respond instinctively and completely. Perhaps they implicitly trust or believe that for such an alarm to be echoed, it must be real.
At the second cry for help, people may respond differently. Perhaps a majority still continue to react instinctively — especially if the fear of the threat is so great.
But as the wolf-cries continue without a wolf, people grow tired and disillusioned; some become angry at being constantly distracted. But the majority continues — as our fridge magnets remind us — to be ‘alert but not alarmed’.
If ‘the boy’ really wants help he needs to convince others that he’s not making things up.
His ‘rescuers’ can so quickly become his ‘doubters‘ simply because they don’t know what to believe’ any more. And the Cry Wolf fable can be seen with biblical overtones as well … ‘As you sow, so shall you reap?’
Taking a real threat or an imminent threat seriously is the metaphor in today’s World. It presses several of the big human buttons — Trust, Fear, Denial and Anger.
Prove it!
If I wanted to be taken seriously and be trusted I would need to convince my doubters that I wasn’t mistaken or making things up. It is no good saying for the um-teenth time, “But I really, really did see a wolf”.
Prove it!
I humbly submit it is not ‘public criticism’, as our fox experts suggest, that causes ‘the public and authorities….[to] not again respond. If they have a calm confidence and trust in their evidence then … such criticism is of no matter or consequence.
But if they lack confidence in the facts then maybe the public criticism can be seen as worthy of legitimate consideration.
And what of the Thylacine believers who Cry Wolf? The burden of proof on them is set very high … as it needs to be. And that’s Tasmania’s cry wolf — cry fox paradox.
As the Thylacine-gatekeeper Nick Mooney has said, he requires solid, indisputable, unarguable, incontrovertible, unassailable proof to convince him.
“But I really, really believe there are Thylacines!”, say the believers.
Prove it!
What to believe?
Now, playback to the fox saga. Who believes there are foxes in Tasmania? And what is the solid, indisputable, unarguable, incontrovertible, unassailable proof?
Are there Foxes in Tasmania? Does the Thylacine still exist? Perhaps both? Or perhaps neither? Most people don’t know what to believe.
Perhaps this is exactly where a Pol. Sci. degree becomes far more useful than a BSc — manage the public information and bugger the science!
Managing real Risks — is it to be based on sense or nonsense, science or non-science?
Politicians like to deal in certainty and confidence; that’s why they like having ‘political scientists’ as minders.
Leaders who talk of uncertainty and doubt don’t last long in politics. Perhaps that’s the reason why there are too few scientists that ever become politicians or political minders!
To be sceptical and questioning is part of living with change and uncertainty.
Welcome to the real world.
*The Red Fox In Tasmania: an incursion waiting to happen (2005).
David Obendorf is a veterinarian.
