Foxes: Wrong!

BEING one of the few people familiar with the Fox Taskforce since its inception, and indeed the topic (foxes in Tasmania) for decades, I feel compelled to respond to David Obendorf, Ian Rist and Kevin Bonham (TT 8/12/05) (Just tell the public).

David Obendorf’s clear assertion that the taskforce was set up primarily in response to reports of imports and releases of foxes is wrong.

The taskforce started in response to growing amounts of evidence of foxes in Tasmania. We have had such taskforces in various forms before — every 10 years or so there have been alarms over fox evidence, most recently (and publicly) in 1998 with an “escape” of a fox from a roll-on, roll-off ship at Burnie and before then in the early 1990s with reports around Deloraine.

Before that there was the fox caught in a rabbit trap at Riverside in the early 1970s and such incidents go all the way back to 1864 with the release of a fox at Oatlands for a dog hunt, and a similar incident with a pair in 1890 and another in 1910. For those of us aware of this history the recent dramas are just part of a chain of events; hopefully broken now by vastly increased penalties and public awareness. Tasmania has always been at high risk of fox incursions. There are literally millions nearby in Victoria and numerous ways they can get here. People have always done stupid things; they still do.

In early 2001 a small group of rangers was put together to deal with photos of a fox reportedly taken near Wynyard and what seemed a local incursion around Longford, one of Tasmania’s top naturalists reporting a close encounter with a fox on Powranna Rd. As sighting reports came in and hard evidence surfaced there (another confirmed footprint) and further afield (a fox shot with a Tasmanian endemic species in its gut near Symmons Plains) the need for a larger taskforce with the capacity to undertake strategic eradication activities such as baiting was obvious.

Action before it was too late

I was party to the risk assessment and certainly argued to take action before it was too late. The timing was especially serious because, although confirmed by excellent footprints, the 1998 Burnie fox was never killed and could easily have been alive when evidence of other foxes came in. Moreover, devil facial tumour disease was taking hold in and we were loosing this natural buffer against foxes.

Along with evidence (some good, some poor), authorities also received reports of how the incursion happened. Investigations into any conspiracy to import foxes were handed over to the police and resulting in a negative assessment. The police however, never looked at evidence about foxes per se (footprints, scats, carcasses etc) since they actually finished before any of that came to light. These reports of importation reinforced the need for a taskforce that would also examine risks of further incursions.

This is what mystifies me about the super-sceptics; would they have waited until there was enough evidence that everyone was satisfied; just imagine what that would be (we have to imagine because they will not say). Since then, another fox scat, this time confirmed by DNA, has been found. Just how far in the sand can one’s head go? To me, their willingness to take such permanent risks with Tasmania beggars belief. Some months ago I publicly asked the super-sceptics (letter in TT May 2005) (The fox and the sceptic):

1. What evidence collected in what circumstance by whom would they accept?
2. What would that level of evidence suggest about foxes in Tasmania?
3. What could then be done about foxes and their effects?

and, surprise- surprise, have not had a response.

That letter too, argued in detail that there was little risk to Spotted-tailed Quolls from our fox baiting and those arguments have not been factually challenged.

As far as Ian Rist’s enthusiasm for shifting the fox effort to cats goes I refer to my letter to the Mercury,published on 30/11/05, much of it repeated below. If I was to change any of it, I would highlight the lot and have it flashing.

“Some very long bows indeed have been drawn form a talk I gave at the recent wildlife conference (David Obendorf’s letter and the Mercury teaser “Support for new plan to eradicate feral cats” of 26th November). I never mentioned cat control in my talk; it was about foxes in Tasmania. I discussed the history of incursions from the first in 1864, risk assessments, extra risks due to devil’s problems with disease, evidence and the necessity for action, what is done do to maximise risks to foxes and likewise to minimise risks to native wildlife and pets. I also talked about future options for the program and welcomed the 2002 and the current independent reviews.

I believe foxes are completely outstanding as a threat to Tasmania’s fauna and have long and publicly argued that the Fox Taskforce should not be distracted or diluted by cat control. I still argue that.

Feral cats are a big problem for Tasmania and they certainly aggravate by being so obvious but they are a sideshow compared to what foxes will do if established. No one has argued with my calculations that Tasmania has the potential to hold 270,000 foxes exterminating several species directly and putting others in extremely perilous condition, not to mention effects on stock, wildlife tourism and health (foxes can carry hydatids). The costs and difficulties of trying to control established fox populations and protect wildlife and stock from them are well known from mainland Australia and are both staggering and ongoing. Since foxes seem still to be in a pre-establishment phase in Tasmania we still have a red-hot chance of beating them and beat them we must.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Cats are well and truly established throughout Tasmania. We can get rid of them from islands (this has started) and undertake local suppression elsewhere (as people do), but given current and even proposed control technologies and peoples’ attitudes to their pets, actual eradication of feral cats from Tasmania is impossible.”

It makes you wonder

I’d also like to ask Ian Rist whether his report to the taskforce of the possible fox he saw was a hoax or a mistake or if he stands by it. If a mistake, the report was not withdrawn and if he stands by it how does he reconcile his current scepticism. It makes you wonder.

Dave Obendorf talks of “scrupulous and meticulous” collection of scats as if it’s a revelation; its not — the Taskforce has been trying to do exactly that. Meticulous is usually not possible if the public hands in evidence; scrupulous is another issue and I would like to know why David included that especially.

Considering David’s and Ian’s obvious distrust of the Taskforce, I again return the ball — who would they accept searching “scrupulously and meticulously” for evidence, bearing in mind the huge scale necessary for meaningful results, and how would these investigators survive the scepticism now so fashionable?

Two interrelated issues are at play here; while people that believe something do not need much evidence to reinforce that belief, people who do not believe it require enormous amounts of evidence to change their minds (the basic position of super-sceptics). There are risks with the first process but nothing compared to those of the second in that there would not be acceptance of fox presence until it is to late to do anything about it.

Turning oneself in knots about how foxes got here helps prevent repeat incursions, but in most respects is classic fiddling; it is the evidence we have that dictates our actions.

I would like to put on record the prediction that if we fail and foxes establish, the sceptics will be the first to criticise us for not doing enough, soon enough.