Environment
Foxes: How do you feel about taking that risk?
Nick Mooney
The chances of finding corroborative evidence of a fox or any other individual small animal in a complex, vegetated landscape is unfortunately remote; its that simple. Of course we must try and try harder using better techniques and in this I agree with David. However, given the generic criticism, I’m not sure that it would do much good anyway. Its not hard to guess what David would imply and Ian would say about any apparently corroborative evidence found.
DAVID Obendorf should hardly be surprised some people do not want to be publicly shredded and vilified — just read back through the sorts of things David and other more extreme sceptics have said about the taskforce and people reporting things. (David Obendorf)
David quoined the term Weapons of Mass Deception for the Taskforce and the Mercury had a front page “FOX FRAUD”. Who would want to put themselves in front of that?
It is not absolute that people do not come forward — those finding the carcass near Conara came forward publicly as have a number of other people reporting they have seen this or that. The person claiming to have taken the two photos of a fox at Wynyard in early 2001 has repeatedly gone public and offered up the photos for scrutiny as did Bosworth and his companion at the time he claimed to have shot a fox near Symmons Plains. The cyclist finding the fox on the side of the road at Burnie in 1998 asked not to be publicly named but the policeman picking it up is known so how about some accuracy guys?
The chances of finding corroborative evidence of a fox or any other individual small animal in a complex, vegetated landscape is unfortunately remote; its that simple. Of course we must try and try harder using better techniques and in this I agree with David. However, given the generic criticism, I’m not sure that it would do much good anyway. Its not hard to guess what David would imply and Ian would say about any apparently corroborative evidence found.
I’m not sure why David mentions that an item of evidence was found during the Sate elections — what is he implying?
Raspberry never mentioned the word “foxy” or “fox” in their original report of a road-kill (yes, the original report to local PWS was checked) — but I have already told David this. Odd he trots it out again.
Certainly hoaxing has been an occasional problem for the fox response but it is the accusations of hoaxing that are a much bigger problem in that they undermine public confidence to come forward. Who wants to be accused of lying? Take some responsibility for this problem David, Ian and company.
A duty of care
We are not shelling out millions on the basis of an anonymous letter or report. We have always had an undeniable huge risk and a duty of care to apply the precautionary principal in a background of known, absolutely unarguable incidents (remember the fox caught at Riverside in 1972 and the one at Burnie in 1998) and a steadily increasing body of more recent hard evidence, never mind the sighting reports. A comparison with an anonymous letter in council is just silly and shows how purile some of our critics can be.
The driver claiming to have hit the fox near Conara has come forward — he just hasn’t laid himself bare to the public gallery. He asked not too be named publicly and we respect that even although it lends the issue to criticism.
We are working through all the bits and pieces of evidence we have with the Cleveland fox. You can’t have it both ways — calling for instant public disclosure of everything but also demanding accuracy and attention to detail. David is a pathologist and knows very well both things can’t be serviced.
I share Ian Rist’s confidence that the truth will out (I could argue it already is) but I have no confidence in his ability to recognise it or indeed the baby in the bathwater.
With risk of boring readers who have seen this before I’ll ask Ian and other super-sceptics the three questions I have repeatedly asked over recent years without reply.
What evidence would they accept that means there are foxes in Tasmania?
• Given the answer to 1., what would that mean about the viability of foxes in Tasmania?
• Given the answer to 2., what could be done about foxes in Tasmania?
I’d add on a fourth:
• How do you feel about taking that risk?
Considering this goes a long way to explaining the precautionary principal and why we are so worried.