Tasmanian Times


PAC: I question Mr Dean’s involvement

Peter Dunn
Being a frequent watcher of the public record, I question Mr Dean’s involvement in the coming Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the fox eradication taskforce.

Mr Dean was the police commander in charge of the brief 2001 investigation into any conspiracy to import foxes which found no evidence of such.

Well, it’s now plain we have foxes and one possibility is that Dean’s team got it wrong and given the coming election it would be important for Mr Dean to distract from that since it would reflect badly on his leadership.

One obvious way to distract would be to accuse others of mistakes and misconduct – exactly what Mr Dean does.

Mr Rist seems absolutely sure he will be appearing before the Committee – something as far as I can find out, he could have no proper assurances of.

From the similarity of their contributions to the press it is clear he is a frequent correspondent of Mr Dean and I hope Mr Rist has not been given inappropriate assurances.

Mr Dean is also repeatedly on record accusing the taskforce of fabrication of evidence, without ever producing evidence of such despite repeatedly being challenged to do, so even by the relevant minister.

Again he needs to distract.

Mr Dean obviously has no independence in regard to foxes in Tasmania and should have no part on the committee – its clearly in his vested interest to find fault.

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Ian Rist

    February 21, 2009 at 4:51 am

    Re#17 not interested…next please.

  2. Dr Kevin Bonham

    February 20, 2009 at 9:57 pm

    Yes Ian, your opinion of #13 is indeed “insignificant”, while you are unwilling to address the point that has been raised by the author.

    What “bogus email address” are you talking about in #15? Have you personally had emails from “Peter Dunn”?

  3. Ian Rist

    February 20, 2009 at 6:11 am

    I notice another feeble attempt(letters The Mercury 19/2/09) by the minister to fix yet another blunder by the fox task force/fox eradication branch,another blunder in what will prove to be possibly the biggest blunder by this minister…the fox force,established on his watch and likely to end on his watch.
    Put simply the Oatlands Jack Russell incident. The dog was taken to Launceston for testing. It was admitted to the owner of the dog that the FEB member “thought it was a fox”
    I cannot believe the Premier is contemplating cuts to such essenial services such as Police,schools and other important public service areas and yet allow an annual five million dollar expenditure on this fruitless(seven years,no results)fox farce. I also believe this is beyond the comprehension of the average Tasmanian taxpayer and voter.
    It is good to see the advertisements for the upper house PAC inquiry into the fox fiasco up and running.

  4. Ian Rist

    February 19, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    David Re #10 It is a bogus email address,can easily be tracked in this computer age. Even if they change their I.P. address it doesn’t matter,I will keep you personally informed. Then again the very brave Mr Peter Dunn may himself own up,they I doubt it cowards always hide.

  5. Ian Rist

    February 19, 2009 at 8:11 pm

    Re#13 Insignificant.

  6. Dr Kevin Bonham

    February 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    Ian, I’m sure silence from you is more dignified than the kinds of responses you’ve been providing lately, but what would be even more dignified is for you to own up that your tone in #4 was out of order and that you don’t really have anything relevant to say about the article’s main point.

    Instead you continue in a similarly abusive way in #8. I don’t know whether Peter Dunn is the author’s real name or not, and I have previously explained why I do not blame people for using pseudonyms on this issue given the way you respond. But if you are asserting that the name is a pseudonym, where’s your evidence?

    David (#10), what do you think about the point raised about Ivan Dean’s apparent conflict of interest? Isn’t that point at least worth discussing irrespective of the identity of the author? Surely you of all people would be most keen to see due process followed and even the perception of a conflict of interest avoided?

  7. Ian Rist

    February 19, 2009 at 10:41 am

    Stephen I do believe it(tennis ball,shoe) Yes I have no doubt you thought you saw a fox. I have never doubted foxes have visited our shores. What I have a problem with is a lot of the so called evidence.

  8. stephen

    February 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Ian, just to confirm in case I have caused confusion, I may be not 100% clear on exact date; I have only seen one fox in this state and it was not pissing on a car hubcap and it was not a carcass. Having grown-up on a farm in NSW where there were plenty of foxes I must say I have never seen or heard of a fox pissing on car wheels as domestic dogs love doing, however I have known of an eccentric fox that stole our shoes and a tennis ball from outside our front door and bits of aluminium foil from our rubbish bin. This fox had the audacity to walk past our kitchen window at breakfast time with the said tennis ball in its mouth. We had no idea why this fox took these things and we often found where the fox had dropped the items in one general direction over about a kilometre of distance. I have since read of an urban fox in Victoria that also had a shoe fetish.
    No doubt you will not believe a word of this so no point telling you about the old man’s prized Arab stallion that killed sheep or the late father-in-law’s girlfriend’s pet fox (in Wagga Wagga not Tassie).

  9. David Obendorf

    February 18, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    Peter Dunn, would you please be so kind as to provide the readers of this TT blog with some BASIC identity confirming information about yourself?

    Do you live in Tasmania?

    Is your name Peter Dunn?

    Thank you,David Obendorf

    Address: 7 Bonnington Road, West Hobart, Tas 7000
    Phone: 6234 5561
    Email: davidobendorf@tassie.net.au

  10. Ian Rist

    February 18, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    Re #5 Dignified silence.

  11. Ian Rist

    February 18, 2009 at 11:33 am

    But who is “Peter Dunn”? A miserable,cowardly little individual that can’t operate under his real name.
    I detect the wagons being put in a circle.
    Please ensure everyone looks at the Saturday(21/2/09) papers.

  12. stephen pratten

    February 18, 2009 at 10:42 am

    Ian, How is the opinion of “the average citizen” going to help? Do the average citizens have knowledge of foxes, ecology or really care about native wildlife?

    On another key issue that I know you don’t like us to mention, (one that Mr Dean fully supported without being an appropriate expert himself), the govt clearly is not interested in the views of the “average citizen”, (or should that be the average views of the citizens)!

  13. Ian Rist

    February 18, 2009 at 4:09 am

    Incidentally Stephen is that the same fox you reported on this site on the 2/05/2007 that you claim saw in 2001?
    It may have been the same one someone else saw and reported on this site that was pissing on someones hub caps at the Epping Forest servo.

  14. Dr Kevin Bonham

    February 18, 2009 at 3:25 am

    Once again in #4 we see how someone raises a seemingly reasonable point, and Ian Rist resorts to personally attacking that person with unsubstantiated accusations and irrelevant diversions, even though Ian himself was not actually criticised in Peter Dunn’s letter, which was aimed squarely at Ivan Dean.

    Ian, this one isn’t really about you (although if you carry on in your usual manner it probably soon will be); it’s primarily about Ivan Dean.

    Do you have anything relevant to say about Ivan Dean’s degree of involvement in the previous investigation and the extent to which that might or might not colour his neutrality in conducting this one?

    Surely if your concern is that the PAC inquiry is seen to represent due process, then it would be better to have it clearly seen to be neutral, which may not be the case with Ivan Dean on board?

    Any chance you could actually stick to the questions raised by the author instead of firing off with the usual repetition of stuff (most of #3) that is already all over heaps of other fox threads on this site?

    As for blog sites, newspapers and talk back radio, the people who contribute to those are definitely *not*, in general, “the average citizen”.

  15. Ian Rist

    February 17, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Mr Dunn on reflection I find your article quite irrational.It is my opinion you sound like a control freak.
    It is my democratic right to contact any member of Parliament about any matter I see fit.
    It is also my democratic right to present a submission and give evidence at any PAC inquiry.
    As for your term “brief investigation” by Tasmania Police I find that laughable. I wouldn’t call seven detectives investigating brief. The instruction from the minister at the time was the investigation was to be complete and thorough.
    The Police advised the minister through the chain of command in mid July 2001 that there was no evidence of fox cub or fox importation and release,and yet we have a minister requesting funding on the 23 August 2001 from the then Federal Environment minister Senator Robert Hill to combat this alleged fox importation.
    Mr Dean has contantly disproven “evidence” and will no doubt again.
    If you people have nothing to hide you shouldn’t be so worried.

  16. Ian Rist

    February 17, 2009 at 11:28 am

    I have on record statements from the wise ones circa 2002 “if we can get through one breeding season with no cubs it means we have won, we must use 1080 however unpleasant this may be for some”.
    Originally the Feds agreed to funding to prevent establishment of foxes. Seven years on we are finding scats across Tasmania,that would,and could only mean establishment.If these scats are genuine,and are not being put out there to fool the government or the people… we have a problem.
    Personally I find it incredible (no, not plausible) that we are finding all these fox scats with no corroborating evidence i.e foxes,fox cubs,fox dens, shot foxes,substantiated sightings,and photographs of foxes from the remote cameras put at just about every fox “hot spot” and fox bait sites.
    This is why the PAC inquiry must be allowed due process and the facts presented at one site for considered analysis.
    There also should be a poll done to get Mr and Mrs Average’s opinion on all this expenditure with no results. We here the constant whinging from those who are on or connected to the gravy train,my experience is the average citizen is very tired of it all. Blog sites and newspapers and talk back radio confirms this.

  17. Stephen Pratten PhD

    February 17, 2009 at 10:50 am

    I agree. Having seen a fox in this State in late 2001 I have found Ivan Dean’s attitude to this issue quite disturbing and very unprofessional.

  18. Ian Rist

    February 17, 2009 at 10:24 am

    I am sure Mr Dean and the other MLC members of the PAC inquiry will do their job and get to the truth of this matter. Some amongst us seem to be getting increasingly nervous.

    I would be.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive our newsletter

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top