Economy
Foxes: I was surprised by the extent of mistakes …
The note (download below) that I submitted to THE TIMES; Australia and New Zealand in response to its 8/5/14 article about foxes and Tasmania (also download below) could equally apply to the article in The Mercury on 4/5/14; neither bothering to other than slavishly report claims from a self-appointed review panel. At least the ABC Background Briefing ( Read for yourself onTT here ) that accompanied the panel’s claims, made a cursory effort at getting other opinions.
Given the drum roll, I was actually surprised by the extent of mistakes and selective nature of many of the claims. Take, for example, the fox reported coming off the ship in 1998, accepted unquestioned by the panel. This was essentially a sighting report, much the same as many others glibly dismissed by the panel. Video the panel described as showing a fox was far from definitive. No panel members saw it nor examined casts and photographs of the footprints found a few days later. So, to be consistent, panel members should not accept that event happened.
I also see that the sighting report of a fox leaving a container at 2001 Agfest was also included in their table of events (in a recent formal version of the ‘panel’s’ analysis and findings published in The Wilson Bulletin), although this too is nothing more than a sighting report. Such inconsistencies seem to service a presumption that point-incursions explain everything. A couple of drops of blood was mistaken by the panel for a carcass – as sloppy as anything it criticises. Importantly, the screening test the fox program uses for DNA analysis of scats was much criticised by the panel but the adjunct, far more sophisticated and accurate sequencing test was essentially ignored. More on that later.
Far too much was made by the panel of the early stories of a number of cubs being imported around 2000 as driving the fox response, stories that resulted in an early police investigation that wrapped up before any of the well-known material evidence was available to examine. I know of no wildlife officer who firmly believed those stories of importation although of course they caused a great deal of interest.
What kicked the response off was actually far more ordinary – a particularly credible report of a close encounter near Longford by perhaps Tasmanian’s top field naturalist coming close behind the report by two English naturalists of hearing a fox, also near Longford.
The response grew as other sighting reports and material evidence popped up. One can’t afford to sit back and wait to see what happens with foxes?
Not one piece of material evidence that the fox eradication program considers might be or likely was authentic has been shown to be a hoax (as in not of Tasmanian origin) and I believe it questionable for the panel to use assumptions of hoaxing to bridge gaps in their argument.
It is also worrying that the panel made no condemnation of those they presume have carried out hoaxes. This does not bode well for the future.
This is not an academic issue. Given what foxes represent to Tasmania, I believe liberal application of the precautionary principal was appropriate. If, as a principal, one waits until everyone is satisfied with evidence (essentially impossible anyway) it will be far too late to eradicate anything – risk management 101. And yes, such a necessary early response on an unprecedented scale will make mistakes but I argue those mistakes were far less than the panel claims. Contrary to the hype, the panel proved nothing.
I note Ivan Dean’s very recent attempt to have another inquiry into the fox response didn’t get up; the government instead taking a responsible line. Perhaps Mr Dean should get more balanced advice.
Aside from the distraction to DPIPWE staff and general waste of time, such an inquiry could be of some use because it might correct the mistakes the panel made and instate balanced journalism.
Examining some early finances too would be interesting, in particular one crassly opportunistic invoice for tens thousands of dollars lodged without contract by a most surprising source (no, it wasn’t paid). To round it off, I would suggest any inquiry also include the early police investigation, an effort that’s not yet been scrutinised.
Download: