PETER DUNN, Hawthorn
I can only be sceptical of claims by someone who freely criticises others’ science and, in effect, accuses them of fraud but who themselves takes great liberties with the principles spruiked.
Besides his myriad of contributions to this venue criticising the science of the fox taskforce and other postings pleading for civility in such argument, the transcripts of evidence to the recent Public Accounts Committee inquiry into fox eradication shows Dr Obendorf states how “serendipitous” it was that taskforce officers were anywhere near when the Clevelend (aka Glen Esk) fox was recovered (according to the incident report on the DPIWE website and as tended to the inquiry, they were merely en route to Launceston as they might be most days of the week – hardly mysterious) and suggesting consequent lab work and media attention was “stage managed”; icky stuff.
In his advocacy that the fox issue is merely a case of isolated biosecurity problems (eg Examiner June 26), Dr Obendorf simply ignores any evidence that doesn’t fit that pet theory, in doing so exhibiting poor science.
Out of many hundreds of unsubstantiated sighting reports, he cherry picks a few that fit his preconception; in doing so ignoring material evidence that contradicts it; exactly the sort of thing he criticises.
I would have thought he’d learned from the Trichinella debacle of the late 1980s when he and other veterinarians mistook a statewide animal parasite they simply had not found for a biosecurity breach (at Cradle Mountain) and declared an outbreak without even checking elsewhere and never mind that the speciman had been in the freezer for a year.
Tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent and hundreds of local devils, quolls, possums and other animals were caught, killed and tested – its all on the public record. The debacle was ‘busted’ by an experienced wildlife ranger who, sceptical of the veterinarians’ assumptions and appalled by the carnage , insisted on testing animals from well outside the area. My information from witnesses is that this was done with great reluctance because “it was not part of the plan” but the reality that this was a state-wide disease that had likely been there forever was immediately obvious and the emergency evaporated overnight. However, shortly afterward Dr Obendorf published a paper on the issue, omitting any mention of the serious error of judgment he was party to, either showing he learned nothing or he cannot admit he was wrong.
Years later, when devil disease came along, at least authorities had the sense to check widely and not declare an outbreak where they chanced to first find the disease. The same goes for the fox issue where it seems to me the taskforce is just trying to find out what is going on and do something about it. Of course they have to look statewide and of course they can’t ignore evidence.
Blinkered, preconceived views such as Dr Obendorf’s, are just the break foxes need and I for one, expect more from a self described, registered veterinarian, independent scientist, wildlife expert, forensic pathologist and veterinarian pathologist.
Peter Dunn
Hawthorn
