Peering through the undergrowth on a clear Tasmanian night, a pair of luminous eyes gleam at you. Before you can register what the animal is it leaves without a trace. Your last vision is of the tip of its tail and the grass parting as it moves like a snake slithering to safety. What do you think it is? Did a fox ever occur to you?

In the last decade, the likelihood of seeing a European Red Fox in certain 'hotspots' around the state has increased considerably. Since it was formed in 2006 the Fox Eradication Program (formerly the Fox Free Taskforce) has gathered enough physical evidence, in the form of scats and footprints, to confirm the presence of these elusive creatures and it is widely recognised that these introduced predators are now roaming our island. In 2009, the taskforce identified 10 positive scat marks in various locations across the state. Unfortunately, while the evidence does exist, sceptics still remain in both Tasmania and interstate.  Foxes are wary and elusive, and the discovery of fox activity is often insubstantial. While Matt Marrison, Community Engagement Section Leader of the FEP, argues that: "The Fox Eradication Program receives tri-partisan support from the major political parties in Tasmania and has widespread support from the general public", the Federal Government has decided to strip the Program's funding, which has inevitably placed enormous strain on its capacity to effectively eradicate foxes.

This announcement has perturbed many; including Greens MP Environment spokesperson Cassy O'Connor who believes that the Federal Government's decision cannot be justified.

"I think in part it's inexplicable because there is enough scientific evidence to prove that there are foxes in Tasmania." Ms O'Connor is concerned that the Federal Government might be listening to the sceptics. "Unfortunately, there is a small group of sceptics who have really managed to muddy the water," she said.

In 2006, the Tasmanian Government committed to provide $2.53 million per year for the next 10 years (funding commenced in 2007) indicating that foxes are a serious threat to Tasmania's environment, biodiversity and economy.  However, this funding has been slashed by more than half, to around $1 million per year. Mr Marrison is deeply concerned with the reduced funding.

"The Fox Eradication Program has been, and is currently, reviewing all operations to find ways of cost-cutting to achieve the goals of the program with substantially less funds," he said. Some of these changes include cutting back staff, which, in turn, results in a reduced number of field operations that are an essential part of the program.

"Many timelines will now have to be extended to achieve program targets and goals. The longer the timeline for an eradication program, the less likely it is to be successful," Mr Marrison said. The consequences that threaten the survival of the program appear too serious to ignore.

After this significant financial blow, it is clear that the FEP needs continued support if it is going to claw its way back to being Tasmania's most suitable option for fox eradication. Ms O'Connor, a passionate advocate for the State's 'clean and green' image, is aware of the processes that need to be put in place.

"The first thing we have to do is strengthen the arm of the Program and support their work and make sure they are properly funded," she said.  Equally important, according to Ms O'Connor, is to educate the public. "I believe that the Government does need to engage in a really effective advertising campaign to alert Tasmanians to the dangers of foxes," she said.   

According to a report conducted by the FEP, the greatest threat foxes provide is to livestock, wildlife and ecotourism. Foxes kill up to 30 per cent of lambs in some areas of Victoria. Foxes can carry distemper, mange, parvovirus and hydatids, which can be spread to native fauna. In a recent transcript, Ms O'Connor states that if foxes are left to establish themselves in Tasmania, 78 native species will be placed 'at risk', including the Eastern barred bandicoot and the long-nosed potoroo.  Yet, instead of supporting funding to prevent maximum impact, funding has been cut. Nevertheless, Ms O'Connor continues to rally support for the program. "I think that the Fox Eradication Program has done such a good job in getting the evidence that the voices of the sceptics are getting smaller and smaller," she said.

Michael Scanlan, of Jane Franklin Hall at the University of Tasmania, praises the program's swift action after he and his wife saw a fox as they drove through the little village of Westerway late one Sunday night in January 2007. "We approached a railway line with caution and approximately 20 metres in front of our headlights a fox crossed the railroad. We'd been spotlighting at Russell Falls National Park for hours beforehand so we were still in the mindset."  

"I have seen plenty of foxes. We are from the mainland, you see, and I have even shot at one before," he said. As the sighting was at night Mr and Mrs Scanlan thought it best to wait until morning to ring the FEP even though the Program does have a 24-hour hotline. "On the phone my wife described the fox as being orange in colour, having a very long snout and tail while quickly gliding into the long grass before disappearing," he said. "They definitely thought that it was a credible description and described the location as a 'hot spot' for sightings," he said.

Mr Scanlan is also aware of the scepticism concerning the eradication program. "I think it's a shame that people rubbish it because the risk of foxes establishing themseleves is so great. Sceptics usually have issues with the Government and its funding. They often bring other issues into their argument," he said. A fear that resonates with the FEP and particularly Mr Scanlan , is the potential impact of foxes in our State. "The real issue is if foxes become established there is no doubt that they will do tremendous damage to the native habitat," Mr Scanlan said.

This fear will become a reality if the FEP does not receive adequate funding. In actuality, the long-term impacts may well cost the State Government millions in repairing the damage to Tasmania's eco-tourism, wildlife and agriculture. The irony being that it would inevitably cost taxpayers more than what the FEP currently requires enacting its preventative measures. Mr Marrison is all too aware of these potential ramifications.

"Without the support of the community, or if we pull resources from the program too soon, we will never again live in a fox-free Tasmania."

"I personally would hope that this issue serves as a reminder to all in our community that we need to take responsibility to manage and conserve our precious and unique wildlife. It is a shame that many people only realise what they stand to lose when it is too late and long gone."

By Kim Burley

Comments(2):

1. What was that? It must be a fox!

   The most likely answer to the question posed in the header of the article is that it is a feral cat or a black morph of a brushtail possum! People have reported seeing over 3000 thylacines on mainland Australia in recent times. So they must be there - right? Because if only 1% are correct sightings, it is evidence enough. Logical hey? So foxes MUST exist in Tasmania given the volume of sightings and thylacine on the mainland. Simple? Case closed? You can't have one without the other Ms Burley. It's a shame that Ms Burley did not mention some true mysteries to mix in with all that lovely certitude. She has glossed over some pretty interesting ones. Here are just a few. A. Tasmanian government proposed that foxes got here 10 years ago by an intentional introduction of 11-19 foxes and published this in all sorts of places (such as scientific papers) as a FACT. The Tasmanian Police, when they investigated it, say this never happened! The Tasmanian government has now changed it's tune. Accordingly, foxes have now been in Tasmania for maybe 100 years. B. Two foxes did get to Tasmania from shipping containers. One is not contested and the other rarely, because they left lots of documented of fox footprints. BUT, in almost 10 years with so many foxes alluded to NOT ONE OTHER set of fox tracks has been found. Not a single one. Two confirmed live foxes leave tracks - the rest do not. This does not worry Ms Burley though. Faith is blind. C. Fox baiting is monitored. Foxes dig up baits and leave prints and very often droppings at the place they take a bait. Well this happens every other place but Tasmania. Guess what? NOT ONE SINGLE print or scat has been found in thousands of bait takes. Interesting Ms Burley? Just a little? But foxes (according to Tas Gov) are being controlled and eradicated, even without evidence that a single bait has been taken by a fox? D. Scat DNA proves that foxes are in Tasmania hey? Errr, well, maybe. Yet the tiny fraction of scats that have tested positive could also be due to sample contamination, fraud or poor laboratory practice (it happens all the time. Stop watching CSI and do some research. The science is not disputed but its application is). You don't know until the technique and it's application is shown to be foolproof. Otherwise you are accepting results as FACT using blind faith (is this a subject at UTAS these days?). Guess what? While some well respected scientists have asked for this to be done, the Tasmanian government has so far refused to do so. Extremely small amounts of DNA can contaminate samples. Perhaps worth keeping in mind when you realise that the task force has imported large amount of fox shit from the mainland and in the past formulations of fox urine, skins, stuffed foxes etc etc E. Of all the fox "bodies" some have been shown to be frauds. Most are suspicious because people involved have supplied anonymous information that cannot be tested. Two of the most critical were later claimed to have been moved from one place to the next. You have to be using blind faith again not to be suspicious at the very least. F. After 10 years it will be impossible to eradicate foxes. Fox scientists say so and always have. Tasmanian government says they have been here for 100 years, but they are not ESTABLISHED. Maybe Ms Burley can explain this one in her next article? G. If one of Australia's most respected fox biologists in 2003 wrote a report saying that three years was the time limit to prove eradication (by killing all the foxes and demonstrating that this can be done) can Ms Burley tell us firstly, what year this is? Secondly, on what basis is her greater authority and insight? I'll be waiting with BAITED breath!

   Saturday, June 18, 2011 Jack

2. What was that? It must be a fox!

   The most likely answer to the question posed in the header of the article is that it is a feral cat or a black morph of a brushtail possum! People have reported seeing over 3000 thylacines on mainland Australia in recent times. So they must be there - right? Because if only 1% are correct sightings, it is evidence enough. Logical hey? So foxes MUST exist in Tasmania given the volume of sightings and thylacine on the mainland. Simple? Case closed? You can't have one without the other Ms Burley. It's a shame that Ms Burley did not mention some true mysteries to mix in with all that lovely certitude. She has glossed over some pretty interesting ones. Here are just a few. A. Tasmanian government proposed that foxes got here 10 years ago by an intentional introduction of 11-19 foxes and published this in all sorts of places (such as scientific papers) as a FACT. The Tasmanian Police, when they investigated it, say this never happened! The Tasmanian government has now changed it's tune. Accordingly, foxes have now been in Tasmania for maybe 100 years. B. Two foxes did get to Tasmania from shipping containers. One is not contested and the other rarely, because they left lots of documented of fox footprints. BUT, in almost 10 years with so many foxes alluded to NOT ONE OTHER set of fox tracks has been found. Not a single one. Two confirmed live foxes leave tracks - the rest do not. This does not worry Ms Burley though. Faith is blind. C. Fox baiting is monitored. Foxes dig up baits and leave prints and very often droppings at the place they take a bait. Well this happens every other place but Tasmania. Guess what? NOT ONE SINGLE print or scat has been found in thousands of bait takes. Interesting Ms Burley? Just a little? But foxes (according to Tas Gov) are being controlled and eradicated, even without evidence that a single bait has been taken by a fox? D. Scat DNA proves that foxes are in Tasmania hey? Errr, well, maybe. Yet the tiny fraction of scats that have tested positive could also be due to sample contamination, fraud or poor laboratory practice (it happens all the time. Stop watching CSI and do some research. The science is not disputed but its application is). You don't know until the technique and it's application is shown to be foolproof. Otherwise you are accepting results as FACT using blind faith (is this a subject at UTAS these days?). Guess what? While some well respected scientists have asked for this to be done, the Tasmanian government has so far refused to do so. Extremely small amounts of DNA can contaminate samples. Perhaps worth keeping in mind when you realise that the task force has imported large amount of fox shit from the mainland and in the past formulations of fox urine, skins, stuffed foxes etc etc E. Of all the fox "bodies" some have been shown to be frauds. Most are suspicious because people involved have supplied anonymous information that cannot be tested. Two of the most critical were later claimed to have been moved from one place to the next. You have to be using blind faith again not to be suspicious at the very least. F. After 10 years it will be impossible to eradicate foxes. Fox scientists say so and always have. Tasmanian government says they have been here for 100 years, but they are not ESTABLISHED. Maybe Ms Burley can explain this one in her next article? G. If one of Australia's most respected fox biologists in 2003 wrote a report saying that three years was the time limit to prove eradication (by killing all the foxes and demonstrating that this can be done) can Ms Burley tell us firstly, what year this is? Secondly, on what basis is her greater authority and insight? I'll be waiting with BAITED breath!

   Saturday, June 18, 2011 Jack