Actually one of the articles Ian linked was saying the amount of eradication
and detection was actually inadequate for the intended purpose and would never
have worked if there was truly a widespread problem with foxes. So I guess they
are arguing that a) it was made up and b) good thing because if it wasn't what
they did wouldn't have solved the problem.
Personally I think that the kind of emotive language being thrown around here
has no place in a public inquiry. Investigate potential wrongdoing by all means
but don't turn it into a witch hunt because that will potentially leave
Tasmania unprotected in future by governments scared to spend on biosecurity.
Cheers,
Chris
Sent from my iPhone
> On 12 Dec 2015, at 08:45, Peter Shute <> wrote:
>
> Ian, noting the comparison to a robbery, are there suggestions that the money
> hasn't all been spent on detection and eradication? I was imagining that at
> worst, the money had been spent on more detection and eradication than
> necessary.
>
> Peter Shute
>
>> On 11 Dec 2015, at 10:36 PM, Ian May <> wrote:
>>
>> It is interesting to note Tasmanian community reaction to this
>> controversy. One radio commentator was heard to say "The Great Train
>> Robbery" netted only £2.6 million.
> <HR>
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR>
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> </HR>
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
