Public perceptions of foxes and fox eradication in Tasmania

Fisher, N. I.; Lee, A.; Cribb, Julian; Haynes, Gwilym D.

doi:10.7882/az.2011.010

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We don't want history to repeat. So there's been a vigorous (if mainly vocal) response to a new wave of mammal loss in northern Australia (Woinarski et al 2011), and rapid concern and action taken on the recent appearance of red foxes Vulpes vulpes in Tasmania (Fisher et al 2011). We argue that it is the loss of the thylacine, and the 18 other Australia mammals now extinct, that prompts this action.…”

Section: Australian Zoologist Volume 38 (3)mentioning

confidence: 88%

Extinction, de-extinction and conservation: a dangerous mix of ideas

Banks

Hochuli

2017

Australian Zoologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preventing extinction is the central driver of almost all conservation action. Conservation biologists are sensitive about extinction because it is final and irreversible. The concept of de-extinction however threatens the finality of extinction to offer the option to reverse some of the iconic extinction events. Here we explore the place that extinction plays in conservation and argue that; (1) deliberate extinction by humans is surprisingly rare and extinction is a cultural taboo, (2) Australia has an acute sense of extinction guilt linked to our world renowned extinctions of iconic mammals and; (3) extinction, like death, is irreversible, meaning that extinct species hold a special martyr-like status as iconic consequences of the excesses of humans. We argue that de-extinction is a dangerous idea for conservation because it will undermine the value provided by extinct species as martyrs for the conservation cause.

show abstract

Section: Australian Zoologist Volume 38 (3)mentioning

confidence: 88%

Extinction, de-extinction and conservation: a dangerous mix of ideas

Banks

Hochuli

2017

Australian Zoologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar surveys assessing stakeholder acceptability of toxicant use in invasive species management had comparable findings. Specifically, Fisher et al [ 69 ] found that approximately 59%, 35%, and 28% of survey respondents were supportive of the use of cyanide baiting, 1080 baiting, and humane toxins in fox eradication efforts on Tasmania, respectively. Comparatively, Farnworth et al [ 70 ] found overwhelming acceptance of toxicant use in the control of non-native species to New Zealand by the general public and conservation groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder perspectives towards the use of toxicants for managing wild pigs

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are one of the most detrimental invasive mammals in the US. Lack of adequate population control has allowed pigs to become established across the landscape, causing significant ecological and economic damage. Given the need for additional tools for reducing wild pig populations, two toxicants, warfarin and sodium nitrite, are at the forefront of the discussion regarding future wild pig management. However, no research has examined stakeholders’ perspectives towards the use of toxicants in wild pig management. Given the lack of knowledge, our goal was to determine stakeholders’ perspectives towards the legal use of toxicants for managing wild pigs. We surveyed 1822 individuals from three stakeholder groups (hunters, farmers, and forestland owners) across Alabama during February 2018 using an online survey following the Tailored Design Method. All three stakeholder groups were generally supportive of toxicant use, though their views differed slightly by group. Furthermore, all stakeholder groups were supportive of toxicant purchasing and use regulations, while accidental water contamination, human health impact, and incorrect usage of a toxicant were stakeholders’ greatest concerns. These results indicate that these groups would likely be in support of using toxicants for wild pig management in Alabama and could be a model for other states or locations. Consequently, these results have direct implications for shaping policy and possible use of toxicants as a future wild pig management tool.

show abstract

“…The red fox is one of the most damaging invasive predators in Australia, having been pivotal to half of the known mammal extinctions worldwide in the last 200 years (Kinnear et al 2002;Short and Smith 1994). This case provided us with the opportunity to examine a number of the socio-political constraints to eradication and control described above, namely, the island is inhabited; eradication methods are seen by some community members as inhumane (Fisher et al 2011); and half of surveyed community stakeholders doubt that foxes are present (Correy and Correy 2012), and this doubt is hampering eradication efforts (Blackman et al 2013).…”

Section: Fox Eradication In Tasmania Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and integrating knowledge to improve invasive species management

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most successful control or eradication programs have been implemented in uninhabited regions, where little or no consideration of sociopolitical factors has been required. A considerable challenge for invasion scientists and decision-makers lies in controlling and eradicating species from inhabited regions, where challenges related to community stakeholder perceptions of the need to act, animal rights and uncertainty surrounding the presence and abundance of invasive species can threaten program development and implementation. We interviewed senior policy advisors and scientists who developed and implemented European red fox eradication policies on the inhabited island state of Tasmania, Australia. Our aim was to understand how they perceived that scientific evidence and community stakeholders' knowledge and preferences should be involved in developing and implementing policy for fox detection and eradication. Respondents perceived that scientific evidence was best used in determining the need to act, assessing risks, designing eradication operations and monitoring progress. Overall, they perceived that involving community stakeholders was important in creating socially acceptable eradication operations that enable access to private land to implement eradication options. Community stakeholders' knowledge was perceived, largely by scientists, to be based on misinformation, misconceptions and mistrust in science and, therefore, of limited value in informing policy. Community stakeholders were therefore not viewed as equal partners in the policymaking process by scientists. Only those stakeholders who performed a clear function were considered valuable. We propose that increased likelihood of successful eradication of invasive species from inhabited areas can be achieved by using a functional approach to stakeholder inclusion, to prevent dissent and conflict by legitimizing varied knowledge and capacity, leading to co-production of knowledge within a co-management governance system.

show abstract

Public perceptions of foxes and fox eradication in Tasmania

Cited by 8 publications

References 8 publications

Extinction, de-extinction and conservation: a dangerous mix of ideas

Extinction, de-extinction and conservation: a dangerous mix of ideas

Stakeholder perspectives towards the use of toxicants for managing wild pigs

Understanding and integrating knowledge to improve invasive species management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About