Does WA have a problem with sharks, or with the media?

The WA Premier Colin Barnett and Fisheries Minister Norman Moore recently announced the Government will allocate $6.85-million for its “shark mitigation” strategy, in response to the recent wave of sharks bite incidents in the state. I applaud the government for allocating $4 million to applied research…

Rbmg6qcr-1349067465
There are a lot of positives in the WA Government’s plan to keep beaches safe – but why cull sharks? platours/flickr

The WA Premier Colin Barnett and Fisheries Minister Norman Moore recently announced the Government will allocate $6.85-million for its “shark mitigation” strategy, in response to the recent wave of sharks bite incidents in the state.

I applaud the government for allocating $4 million to applied research and tagging programs. This is certainly the best way to understand the root cause of shark bite fatalities and learn how to deter future incidents.

They have also allocated $500,000 to Surf Lifesaving WA to bolster beach safety and $150,000 for additional community awareness programs. I believe that on-the-ground work with the local community, informing people of the potential risks involved with entering the ocean and how to avoid dangerous situations, is a key factor in improving public safety and reducing shark bite incidents.

All of the measures mentioned above are extremely positive in terms of both public safety and shark conservation.

However, the government has also allocated $2 million for a new service allowing the Department of Fisheries to track, catch and, if necessary, destroy sharks in close proximity to beach-goers. This includes setting drum lines if a danger is posed.

The government is clearly under extreme pressure following a number of incidents over the past 12 months (pressure which has been magnified by the local media) to consider removing white sharks in an attempt to make the ocean a safer place. This is even though Western Australians are overwhelmingly against shark culling.

According to Shark Alarm, a group that monitors shark activity in Australian waters, the state government’s decision may actually have unintended consequences: “People who love the ocean, and who respect that this species is endangered will now most likely refuse to report the sighting at all, in fear that the shark will be killed by the government”.

During the latter half of the 20th century, shark culling was carried out in Hawaii in an attempt to make the waters safer. From 1959 to 1976, the state of Hawaii culled 4,668 sharks, including 554 tiger sharks. No significant decrease in the rate of shark bites was detected.

Yet here we are 40 years on, again proposing the use of this strategy. Pre-emptively killing sharks is simply an appeasement tactic, based on emotion rather than real science.

The WA Government is understandably in a difficult situation. Every shark bite incident brings the issue to the public’s attention thanks to the local media looking for a story that will sell. Even though many online polls overwhelmingly suggest that people are against killing sharks, sections of the media choose to ignore this. It is therefore no surprise that the WA Government has issued an order to kill sharks if they pose an imminent danger/threat, as they probably believe that this is what the WA people want.

WA has had legislation (Section 7[2] of the Fish Resource management Act 1994) in place for many years that enables the Department of Fisheries to kill sharks after a fatality, if they can properly identify the individual involved. To date, they have never acted on this legislation. Now they have the option of killing sharks before an incident. Time will tell if they will actually act upon this or whether this is really just an appeasement tactic to satisfy a section of the community and finally bring this issue to a close.

I previously ran a successful campaign against shark culling in WA which gathered the support of over 100 of the world’s leading shark experts and over 19,000 members of the public. I stand by this campaign and reiterate that investment in research, and involvement with the local community on how to avoid coming in contact with potentially dangerous sharks, are key to preventing future unwanted encounters.

For more information on the issue see the Support Our Sharks website.

Articles also by This Author

Sign in to Favourite

Want to follow The Conversation?

Sign up to our free newsletter to get the day's top stories in your inbox each morning, with a special wrap on Saturday.

Spinner
Donate and become a friend of The Conversation

Join the conversation

12 Comments sorted by

  1. Gil Hardwick

    Anthropologist

    The problem here has nothing to do with sharks but with lobbying for 'funds' to 'protect people', all fueled by an in-bred and incestuous media unable to consider real options, or the idea that people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds, and learn to deal with sharks on their own terms.

    It's a Nanny State, that's the long and the short of things.

    report
  2. el don

    logged in via Twitter

    absolutely: it's an emotional response, and will do nothing to save people from being bitten, harming marine ecology into the bargain.

    the hubris of killing animals so that humans can feel 'safer' in the animals' territory, so that humans may carry out leisure time activities is just another mark of the decline of western so-called civilisation.

    report
  3. Tim Scanlon

    Debunker

    I'm really concerned about shark attacks. I'm not quite as concerned about them as the number of deaths from bee stings, or lightning strikes, or scuba diving (even though I don't dive), or power tools, or swimming, or driving..... (Stevens & Paxton, 1992).

    Maybe the WA Government should spend heaps of money on more warning signs, not just for beaches, but any park or paddock or backyard where bees might congregate, places where water might gather at more than an inch deep (including potholes), etc. Can't be too careful in this maddeningly dangerous world. How did we ever survive without all of those signs and aerial patrols?

    report
  4. Grant Burfield

    Dr

    Calling five fatal shark attacks as "shark bite incidents" is understating things a trifle, n'est-ce pas?

    report
    1. Tim Scanlon

      Debunker

      In reply to Grant Burfield

      I'll really start worrying when the number of fatal shark attacks reaches triple digits in a year. More people die waiting for surgery every year than were attacked by sharks. Where are the patrols going door to door checking for possible suicide and depression risks?

      Also, the reason for the term shark bite is probably due to the fact that not every shark attack results in death. The stats show that we have averaged roughly 1.3 fatal attacks per year for 30 odd years, with a further 9.6 non-fatal attacks per year (last decade). Another thing is that 5 fatal attacks is neither here nor there in stats terms, as two years in the past decade have had 3 fatal attacks in a calender year, and when you look at population growth over that time you'd almost say that this isn't a big deal. For any real indication of change, actual research, like Ryan is discussing, needs to be done, rather than this knee-jerk reaction we currently have.

      report
    2. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Tim Scanlon

      "Another thing is that 5 fatal attacks is neither here nor there in stats terms, as two years in the past decade have had 3 fatal attacks in a calender year, and when you look at population growth over that time you'd almost say that this isn't a big deal."

      It's clear you have a penchant for descriptive statistics, so I won't argue on that score. I was only suggesting that describing a death of a human being while undertaking a recreational pursuit as a "shark bite incident" appeared a little strange. But we do have "crocodile bite incidents" in Queensland of course so on reflection perhaps it isn't strange at all.

      report
  5. Bruce Moon

    Bystander!

    Ryan

    As a resident of the Gold Coast, Qld, I am surprised WA has not allocated money towards shark nets.

    Here, the main criticism of shark nets has been towards by-catch; largely dolphins and whales. Now, sounders are affixed to the nets and since adoption there have been no reported entanglements of dolphins or whales.

    The only bites from sharks on the Gold Coast since netting has been from Bull Sharks in the canal waterways.

    I can't speak for the quantities of shark caught in the nets, but the tourism industry here doesn't need to address shark fears.

    Cheers

    report
    1. David Trescuri

      Student

      In reply to Mike Swinbourne

      Ironically, that same report also recommends against drum lines.

      Bruce, shark nets are considered inappropriate for much of the coast line due to the shape of the coastline and actions of waves and/or tides at some of the more popular locations.

      report
    2. Nick Kermode

      logged in via email @hotmail.com

      In reply to Bruce Moon

      ."Now, sounders are affixed to the nets and since adoption there have been no reported entanglements of dolphins or whales."

      No, whales are still getting caught, and plenty of animals you don't mention.

      "The only bites from sharks on the Gold Coast since netting has been from Bull Sharks in the canal waterways."

      No, a quick google search is all you need there. Its about equal, 7 of 15 have been at the beaches, and at least 2 of the "attacks" recorded in the canals have been by sharks under 60cm inflicting wounds that amount to a paper cut.

      report
  6. Carmelo Amalfi

    Journalist

    Thanks Grant, calling five fatal shark attacks as "shark bite incidents" is very insensitive. Ryan also mounts an unsuccessful argument based on his headline question, which itself is nonsense given that if the media is the problem, no shark problem exists. Worse, he holds up his tenuous premise by devoting a few lines about the role of the media he blames for the supposed support for shark killing and influence on government policy. After many years reporting shark attacks, bites and deaths, I have…

    Read more
    1. David Trescuri

      Student

      In reply to Carmelo Amalfi

      Insensitive it may be, but then again the term "shark attack," to me at least, has connotations of menace, deliberation and premeditation. I agree the mentality of people is often a knee jerk one of revenge, and I honestly do not believe the majority of people would in fact support terminating a shark as a means of vengeance or security.
      Certainly the media, especially television, must accept responsibility for creating some of the hype. Whilst the media has a duty to inform the public regarding…

      Read more