WA’s Great White Shark Cull

WA’s Great White Shark Cull

This issue has certainly been polarising, so let’s lay it all out here!

Background

NSW has had a shark net program in operation since 1936, this entails 51 nets covering 250 km’s between Newcastle and South Wollongong that are deployed on the 1^st of September and removed on the 1^st April.
NSW DPI figures indicate that before nets were introduced in 1936 there was one fatal shark attack every year and only one fatal shark attack on a protected beach since.

Over 2 million people use this stretch of water over summer every year.

This comes at a cost almost 4000 sea creatures have been caught in NSW shark nets in the last 2 decades, including 1000 that were either stingrays, dolphins, turtles whales or seals, while fewer than 150 Great Whites or Tiger sharks were caught. Internationally shark nets have been listed as a threatening process for killing endangered species.

Qld started its program in 1962, it consist of baited drum lines and nets, or a combination of both all year round, nets are checked every 2^nd day, Dolphin pingers are placed on the nets to reduce Dolphin by catch, and whale pingers installed on the nets during the whale migration season, they also have a marine animal release teams as well as volunteer whale observation program. According to the QLD government only one fatal shark attack has occurred on a protected beach since 1962. In the first 11 months of 2013, it’s reported that 633 sharks have been captured, of which 297 were considered dangerous to humans.

Between 1943 and 1951 the South African city of Durban experienced several fatal shark attacks, but there have been none since nets were introduced in 1952. In protected beaches in KwaZulu-Natal between 1990 and 2011 there was 3 shark attacks none fatal at protected beaches while there was 20 fatal attacks over this same period at nearby non protected beaches.

The shark controlled measures in NSW& Qld are concentrated at specific regions where the number of water users is high, the shark attacks in WA have occurred over a large area. A prioritised process would need to be undertaken to identify areas for shark control programs to be introduced, and any program in WA is unlikely to be as effective as either in NSW or Qld due to this geographical difference. My understanding is that any long term shark program would require EPBC assessment to evaluate if the program is a controlled action or not. 


The WA government

2^nd round projects
The WA government plans to introduce strategically located baited drum lines, drum line are less effective than shark nets removing sharks from an area, but have a significant by-catch reduction. As well as the drum baiting program they have also funded $300,000 over 2 years to a WA company shark shield to develop shark deterrent devises,  $130,124 over 3 years to Curtin University to develop systems to mask the noise of beachgoers that attract sharks, $ 253,417 to the University of WA to develop acoustic systems to detect sharks approaching beaches, a further $284,620 will go to UWA to define the visual, electrical and vibration cues that trigger sharks attacks. As well as

1^st round project included research into existing shark deterrent devices, as well as funding the Curtin University research into sonar detection and imaging of sharks at UWA.

The WA government has also banned shark feeding dives, an activity that not only increases the likely hood of shark attacks on people, but also has very negative effects on not only the shark population but the entire ecosystem of the area.

These shark programs in NSW, Qld and now in WA cannot eliminate the risk of a shark attack all together. They are simply there to reduce the risk in a localised area. They are also not designed to remove sharks from the entire ocean. According to the figures available these measures do appear to reduce the risk significantly. We must understand that these programs are not likely to be solely responsible for the reduction in fatal shark attacks, wet suit design, proper training of the people that respond to shark attacks, advancement in medical procedures, public education programs as well as many other factors are responsible, but the shark beach protection programs play a vital role together with everything else.

The Great White Shark

Most people have probably heard that the Great White Sharks are endangered and on the verge of extinction, that a program designed to remove sharks from certain areas will result in their demise.

According to the IUCN list of threatened species, Great White Sharks are listed as vulnerable, and have never been listed as either critically endangered or endangered.

They are listed as Vulnerable in WA (Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (Western Australia): September 2013) as Carcharodon carcharias

Research into the distribution, biology and behaviour of the Great White Shark has been undertaken in Australia. Estimates of population size and nature, has largely been based on analysis of game-fishing catch data, by-catch data and capture rates in beach shark nets.

Southern Blue Fin tuna are listed two levels higher than Great White Sharks on the IUCN listing of threatened species. Blue marlin, common thresher sharks & school sharks are just 3 species that are listed on the same level as GWS on this same list.

Sydney's Taronga Zoo’s life sciences manager John West said shark nets were still the most effective method of reducing sharks in an area but he recommended shaving a month from each end of the meshing season.

John West is currently the Manager of Life Sciences Operations at Taronga and Taronga Western Plains Zoos. He is the Curator of the Australian Shark Attack File supported by the Taronga Conservation Society Australia (TCSA) for the last 30 years. He has been studying sharks for over 40 years. As the Supervisor of the Aquarium in 1980 he developed the Australian Shark Attack File (ASAF) to help him understand more about shark attacks in Australia. His work in analysing shark attacks has assisted governments and general public at large to better understand the interactions between shark and man.

John initiated the original Sharks Down Under, International Shark Conservation Conference hosted at Taronga Zoo in 1991 and has been involved with the conservation of sharks over many years. He was honoured in the 2005 Queen’s Birthday Honours list when he was awarded the Public Service Medal for his work with the Australian Shark Attack File and his contribution to shark conservation. John is a member of the IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group, a member of the American Elasmobranch Society (AES) and sits on the International Shark Attack Committee of the AES.

http://taronga.org.au/animals-conservation/conservation-science/researcher-profiles/john-west/john-west

Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras: The Status of the Chondrichthyan Fishes, (IUCN/SSC Shark speciality group)



The International Union for Conservation of Nature is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, they are also at the forefront of identifying and managing threatened species globally.

“Despite their apparent success in reducing attacks, beach meshing programmes come at a cost to the marine environment. Analysis of data from all programmes indicates that there are significant decreases in the localised abundance of most shark species that are regularly captured (e.g. Cliff and Dudley 1992; Reid and Krogh 1992; Simpfendorfer 1993). These declines are unlikely to affect the populations significantly where programmes operate along only a small fraction of the coast (e.g. the Queensland programme covers less than 1% of the coastline).”

“The continuous presence of ecotourism boats and feeding activities has altered the natural behaviours of resident white sharks (Bartlett 1998). The shark-feeding dive industry has evolved from initial attempts to lure in a few sharks for close observation to, in many cases, underwater circuses in which entrained sharks perform on cue and are physically manipulated by their ‘dive keepers’.

“Potential ecological disruption associated with inshore shark feeding is also a concern. Concentrations of sharks at regularly visited feeding sites are usually higher than natural abundance levels in an area, suggesting the ‘clumping’ of, or even an increase in, the local population (due to increased reproductive potential or Survivability of locally pupped sharks, or to immigration).”

“In 2001 and 2002 shark feeding was banned in waters off the US states of Florida and Hawaii and in the Cayman Islands in response to public and governmental concerns that this activity was changing the natural behaviour of sharks, altering the environment and increasing the risk of shark attack.”

Simpfendorfer 1992. “in Queensland the abundance of tiger sharks (probably the most dangerous species in tropical waters) appears to have increased since the beginning of the programme”

Support our sharks

The “Support Our Sharks” at the for front of the social media campaign, has a policy on shark fishing that reads.
  

“SOS does not support the fishing of sharks (commercially or recreationally/for sport or consumption), due to the stress inflicted during capture and the unprecedented decline of most commercially targeted shark species. However, we recognise that some species of sharks may be more resilient to fishing pressure than others and so decisions regarding the appropriateness of such activities need to be continually reviewed at a species-specific level."

So not only are they against any shark fishing but they want to continually review the species we do target, to the point when we are no longer allowed to target them I guess. SOS are also in the business of getting funding to study and develop shark repellents.

SOS Position Statement on shark fishing, in full.

http://www.supportoursharks.com/en/About_Us/Position_Statements/Shark_Fishing_and_Consumption.htm

Animal Liberation

 

Animal liberation have publicly said that people that fish recreationally are sadist and mentally ill, that we are like predators who cunningly lure children into their cars by offering them lollies or chocolate, they think it’s disturbing that we teach children to fish and subjecting animals to torture.

Animal Liberation exist purely to stop the killing of all animals including fish, it’s not just one of their policies it’s the one and only reason they exist, it’s not simply one of their views, it’s their fundamental basis of what they are all about, it's the most opposite extrme opinion to recreatinal fishing there is!

http://www.alv.org.au/issues/fish.php

The danger with recreational anglers supporting these groups is that we are assisting them in making there twisted views main stream, we are adding credibility to their nonsense.

Rodney Fox

Rodney Fox has been a huge advocator on banning the WA Shark Cull, although he makes money from shark feeding dives, an activity that has been scientifically shown not only to to be detrimental to the sharks, but there is strong scientific opinion that it might very well be at least partly responsible for the increased likelihood of shark attacks. If I started a business feeding dingos on Fraser Island there would be outrage, imagine a group wanting to feed lions in Africa, but due to the very strong alliance of dive groups and the environmental sector, there is a blind eye turned to shark feeding and shark ecotourism activities. Now Mr Rodney Fox has become the SA marine park ambassador.

 http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Home/Full_newsevents_listing/News_Events_Listing/140116-marine-parks-ambassador

Sea Shepherd

A group like Sea Shepherd is running a campaign against the Shark Cull, on the grounds that it’s an endangered apex predator and that the loss of sharks would be detrimental to the marine environment and us. While at the very same time, running a campaign, against krill fishing on the grounds that it’s at the start of the food chain. Please remember that this group has also ran campaigns against recreational fishing, and game fishing. By supporting groups like this we only give them legitimacy and strength to be able to attack us and to be much more successful when they do.

Sea Shepherd have also campaigned to ban game fishing

http://www.seashepherd.fr/news-and-media/editorial-070822-1.html

Sharks Campaign and recreational fishing

So far the majority if not all of the advocacy against the shark cull in WA has been based on false facts and emotion. As it says above these programs have been operating in NSW since 1936 and in Qld since 1962, and by all accounts appear to have at least some effect in reducing the deaths of people. The WA program would involve baited drum lines which everyone agrees has lower by-catch figures although it doesn’t reduce the by-catch completely.

If we as recreational anglers support a campaign that is very light on facts and based on emotion, what do we do when a group that wants to stop us fishing uses these same tactics against us? The more we except these type of campaigns the more effective they become, and the greater the danger that they will be used against us more often.

If we as recreational anglers support a campaign against culling Great White Sharks to prevent the death of people, how do we justify targeting species that are listed at the same level or above the Great White Shark on the IUCN threatened species list, for our recreation?

What do we do when a group decided that a species you target is important and should be left alone? Not because it’s endangered, but simply because they just think it’s special, what is the difference from a Great White Shark, a Mako, a Marlin, SBT or a King George Whiting?

Supporting groups who are against the Great White Cull and who also hold anti-fishing beliefs is detrimental to recreational fishing interests. We learnt this the hard way with the Super Trawler campaign. When the green groups that had sought anglers support, turned their backs on these very same anglers when the amendments to the EPBC act threatened every single commonwealth recreational fishery.

http://wefishaustralia.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-bill-has-oassed-senate.html

If we as recreational anglers believe that we should not support the WA shark cull program then let’s make our own case and stop jumping on the skirt tails of the very groups that wish to see an end to what we all enjoy doing sustainably.

From the recreational anglers perspective there can be one argument for being against the WA shark cull, localised depletion! Any cull of sharks will deplete the local area of not only sharks but other targeted species.

We as recreational anglers can make a difference, by using our experience and knowledge and presenting a logical argument, to minimise the impact of the shark program in WA on other species and to ensure that the program has the greatest chance of success in achieving its intended goals. We are also in a great position to be able to offer cost effective assistance to vital research to aid in addressing the issue with a different approach that doesn’t involve killing sharks. The WA government is handing out money left right and centre to groups to assist in research why are WA angling groups not putting their hands up to receive some of this funding, to benefit the sharks and our sport/recreation activity.

Note all comments will be moderated before being made available to the public, any rude, abusive or personal attacks will not be tolerated, if you can’t make a positive contribution to the subject then best you just keep posting on the anti-fishing groups pages.