Click me and I'll connect you with your issue outline (NOTE that this outline is in the earlier single-document form)
2005/06: Should the killing of Great White sharks off the South Australian coast have been authorised after the December 17, 2004, shark attack?
Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Should the killing of Great White sharks off the South Australian coast have been authorised after the December 17, 2004, shark attack?
Related issue outlines: no related outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
shark
attack
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
What they said ...
'We do not advocate the indiscriminate killing of sharks. They are to be admired and appreciated and respected, and Nick knew that'
Mr Philip Peterson, father of Nick Peterson who was killed by a shark in waters off Adelaide on December 16, 2004
'This government will not allow a rogue shark near people to be a menace to human life'
South Australia's acting premier, Kevin Foley, commenting shortly after the death of Nick Peterson
The issue at a glance
On December 16, 2004, an 18-year-old surfboarder, Nick Peterson, was taken by a shark at West Beach, about 10kms west of the city centre. The attack occurred about 300 metres off shore. The beach is a popular one and was crowded at the time the attack occurred.
Five days previously on December, a 38-year-old Queensland man, Mark Thompson, was also fatally attacked by a shark at Opal Reef, about 40 nautical miles northeast of Cairns.
The South Australian government responded immediately. An emergency meeting was convened on the morning of December 17 after which the acting premier, Mr Kevin Foley, issued the following announcement, 'The Government believes that any large shark, in shore, posing a threat to human life, should be destroyed.
SAPOL and National Parks & Wildlife officers have authorisation to destroy any sharks that poses this threat.
As a first action, these officers will attempt to harass any sharks offshore into deeper water.
At the same time, the Government will swiftly move to bring down the full force of the law on any vigilante who chooses to go out and find and kill any sharks without authorisation.'
Mr Foley also announced, 'The Government will take immediate action today to ensure there is increased surveillance - in the air, on the beach and out on the water.'
The authorisation to kill sharks posing a threat to human beings met with fairly general approval, especially from the three youths who were present when their friend Nick Peterson was killed. Anxiety over shark attacks were only further increased when the week after Nick Peterson's death there was another fatal shark attack off the Queensland.
However, others, including Nick Peterson's father, indicated that the shark that fatally attacked Nick should not be killed.
Background
The conservation status of Great White sharks
Conservationists claim that though the global population is difficult to assess, Great Whites are believed to make up fewer than 0.5 percent of the total estimated shark population. Australian authorities now estimate there are fewer than 10,000 white sharks in Australian waters after a long-term decline. They estimate that world-wide about 500 are killed by humans each year, primarily for their jaws which can fetch up to 50,000 US dollars a set. South Australia has recorded a 94 percent drop in Great White numbers in the decade from 1980.
Shark experts say over-hunting is aggravated by female Great Whites taking between 12 to 18 years to mature, and males eight to 10 years. Even when they are sexually mature, a female gives birth to a small litter only every two to three years which means reproduction cannot keep up with the hunters.
Great White sharks are top predators. This means they are the principal predator in their food chain. Conservationists have warned that if they were to become extinct this could have severe ecological repercussions. Commercial fisheries have been warned that the loss of the Great White would mean a dramatic increase in seal numbers, and, as seals eat huge quantities of fish, this would affect the amount of fish available to be harvested commercially.
South Africa was the first country to protect the great white in 1992, followed by Namibia, the Maldives, the United States, Australia and Malta.
In October 2004 Australia and Madagascar succeeded in gaining CITES protection for the Great White shark. The aim of this protection is to ensure that international trade in plants and animals does not threaten species survival. Countries that are party to the agreement have agreed to enforce its provisions through permits, policing, and monitoring.
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) is an international agreement between 166 governments.
South Australian shark control measures
In October 2001, the former South Australian premier, Rob Kerin, issued an interim shark response plan. The plan included the following provisions:
* Police were given the power to destroy threatening sharks as a last resort measure - under special exemption by the Minister, the Director of Fisheries, the Water Police and several senior fisheries officers under the Fisheries Act;
* Aerial shark patrols were instituted on weekends and public holidays along popular beaches; and
* Surf Life Saving jet boats were to patrol sections of the coast.
In November 2002 the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Minister in the new Labor government, Mr Paul Holloway, announced a revised response plan which included the following provisions:
*the destruction by authorised officers of large white sharks that present an immediate threat to human life, or that have remained in the area after an attack. This change means large sharks that present a menace to the public may be caught and destroyed by authorised officers prior to an incident occurring.
(Though presented as a change, this action was actually allowed under the 2001 interim plan.)
*The catching and killing of large threatening sharks will be co-ordinated by PIRSA Fisheries, in association with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, and the commercial fishing industry.
*As great white sharks are a protected species, it's important that any move to destroy a white shark posing a threat is only taken by authorised officers. Any members of the public taking such action will be prosecuted.
(After this revised plan was adopted the Government was criticised for not acting on the powers it gave and killing sharks that were sighted in areas where people were recreating.)
The revised plan also placed new restrictions on berleying activities by tourism operators who conduct cage diving charters. (Berleying is the dropping bait - including blood, bone or animal meat - around or behind a boat; a method used by some fisheries and charter boat operators to actually attract sharks to a particular area.)
*As part of the Government's moves to improve safety for the public and the fishing industry, cage-dive charters are banned around the islands of the Sir Joseph Banks Group.
*Permission to berley is granted to only those operators licensed by shark viewing and tagging in the waters of the Neptune Island Conservation Park. Operators will be required to submit a Cage Dive Operating Plan with their berleying applications.
*Operators licensed to berley are not allowed to provoke sharks, thereby changing their normal behaviour, and must use natural fibre twine if attaching bait to a rope.
Internet information
Some of the items below are newspaper items. They will not be available online indefinitely
On December 16, 2004, The Sydney Morning Herald published an analysis discussing the apparent prevalence of shark attacks occurring off the South Australian coast. The article is titled, 'South Australia a shark-killing hotspot, says expert'
It can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/South-Australia-a-sharkkilling-hotspot-says-expert/2004/12/16/1102787209981.html
On December 17, 2004, The Sydney Morning Herald published a news report titled, 'Victim's father against killing shark'. The report focused on the views of Nick Peterson's father, Philip Peterson.
It can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Shark-sighted-as-search-for-remains-goes-on/2004/12/17/1102787244020.html
On October 13, 2004, The Age published a news report detailing Australia's efforts to have the conservation status of the Great White shark extended to the regulation of international trade in its products. The article was titled, 'Man gives great white shark a helping hand'.
It can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/12/1097406576369.html?from=storylhs
The media release issued by acting South Australian Premier, Kevin Foley, detailing shark response plan to follow the death of surfer Nick Peterson can be found at http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/MediaSearch.asp?Action=Search&choice=News&id=2252
The release, which includes a call that 'any large shark, in shore, posing a threat to human life, should be destroyed' was issued on December 17, 2004 - the day after Nick Peterson's death.
The South Australian Government's review of its shark response plan was released in November, 2002. Details of proposed changes cam be found at http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/innews/SAgovt01.htm
A Liberal Opposition press release criticising the South Australian Government for their slowness in revamping the shark release plan was put out in October 2002. A copy of this media release can be found at http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/innews/SAgovt02.htm
On December 17, 2004, the day after the death of Nick Peterson, the South Australian Liberal Opposition called on the government to introduce helicopter shark surveillance.
A copy of the media release detailing this proposal can be found at http://www.sa.liberal.org.au/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=3461
Arguments in favour of killing Great White sharks off the South Australian coast
1. A young man had just been killed by a Great White shark that was believed to have been seen in the area over preceding weeks
On December 16, 2004, an 18-year-old surfboarder, Nick Peterson, was taken by a shark at West Beach, about 10kms west of the city centre. The attack occurred about 300 metres off shore. The beach is a popular one and was crowded at the time the attack occurred.
On the day after the attack, South Australian Sea Rescue Squadron spokesman, Fraser Bell, said that there were believed to have been two sightings of the shark, one made at 6.15am (CDT) and the other at 8.20am. These sightings were off the coast of the adjoining suburbs of Henley Beach and Grange.
Mr Bell said the shark was believed to be about 5 metres long and had been in the area for the past two or three weeks.
'We are assuming it was one, the one which we have seen here for the past few weeks,' Mr Bell said.
The apparent ongoing presence of a shark which had taken a surfboarder, in the vicinity of a popular suburban beach, was seen by many as a threat best removed by killing the shark.
2. It was feared that the Great White shark that took the surfboarder may have been a 'rogue' shark
Shortly after the fatal attack on Nick Peterson, South Australia's acting premier, Kevin Foley, claimed, 'This government will not allow a rogue shark near people to be a menace to human life.'
A 'rogue' shark is said to be one that has shifted its hunting grounds to a particular area where it begins attacking people. There are those who believe that some sharks are capable of developing a preference for human flesh and move into an area frequented by human beings in order to hunt them.
The day after the attack, a South Australian sea surf rescue chief was reported as saying of the shark that took Nick Peterson that it 'had a taste' and would be 'back for more'.
A similar remark was made by Ty Wheeler, a 16-year-old friend of Nick Peterson's, who was in the dinghy when his friend was killed by a shark. Mr Wheeler said, 'I want this one killed because it's too close to the shore and has a taste for blood now.'
3. The South Australian Government has a responsibility to guarantee public safety
In common with all Westminster governments, the South Australian government is aware of its responsibility to ensure public safety.
Acting South Australian Premier Kevin Foley has said the safety of human life must come before the preservation of a particular species of shark.
South Australia has a White Shark Response Plan designed to promote public safety. The plan was reviewed in 2002 and the review recommended 'the destruction by authorised officers of large white sharks that present an immediate threat to human life, or have remained in the area after an attack'.
South Australian Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Minister Paul Holloway said, 'This change will mean large sharks that present a menace to the public may be caught and destroyed by authorised officers prior to an incident occurring.'
4. South Australian waters appear to pose a particular risk of shark attack
It has been noted that South Australia appears to face a particular risk from shark attacks. The Great White shark is found all around Australia's southern coast but favours the waters of South Australia as one of its prime hunting grounds.
According to shark expert Rodney Fox, South Australia's Spencer Gulf is probably the best feeding ground in the southern ocean for white pointers. Mr Fox, who survived an attack by a Great White and has spent much of his life studying sharks, said he had seen more Great Whites in that area than anywhere else in southern Australia.
'It's probably the best restaurant in the whole southern ocean,' Mr Fox once said.
Shark researcher Andrew Fox (son of Mr Rodney Fox) said South Australia's recent shark fatality rate was very high by international standards. 'South Australia has had more fatalities than any other place in the last 20 years,' Andrew Fox said.
The death on December 17 2004 of an 18-year-old man off West Beach was the 10th shark killing in South Australian waters since 1975. It was the twentieth recorded shark fatality in the state's history.
'There's been 20 fatalities out of 46 attacks in South Australia; that's an unusually high proportion,' Andrew Fox said. He said the high death rate in South Australia was probably because most of the attacks were by Great Whites, the most dangerous species of shark.
Mr Fox said there were always Great White sharks roaming along the southern coast of Australia, but they tended to congregate near food sources. Mr Fox suggested dolphin breeding colonies off the Adelaide coast may in part account for the frequency of Great White shark sightings and attacks in the area.
5. The tourist industry could be harmed by fears of shark attack
South Australia's acting premier, Kevin Foley, has commented, 'There is no question, if there is a level of fear which grips a community, people will stay away from the beaches and that will have an economic and social impact on beachside communities ... we need to regain the confidence to go back to the beach very quickly.'
It has been argued that the measures taken by the South Australian Government, authorising the killing of Great White sharks, is necessary not only to save lives, but also to restore confidence in South Australian beaches as a tourist destination.
Similar fears of harm to the tourist industry have been expressed in Western Australia.
Mr Richard Stone, a former state surfer and West Australian businessman, has warned, 'Any more fatal attacks this season and the tourism value of the region will suffer significantly.'
Deputy shire president of the Augusta-Margaret River Shire Council, Mr Bob Wyburn, has said, 'It does make you worry. If you get a reputation for sharks it's not good for tourism. If we had another attack we could have problems.'
6. Only authorised personnel are permitted to kill sharks
It has been stressed that the authorisation to kill Great White sharks that pose a threat to human beings is not intended to represent an open season on the species. Rather, it has been noted, only specified marine personnel are able to kill the sharks and strict penalties remain in place for any unauthorised person who kills a Great White shark.
SAPOL and National Parks and Wildlife officers alone have authorisation to destroy any sharks that poses a threat to human life.
In a press release issued the day after Nick Peterson's death, the acting South Australian Premier, Kevin Foley, stated, 'The Government will swiftly move to bring down the full force of the law on any vigilante who chooses to go out and find and kill any sharks without authorisation. Nobody else has authority to destroy Great White sharks and heavy penalties can apply ... For a first offence this may involve a $4000 fine and/or one year's jail. For a second offence, up to $8,000 and/or 2 years' jail.'
7. Sharks are only to be killed as a last resort
It has also been noted that under the South Australian White Shark Response Plan sharks are only to be killed as a last resort.
In a press release issued the day after the fatal shark attack on Nick Peterson, the acting South Australian Premier, Kevin Foley, stated, 'As a first action, these officers [from SAPOL and National Parks & Wildlife] will attempt to harass any sharks offshore into deeper water.'
Thus it is plain that sharks will only be killed if other methods of moving them out of areas used by swimmers, surfers and others fail.
Indeed, the South Australian government has been criticised by the Liberal Opposition for not implementing the provisions of the Response Plan with sufficient rigour.
South Australian Liberal Member of the Legislative Council, Terry Stephens, has claimed that in the past the response to shark attacks and potential attacks has been too slow. He believes there should be wider responsibility given to shoot sharks if necessary.
Mr Stephens stated in October 2002, 'If a shark is sighted staying around where humans work or play, a licensed operator should be engaged by PIRSA to remove it. The issue here is human life and to act quickly. The last few incidents we've had, there hasn't been anybody on the scene for 24 hours.'
Arguments against the killing of Great White sharks off the South Australian coast
1. Great White sharks are a protected species in Australian waters
The Great White shark is legally protected in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Namibia, the United States and Malta. This means it is not to be killed by either commercial or recreational fishermen in the territorial waters of any of these countries.
Australia has declared the Great White a protected species within Australian waters because of concern over its declining numbers. Mr Ian Cresswell head of the Australian delegation at the conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in October 2004, warned that Great White shark populations had declined by 60 per cent in some areas and 95 per cent in others.
Mr Cressell noted, 'It ... has [been] driven to the brink of extinction.'
The shark's vulnerability is increased by its slow growth and late maturation. The Great White shark is also threatened by mortality from commercial fisheries as a bycatch, (that is, it is caught incidentally along with the intended catch) from sports angling (in waters where it is not protected), and from directed White Shark fisheries where it is caught for its jaws, teeth and fins. Trade in White shark products such as jaws, teeth and fins is of serious concern as these are extremely sought-after in some cultures. There is also a lucrative 'black market' in these products which involves fishing for Great White sharks in waters where they are protected.
However, the main threat to Great White sharks in Australian waters is commercial fishing, during which the White shark is, as already noted, taken as a bycatch. This happens, in particular, in the snapper fisheries operating in Victoria and South Australia, and in West Australian shark fisheries.
The dramatic decline in Great White shark numbers and the continuing threat to the species in waters where it is not protected have made many within Australia reluctant to take any actions that might put the animal at further risk. This includes the killing of Great Whites that are found in areas frequented by humans.
2. Great White sharks do not pose a significant threat to human life
It has been claimed that statistically sharks pose very little threat to human life.
'When you consider how many people go in the water each day during summer, the number of attacks there (are) quite minimal,' Melbourne Aquarium curator Dave Donnelly has claimed.
'You're more at risk of being killed in a car accident on the way to the beach than you are being killed by a shark,' Mr Donnelly argued.
The same point was made by an Age editorial on December 19, 2004. The editorial stated, 'Shark attacks are rare events - the average person has far more chance of being hit by a car than taken by a shark.'
Ms Fiona Thiessen, in a letter published in The Age on December , 2004, also noted, 'The circumstances of any shark attack must be terrifying but considering how renowned Australians are for spending time in the ocean, the number of fatal attacks recorded is extremely low - 190.'
Commenting on the two fatal shark attacks that had occurred in Australian waters toward the end of December 2004, shark expert, Mr Andrew Fox, observed that they were a statistical anomaly and did not mean there were likely to be further attacks.
3. Great White sharks do not appear to prefer to hunt humans
Many shark experts contest that Great Whites ever develop a preference for human flesh and thus become 'rogue' sharks, deliberately killing human beings.
Shark expert, Mr Andrew Fox, has said he had expected there would be calls to hunt down and kill the shark responsible for Nick Peterson's death, but claimed the fear that it would now become a 'rogue shark' and attack more people was ill-founded.
Mr Fox said, 'If it fed it's unlikely to feed again and if it hasn't it probably negatively reinforces it into not attacking humans. They normally don't eat humans. They bite them but don't consume them. We don't have the energy content of dolphins, whales and snappers, but they kill people with the test bite.'
Mr Andrew Fox further claimed, 'They don't tend to become rogue sharks because there's never been a case when a shark has taken a liking to eating people.'
4. There would be no way of determining which shark killed the young surfboarder
Many conservationists and others concerned with the protection of the Great White shark are apprehensive that even if it is accepted that it is legitimate to kill a shark that has taken a human, it is extremely unlikely that the shark which caused Nick Peterson's death could be successfully identified.
The original sighting of the shark was made by three young men, friends of Nick Peterson's, who were in the motorised dinghy which was towing Nick Peterson's surfboard. They initially reported that their friend had been taken by two sharks, one five metres and the other four and a half meters. However, marine authorities later came to distrust this report, believing Nick Peterson had been taken by only one shark.
South Australian Sea Rescue Squadron spokesman, Fraser Bell, claimed shortly after the attack, 'It's my belief that there was only one involved but the lads were so traumatised that they might have thought there was another one.' Mr Bell also noted, 'We are assuming it was one, the one which we have seen here for the past few weeks.'
These remarks indicate that shark identification is very problematic. Great Whites are not routinely tagged and no person authorised to kill the shark that attacked Nick Peterson would know they had the correct animal until they examined its stomach contents.
5. Human beings are actually intruding in the Great White shark's territory
In a letter published in The Age on December 2004 Fiona Thiessen argued, 'Human beings interact with many animals' habitats. We are surely the only animal that seeks to dominate every area that it touches.' Ms Thiessen claimed that what we needed to do was to respect other animals' territories rather than to try to take over for our own purposes every environment in which we found ourselves.
Ms Thiessen argued, 'We need a better understanding of shark activities and how best to avoid coming in contact with the potentially dangerous creatures living in the ocean. We don't need fear-based measures that could impact on other marine life.'
The Age, in an editorial published on December 19, 2004, made a similar point. 'The simple fact is that if you swim in the ocean, you share the waters with sharks. Man is the intruder in that environment and sharks will react to the presence of humans instinctively ... Humans are a relatively recent addition to Australia's natural environment. It is an environment replete with dangers ... Living and playing in such and environment means individuals must accept the risks and the consequences.'
Nick Peterson's father, Mr Philip Peterson, has said, 'We do not advocate the indiscriminate killing of sharks. They are to be admired and appreciated and respected, and Nick knew that.'
6. There are other ways of guaranteeing human safety
It has been noted that there are many other ways, apart from killing any sharks seen in coastal waters frequented by humans, of protecting those who use our beaches.
One such measure is the aerial reconnaissance of coastal beaches and the issuing of warnings when sharks are sighted. It has recently been suggested that helicopter aerial reconnaissance it a particularly effective way of spotting sharks and warning the public of their whereabouts.
Both New South Wales and Queensland use shark nets to reduce the prevalence of sharks along part of their coastline.
There have also been attempts made in a number of Australian states to limit or prohibit berleying (dropping bait - including blood, bone or animal meat - around or behind a boat) a method used by some fisheries and charter boat operators to actually attract sharks to a particular area. It has also been suggested that some types of fishing activities should also be limited or controlled as they may serve to attract sharks.
It has further been argued that the beach-going public needs to be better educated so they are able to recognise sharks and take appropriate action when they see them in the water.
7. The South Australian government may have been trying to save face
As already noted, there have been ten fatal shark attacks in South Australian waters since 1975.
South Australia's interim shark response plan was put in place by the former Kerin Liberal government in 2001. This plan outlined the process that should be followed in managing situations of a rogue shark, and gave police and fisheries officers an exemption under section 59 of the Fisheries Act 1982 to destroy a shark if necessary where there is a continued direct threat to human life.
The plan was reviewed and substantial changes recommended in 2002. The current Labor government has faced persistent criticism from its Liberal opposition for supposedly being slow to act on these recommendations.
In this context, the government may have wanted to be seen to be taking decisive action so as to avoid any possible political fallout as a result of the most recent shark attack fatality.
Further implications
The South Australian Government has had a shark response plan in place for several years that would allow sharks to be killed if they appeared to pose a threat to human beings. This action can be taken without a shark attack having occurred. Interestingly, the capacity to kill Great Whites believed to threaten people has not been used. This would seem to suggest that the authorities concerned are reluctant to kill sharks without a compelling reason to do so.
What is also worth noting is that South Australian governments of both political persuasions do not appear to have been as proactive as they might have been in ensuring that the likelihood of shark attacks is reduced. There are a range of measures that could be employed that would make shark attacks less likely. Chief among these would appear to be aerial reconnaissance using helicopters.
On the day after Nick Peterson's death the South Australian Liberal Opposition issued the following media release, 'Helicopter beach patrols are widely accepted as the most effective surveillance tool for both ensuring the safety of our beaches and for undertaking rescues, and are used from South Africa to New Zealand.
Experts advise ... that once a possible shark sighting is made from a fixed-wing aircraft, the aircraft must pass the site by hundreds of metres before it can turn around and re-locate the same spot to confirm whether it is a shark. The crew must then radio to the ground to organise boats to scare the shark out to sea and/or clear beaches.
In contrast, a helicopter can itself immediately hover just above the shark to scare it away from swimmers. They can also use sirens and loud hailers to immediately usher swimmers out of the water and, if necessary, winch people to safety.'
Despite what would appear to be the reasonableness of this proposal, not only has the current Labor government not funded such a helicopter shark surveillance program, neither did their Liberal predecessors.
Sources
The Age
17/12/04 page 3 news item by Penelope Debelle, 'Sharks kill teenager off Adelaide beach'
18/12/04 page 7 analysis by Jamie Berry, 'The real risk: road deaths 15,000, shark attack deaths 1'
18/12/04 page 1 news item by Penelope Debelle, 'Tourist saw shark before fatal attack' (includes comments by Nick Peterson's father urging that the shark which attacked his son not be killed.)
19/12/04 page 16 editorial, 'Kill, kill, kill the sharks?'
21/12/04 page 10 letter from Fiona Thiessen, 'Why hunting the shark is wrong'
The Australian
17/12/04 page 1 news item by Jeremy Roberts, 'Horror as great whites kill teenage surfer'
18/12/04 page 4 news item by Jeremy Roberts, 'Mates demand revenge on killer shark'
20/12/04 page 4 analysis by Michael McKinnon and Belinda Hickman, 'Caught up in net controversy'
20/12/04 page 4 news item by Paige Taylor, 'Shark attack has swimmers wary'
20/12/04 page 6 letter from Ray Duncan, 'Killing shark makes no sense'
Herald Sun
17/12/04 page 1 news item, 'Killer sharks'
18/12/04 page 2 news item by Vivienne Oakley, Edith Bevin and Christopher Salter, 'Kill them on sight'
18/12/04 page 13 news item, 'Mates recall the moment of terror'
19/12/04 page 5 news item by Leisha Petrys, 'Stalked by a monster'
21/12/04 page 16 four letters under the heading, 'It's their world so leave sharks alone'