Right: A shark swims close to a crowded Australian beach.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of a shark cull along the Western Australian coast
1. Sharks appear to represent a growing threat to human life in Australian waters
There have been four fatal shark attacks in Western Australian waters in the seven months between September 2011 and March 31, 2012. There have also been regular sightings of large sharks only metres from popular surfing and swimming beaches. Western Australian beaches, including Mullaloo and Cottesloe in Perth and Gracetown, Bunker Bay and Prevally, have all seen frequent closures, while surfers and beachgoers on Rottnest Island were kept out of the water after a recent fatal attack.
McAuley, a senior shark research scientist with Western Australian Fisheries has said that the most recent death was the latest in an 'unprecedented' number of fatal shark attacks off Western Australia in the past two years.
Mr McAuley has stated, 'I'm not aware of any series of fatal shark attacks of this number, in such a short period of time, anywhere in the world. We really can't tell what's behind that.'
Last year a large proportion of the global shark fatalities occurred in Western Australia. So last year was particularly bad - this year has already started very tragically.'
Critics of what they perceive as government inaction have argued that the current spate of deaths is so extraordinary that it is no longer possible to regard it as merely a spike in the normal cycle of shark fatalities off the Western Australian coast.
In 2009, the number of shark attacks worldwide stayed about the same, with 61 events compared with 60 in 2008. The number of attacks in the United States declined between 2007 and 2009, though George Burgess, curator of the International Shark Attack File at the University of Florida, has said it was too soon to tell if that reflected a long-term trend.
Shark attacks in Australia appear to be following a different trajectory. Shark attacks in Australian waters appear to have been trending up over the last four years. Florida University Shark Attack File statistics show Australia had 20 attacks in 2009, compared with 12 in 2008 and 13 in 2007.
2. It is not always possible for human beings to avoid the risk of shark attack
Supporters of a shark cull argue that it should be put into effect in marine areas where there is high human usage, because these are areas which, by definition, it is not reasonable to ask people to avoid.
This point was made by Liam Bartlett, in an opinion piece published in Perth Now on October 22, 2011. Bartlett noted of some of the recent shark attacks in Western Australian waters, 'Problem is, we're not talking about a deep-sea ocean sanctuary somewhere west of the Abrolhos. This is one of the main tourist destinations for a capital city... The main beach at Cottesloe is as much a part of our urban environment as Kings Park...make no mistake, if nothing is done at Cottesloe or a number of other high-usage metropolitan beaches, Ken Crew and Bryn Martin will not be the last to meet a grisly death.'
It has also been suggested that a number of the risk management behaviours promoted by the Australian Shark Attack File are not likely to be effective.
CSIRO shark expert Barry Bruce has noted that there are some commonsense measures that people can take, such as not swimming with big schools of bait fish. However, he is sceptical about the theory that the risk of attack increases at dawn and dusk.
Bruce has stated, 'People talk about not swimming at dawn and dusk, but from a pragmatic point of view the morning and evening are generally the times that people have available to them to go swimming.
If you actually have a look at the shark attack statistics on a time-of-day basis there is a peak in mid-morning and a peak in mid-afternoon and a dip in the middle of the day and a low level of shark attack at dawn and dusk, believe it or not.
But that doesn't tell us anything about what sharks are doing. It reflects what people are doing. That's the times that people are in the water and the reason there is a dip in the middle of the day is that is the time that people get out for lunch.'
What Bruce's argument suggests is that sharks attack people when people are in the water. If this is the case, then it would appear to make avoidance very difficult.
It has also been claimed that Barry Bruce's research is suggesting that sharks are 'philopatric', that is, they belong to a group of animals that return to the same area on a regular basis. Again, if this should turn out to be the case, it means that areas such as Cottesloe are likely to be an area where certain sharks return to feed from one season to the next. Those who support culling sharks argue that this is a key reason for doing so, especially with those that feed in a marine area regularly frequented by people.
3. The fear of shark attack is depressing tourism in some areas
In April, 2012, Ian Stubbs, the City of Busselton president, called for a cull soon after the most recent fatal shark attack, saying such depredations would damage tourism in the popular region. Mr Stubbs has stated, 'I think there should be a culling program because it's gone too crazy. How many more of these tragic deaths can we continue to have? It's far too many...If they have attacked humans, they should be destroyed.'
Western Australia's popular South-West tourist region is, of April 2012, officially the deadliest place in the world for shark attacks, after a fourth death in less than seven months.
The state's Fisheries Department confirmed on April 1, 2012, that it had called off the search for the shark that has recently taken a 33-year-old local diver, but beaches between Bunbury and Busselton, about 200km south of Perth, would remain closed. Meanwhile beaches closed because of Saturday's fatal shark attack reopened this morning, the Department of Fisheries confirmed. Local traders relying on tourism are concerned that fear of shark attack will depress the number of tourists prepared to come to the area.
Terr Howson, the director of Rockingham Wild Encounters, has expressed his concern that hype surrounding shark sightings and attacks was crippling Australia's tourism industry and urgent action was needed.
Mr Howson has written to the Tourism Council of Western Australia urging the peak body to lobby the State Government. He says there is no point promoting the state's pristine beaches if people are too scared to swim. Mr Howson said Australia was being portrayed 'as an unsafe destination' to the rest of the world.
Manny Papadoulis, a board member of the Tourism Council of Western Australia has said he feared the tourism industry would take a hit in the next six months because of recent shark attacks and sightings.
Evan Hall, the chief executive of the Tourism Council of Western Australia has said that though Western Australia was marketed and perceived as a 'wild' and 'raw' destination, the shark attacks had the potential to tip that perception to 'unsafe'.
Mr Hall has stated, 'Without a doubt it could potentially have an impact on our image as a safe destination. Image can be everything, particularly in a tight market like tourism. So we've got to do everything to reinforce that we are a safe destination and that is well understood.'
Mr Hall has called on the State Government to seriously consider whether its approach to managing sharks was appropriate. He has said, 'We want the Government to take this seriously, look at all the options available and make sure they do a scientific response. We have to look at netting the beaches, we need to look at culling sharks if that is reasonable.'
4. Other animals that pose a risk to public safety are culled or otherwise managed
It has been claimed that far from having an exaggerated fear of Great White sharks, many conservationists and those making public policy show them an unusual tolerance, allowing them to pose a risk that would not be accepted from many other animal species.
Liam Bartlett, a reporter with Channel 9's 60 Minutes, has stated, 'If a rogue magpie was swooping and pecking the heads of picnickers, the rangers would be called to dispatch or relocate it in the blink of an eye... A great white, however, is treated very differently.'
Bartlett went on to claim, 'Despite numerous attacks and deaths in the past few years from Margaret River to Perth, not once has the opportunity been taken for the suspected killer to be culled. Again, it flies in the face of how we treat other animals that exhibit dangerous behaviour.
I am sure if the children of any of those fisheries officers were badly mauled by a stray dog, they would think nothing of seeing the dog put down. Indeed, we see an all-too-regular occurrence of dogs being put down because of anti-social actions that cause injury to children in particular.
So what about great whites? For some reason we have become prisoners of a feel-good mentality that dictates great whites should be treated like Free Willy no matter what mayhem they have caused.'
It has been noted that when a dingo attack resulted in the death of a young boy visiting Fraser Island in 2001, a cull was immediately instituted and other measures were put in place. Over 120 dingoes were killed by rangers as a result of the incident. After the 2001 attack, four dedicated rangers were allocated dingo management roles and ranger patrols were increased. There are fines for feeding dingoes or leaving food and rubbish out which may attract them.
Culls have also been used against animals that merely present a nuisance value, rather than, like Great White sharks, threaten human life. In 2001 there was a three-month cull of grey headed flying foxes in Melbourne's Royal Botanic
Gardens. The cull began after the gardens' bat population hit 20,000. Gardens management complained that the creatures were damaging its collection of rare
Plants and a limited cull was needed to ease their destructive impact.
5. Non-lethal means of controlling sharks are either ineffective or not feasible
It has been claimed that many of the supposed 'non-lethal' measures that might be taken against sharks are either ineffective or prohibitively expensive.
Tina Thorne, Western Australian Fisheries manager of strategic compliance has
said there were no plans to install shark nets along the Western Australian coast, because they were just as likely to attract sharks as keep them away from popular beaches.
Ms Thorne has stated, 'The government did an assessment of it last year and decided that shark nets probably weren't appropriate for Western Australia. It's a large, long coastline and contrary to popular opinion, the nets don't actually enclose the beach off. Once they've got (fish and marine mammals) caught in them, they actually do attract sharks.'
Liam Bartlett, a report with Channel 9's 60 Minutes has been highly critical of aerial beach patrols. Mr Bartlett has stated, 'As for the much-hyped aerial patrols, there is not enough money in the kitty to do it properly, anyway. Surf Life Saving WA is waiting for a new helicopter and when it does arrive, the oily rag will only last for weekend patrols. Mid-week fly-bys don't start until mid-December, a long time after the coastal migration of whales and all the shark-inducing, lactating milk that follows behind them.'