Right: collateral damage: this turtle is one of many marine animals killed by shark nets guarding Australian beaches.
Arguments against shark nets being used along the northern New South Wales coast
1. Sharks are a necessary apex predator threatened by human activities The importance of sharks to the ecosystems within which they live has been pointed out repeatedly by marine scientists, conservationists and others. Caitlin Weatherstone, an environmental scientist living in Byron Bay, has stated, 'I would root for a healthy ocean environment. And with a healthy ocean ecosystem, we need sharks. Sharks are the top predator, and they control everything underneath them. If we lose that predator, the whole ecosystem basically crumbles.' The radical conservation group, Sea Shepherd, has noted, 'Around the world sharks are in big trouble, with over 90% of the world's sharks wiped out through fishing, cruel shark fining and shark mitigation strategies. As a result, between 70 and 100 million sharks die a year. That's over 10,000 every hour... A number of scientific studies have demonstrated that the depletion of sharks results in the loss of commercially important fish and shellfish species down the food chain, including key fisheries such as tuna that maintain the health of coral reefs. As important apex predators, sharks have shaped marine life in the oceans for over 450 million years and are essential to the health of our oceans, and ultimately to the survival of humankind.' A similar point has been made by the Western Australian Department of Fisheries which states on its Internet site that 'Sharks play an important role in maintaining balanced ecosystems, controlling prey populations and removing weak animals while healthy ones survive to reproduce...The presence of many species of shark as 'apex predators' - occupying the top level of the food chain - is an indication of a healthy marine environment.' The same site notes the reason for attempting to protect sharks. 'Concerns about shark stocks in the 1990s led to big reductions in fishing effort and catches in WA's shark fishery. Only a few commercial fisheries are authorised to keep their shark and ray catches for sale and these fisheries operate under strict controls to manage their catch levels. The white shark, whale shark, northern river shark (also known as the northern speartooth shark), grey nurse shark - and all sawfish, which are related to sharks - are protected from all types of fishing. The White Shark (or the Great White Shark) is listed as 'rare or likely to become extinct' and in 2002, the Australian Government developed a Recovery Plan to promote the conservation of this species. In 2009, all species of whaler sharks were given extra protection under recreational fishing rules through the re-introduction of a maximum size limit in the West Coast and South Coast Bioregions. The new arrangements complement similar rules in the commercial fisheries.' NSW Department of Primary Industries chief shark researcher Vic Peddemors has claimed that 'there were probably 30,000 white sharks (off Australia's coast) before we arrived on this continent, and that it was stable at that level for thousands of generations.' Professor Peddemors has further stated, 'The east coast population is likely to be less than 6000 animals.' In terms of the impact that netting can have on shark populations, the numbers caught in the well-established netting program already operating in New South Wales suggest the impact is significant. In 2005 the New South Wales Fisheries Committee stated, 'In the 52 years from 1950 to 2002, more than 11,500 sharks were caught and killed in the nets, with annual shark deaths during this period ranging from 648 to 69 sharks. Due to increased numbers and sizes of nets, as well as setting times, direct comparisons with recent years are not possible. Nevertheless, death rates have dramatically decreased in the last 30 years and the annual capture of all sharks from all 49 beaches including those in Newcastle, Central Coast, and Wollongong has been below 200 in all but one year since 1983. The annual catch has ranged from 69 to 158 sharks in the last 5 years to 2001/02, with the last kill of 69 being the lowest ever recorded.' After analysing the data on shark kills in New South Wales beach nets between 1950 and 2002, the Committee concluded, 'The current shark meshing program in New South Wales waters' adversely affects two or more threatened species, populations or ecological communities and could cause species, populations or ecological communities that are not threatened to become threatened.' The Committee then recommended that the current shark netting program be discontinued. 2. Nets endanger many other species as by-catch One of the major objections to shark nets is that they do not discriminate, that is, they kill not only sharks but a wide range of other sea creatures. This collateral damage is referred to as 'by-catch'. There are even those who have claimed that human lives have been lost because human beings have become snared in shark nets. Alice Forrest, an aquarist with Manly Sea Life Sanctuary has stated, 'Over 15,000 animals have been killed by these nets in NSW - this includes about 100 species such as endangered turtles, dolphins, dugongs, rays, seabirds, harmless sharks and rays. The nets have even killed orcas, little penguins and people - that's right, shark nets have killed two people.' A similar point was made in 2010 after a survey of the impact of shark nets on marine species in New South Wales since 1990. It was found that almost 4000 sea creatures have been caught in shark nets lining New South Wales beaches over the 20 years that the survey covered. Of the official count of 3944 creatures trapped, about 60 per cent were sharks, though less than 4 per cent were considered 'target' species (that is, sharks particularly harmful to humans). The list of trapped species included 1269 stingrays, 52 dolphins, 47 turtles, six whales, four seals, a penguin and a dugong. A report released in 2008 confirms these findings. It states, 'from September 1990 to April 2008, there were 3,259 marine animals caught within the shark nets that were considered by-catch. These include 1,292 hammerhead sharks, 1,269 stingrays, 259 angel sharks, 107 port jacksons , 52 dolphins, 47 turtles, 40 thresher sharks, 15 grey nurse sharks (critically endangered and have been protected in New South Wales since 1984), six whales, four seals (vulnerable and protected), a penguin (protected) and a dugong (protected). In addition 100 White Sharks (vulnerable and a protected species since 1999) were caught in these years.' Commenting on this survey data, radical conservation group Sea Shepherd, has stated, 'Despite accounting for a third of the catch, hammerhead sharks are not a target species and have not been implicated in a single attack in New South Wales since 1900.' The Humane Society International's director, Michael Kennedy, has claimed the public would be shocked to know how many animals were killed in the nets. Mr Kennedy has stated, 'We know from our own research and from the government's research that these nets do kill a large amount of threatened marine animals. It is very hard to justify their continued use.' Queenscliff Surf Club coach, Damien Daley, has claimed that the consensus among surf lifesavers is that the nets are environmentally damaging. Mr Daley has stated, 'When I dive, 50 per cent of the animals caught in the nets are not sharks.' 3. Nets are not an effective means of protecting beachgoers Those who object to the use of shark nets often contend that they are not an effective means of protecting beachgoers. One of the reasons said to make shark nets ineffective is that they are not a total barrier. Sharks can swim above, below or around them. It has been noted that many of the sharks snared in the nets have approached them from the beach side. On August 5, 2015, the radical conservation group Sea Shepherd published a data analysis produced by Natalie Banks of the effectiveness of New South Wales shark nets. The survey states, 'In the 23 years, since September 1992, there has been 21 unwanted shark encounters at netted beaches in NSW; almost one per year. This doesn't include the death of a 15-year old boy who drowned after being caught in a shark net at Shoal Bay in March 2007. It does however include the shark incident on 12 February 2009 at Bondi Beach when Glen Orgias (33) lost his left hand after being bitten by a 2.5m white shark while surfing and the severe bite that Andrew Lindop (15) received by a suspected 2.6m white shark at Avalon Beach on 1 March 2009.' On April 14, 2014, The Guardian published a comment by Christopher Neff. Dr Neff, a Lecturer in Public Policy in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney, also disputes claims that nets had succeeded in keeping Sydney beaches safe. Dr Neff has noted that although there have been no fatal shark attacks on Sydney beaches since 1937, there have been 14 non-fatal ones. Dr Neff concludes. 'So the real line should read that shark nets are effective at shark bite prevention, except for the 14 times there have been shark bite incidents. No fatalities, yes and gratefully so. But the legend of shark nets' success is more complicated than what the standard line suggests.' Opponents of shark nets claim that they have not saved lives and that the reduction in fatalities after shark attacks is attributable to the improved assistance which victims receive once they have been attacked. Associate Professor Laurie Laurenson of Deakin University's School of Life and Environmental Sciences has stated, 'If you look at how far medical intervention has come since the 1960s, they are very, very, very good at it. The reason there've been no fatalities is because of earlier responders having sufficient training, having the right equipment, knowing exactly what they want to do. They get there early. They get people to the hospitals quickly.' 4. Human beings have no automatic right to access coastal waters and should regulate their behaviour in that environment It has been claimed that human beings have no absolute right of access to marine environments and that when they do enter coastal waters it is the human being's responsibility to manage the risk by behaving cautiously. Clive Phillips, Chair of Animal Welfare and Director of the Centre for Animal Welfare Ethics at the University of Queensland, has paraphrased the argument of those who challenge human beings' supposed right to unimpeded access to the oceans. Mr Phillips states, 'Sharks have a right to occupy the territory in which they evolved over millions of years. And this right trumps humans' alleged right to utilise territory they are ill-suited to and gain little significant benefit from.' In a petition given to the Western Australian premier in 2013, opposing the introduction of shark culling in that state, it was claimed, 'When we use the ocean, we are entering a shark's natural habitat and we should be responsible for our own safety and awareness.' Claudette Petkovic, who works as a research assistant to a marine scientist, and who is currently in Byron Bay, has stated, 'As someone who goes into the water every single day, you have to accept the fact that you're in their territory. If they mistake you for something, obviously it sucks. It's not ideal. You don't want to be attacked or mistaken for their food but it does happen and that's not the shark's fault. It's not your fault either but you have to accept it.' This perspective is promoted in other jurisdictions. The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has produced a public education fact sheet and webpage titled 'It's the ocean, not a swimming pool'. The fact sheet claims, 'The ocean is wild, and other potential dangers exist there -- like getting caught in a riptide, getting knocked over by a large wave, getting stung by a jellyfish, cutting a foot on a shell, or getting bitten by a shark - that do not exist in a swimming pool... Remember that when you swim in the ocean you are a guest in a wild habitat and you should respect that habitat and its creatures, much like you would if you were camping at Glacier National Park where wild grizzly bears live. And just like putting on sunscreen when swimming in a swimming pool and storing food wisely when camping in grizzly bear territory, taking precautions to ensure your health and safety in the ocean is the best way to enjoy your summer beach vacation.' Among the recommendations offered in Australia that it is claimed help to reduce the risk of humans being injured or killed by sharks are: stay out of the water if sharks have been sighted in the area; stay close to shore (within 30m of the water's edge); don't go in the water alone (stay in groups); avoid water temperatures lower than 22C; avoid water depths of greater than 5m when swimming or surfing; avoid swimming after heavy storms, or in low light conditions (dusk and dawn) and avoid swimming if there are seals, dolphins, whales or baitfish nearby. Relatedly, it has been claimed that human beings currently pose a far greater threat to sharks than sharks do to human life. IFL Science notes 'Humans kill an astonishing number of sharks every year. Various species are the victims of culling in attempts to make beaches safer, bycatch by commercial fishing vessels, trophy catches and the practice of finning for food... The journal Marine Policy attempted to calculate the exploitation rates of sharks.... Using data on shark catches, discards and mortality rates worldwide, the researchers estimated that approximately 100 million sharks are killed per year by humans.' Conversely, Greenpeace estimates that for every human being killed by a shark, human beings kill one million sharks. While some 100 million sharks die as a result of human actions each year; sharks kill approximately ten people a year. 5. There are other means of protecting beaches that cause less environmental damage Opponents of shark nets argue that there is a range of mitigation measures that can be employed to reduce the likelihood of shark attack, without using shark nets. One of the principal means of reducing human shark risk in the water is to educate people in safe behaviour. There are many such programs available. One is conducted by the Western Australian Department of Fisheries which, using the acronym SMART, recommends people: 'Search sharksmart.com.au before heading to the beach in order to be aware of the most recent shark sightings. Make sure you swim between the flags or stay close to shore and avoid deep channels or areas with steep drop-offs nearby. Avoid hazardous waters. Never swim in places where human or animal waste enters the water. Avoid disposing of fish waste near swimming beaches and don't remain in the water with bleeding wounds. If spear fishing, be sure to remove speared fish from the water quickly. Recognise the danger signs. Keep away from large schools of fish, seals or wildlife behaving erratically. Take a mate with you. Swim, dive or surf with a buddy.' There are a number of other public safety measures governments can fund in addition to individual safety devices, especially shark repellents, which beachgoers can purchase to help promote their personal safety. On December 9, 2016, The Conversation published a comment by Nathan Hart, Associate Professor of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University and Charlie Huveneers, Senior lecturer, Flinders University. The authors recommend a range of measures to promote safety in the water. Hart and Huveneers state, 'As well as enhancing public awareness of attack risk, a range of shark attack mitigation measures have become available. In addition to shark nets, shark-proof barriers and early warning systems can be used as large-scale initiatives to reduce shark attack risks at popular beaches.' The authors also refer to 'a proliferation of personal shark deterrent technologies... Currently available devices include those that produce strong electrical or magnetic fields, those that produce a repulsive light, sound or odour, and those that reduce the visibility of the wearer to sharks.' |
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.