Two hundred dollars of government cash towards your new Shark Shield.
You might’ve heard that sleepy ol Western Australia has a Great White problem. One attack, two attacks, fifteen deaths since 2000. All presumed to be hits by Great Whites, a species that’s been protected since, oh, 1999.
Quick question: How many surfers were killed by sharks in Western Australia prior to 2004?
Did you get it?
(The answer is zero.)
The latest was a seventeen-year-old kid surfing with her dad. Leg bitten off at the hip. Bled out on the beach in front of her family while an off-duty nurse pounded her heart. Further evidence, if any was necessary, that there abounds a healthy stock of Great White sharks in the Indian Ocean.
Maybe there always was.
As reported by the fabulous, bass-voiced Fred Pawle in The Australian today,
The protection of great white sharks was introduced in Australia when nobody in the world knew the species’ global population, says one of the co-authors of the federal government’s plan to replenish the species in 2002.
One could argue that this is still the case. Despite decades of expensive research, precious little is known about shark abundance and behaviour, which is why every time there is an attack we have the same futile debate.
It gets worse. It turns out Australia was emphatically told the debate was ill-informed in 2004, when a Japanese fishing official strongly objected to our successful application to increase worldwide protection of great whites. The official argued that the application was based on insufficient evidence and failed to consider the potential of increasing attacks on people.
At a meeting of the 22 Australian researchers contributing to the Great White Recovery Plan in 2002, the CSIRO’s chief shark researcher at the time, John Stevens, who has since retired, was asked whether he knew the size of the species’ global population.
“He was not in a position to answer it because the research had not been done,” says Geoff McPherson, who represented the Queensland Department of Primary Industries at the meeting.
And,
Such pessimism about the dangers of sharks, and the pragmatism to deal with them, were not on display at the Senate hearing in Perth yesterday. “We are both fearful and fascinated by our monsters,” professor Jessica Meeuwig, of the University of Western Australia, told the hearing.
She said the fear was based on the prospect of becoming prey, and the fascination was an attempt to avoid doing so. She attributed these survival instincts to our “lower brains”.
She then said lethal methods for managing sharks were “dumb … ineffective, counter-productive, woefully arrogant and socially shortsighted”. She cited “good data” from Queensland, NSW and Hawaii that “shows there has been no reduction in the incidents of attacks” when lethal methods, such as nets and drum lines, are used.
The data suggests this is not the case. In Queensland, there has been one fatality at a protected beach in 50 years; the same applies to NSW, where nets were first installed in 1936.
When the Federal Government told the new left-wing government of WA they should prioritise humans over sharks they were hit with the old “killing sharks won’t save lives” line.
Same story. Same results.
Anyway, it remains a helluva problem. Great Whites are killing kids, tourism and a lifestyle that defines a state where its inhabitants squat on the edge of the Simpson desert.
It didn’t help that Filipe Toledo and Kolohe Andino were dragged out of the water by jetskis at the government-sponsored Margaret River Pro when the water suddenly boiled in a feeding frenzy. Not that you would’ve known there was the potential for Jeffreys Bay redux.
“Surface action” is the new euphemism for “shark”. Cue Margaret River tourism ad.
But politics, especially of the left-leaning variety, means any kind of tough decision is going to be an impossible sell. If the government won’t allow nets and won’t allow sharks to be fished, what can they do?
How about subsidising shark repellants such as the Shark Shield? Six hundred bucks built into your Ocean Earth tailpad.
Do they work? Depends who you talk to.
Shark Shield says yes.
Anecdotal evidence suggests a generous maybe.
But, what the hell, it’s the appearance of the government doing something eco-friendly and tech-forward that matters.
And do you wonder how they’ll police the subsidy? Do you need to have a WA address?
Shark Shield managing director Lyndsay Lyon, meanwhile, is doing brisk business even before the subsidy comes into effect. He’s sold six hundred in the last four months.
Commented on Disqus? Log out, tap the Disqus button, and your old name and comments come back. The box is ours.
Your comments are still here. Every one of them.
Twelve years of BeachGrit comments came across from Disqus. Connect and we will show you how many are yours. We get your username, nothing else.
Connect Disqus to reveal.
Here we go, now the LIAR is equating the civil war in Syria to shark management.
You are too stupid to converse with further.
LIAR
Come on Adam, you’re just trolling now.
You are so typical of those that oppose reasonable shark management programs.
Liar and an ignoramus.
Some quick math: less fishing = more fish = more sharks + more people = more people in the ocean = more shark attacks × climate change + sea level rise = more ocean + more aggressive storms = unstable home environment for sharks = angrier sharks + all the shark deaths = revenge killings on humans ^
How much do us serfs get subsidized for Nick Carroll standing on the beach with his bestie foamie/selfie stick staring menacingly out at them grey suits?
There’s more beaches Australia wide without nets or lines that have never had an attack so there’s no weight in proving existing measures efficacy at a National level, not to mention the multitudes of variables applicable between the East Coast and West Coast that could determine the efficacy of nets and lines, particularly with the layout of the coast line. The government need to invest in identifying “the numbers” i.e. is the species actually vulnerable or not?? Identifying what’s the “root cause” of the problems, then identifying the most effective controls that should be put in place to protect ocean users. In 1936 cars didn’t have seat belts, but they do know, so why would we expect that the technology used to put the population at ease from the threat of sharks in 1936 would be the best solution now? Nets an lines were all they had 81 years ago, surely we could do better than that now?
I’ll guarantee seat belts will be in use in vehicles 40 years from now. Some things work in some places, some things don’t. In the past 80 years, none of the 97 fatal shark attacks in Australian waters have happened at a meshed or netted beach, despite the fact that the majority of swimming and surfing by humans has been done at said meshed beaches. Meshing does not totally prevent shark attacks, for sure it doesn’t prevent encounters, but it does have a major effect on fatal attacks by large sharks. I do not like either extreme in this discussion, both extreme feels impractical and silly. People are gonna go in the water; you can’t stop shark attacks by killing some of them, and if anyone honestly thinks it is necessary to kill all of every species of dangerous shark just so you can go for a surf, well they’re a pretty sad specimen of human. The point is: just as it’s possible to drive on the road without being killed in a car accident, it is also possible to keep people and large sharks separated. It won’t always end well but it can be done.
The evidence is compelling when you look at it. Wherever shark management programs via netting or drum-lining or both have been undertaken there’s been a decrease in the rate, overall number and severity of attacks. And, as you pointed out this is despite these areas being some of the highest human use areas both nationally and internationally (Durban, South Africa). It’s hard to believe the argument with respect to the efficacy of these programs is even a point of contention after 70 years of data.
I’m afraid it leads one to the conclusion that alot of the marine science around this issue is more advocacy for animal rights than unbiased and objective science based on the data.
I say that as someone with a marine science degree who understands the scientific method.
So with the same scientific method the fact that there’s more beaches in Australia with very high human visitation without the “Control measures” ( Drum-lines and nets) in place that have never had a fatality either, kind of waters down that argument.
for eg?
OK as an example off the very top of my head in WA both Scarborough and Trigg two of the most visited beaches in WA have never had a Shark fatality as far as i know,dont have mitigation in the way of lines or nets either, Mullaloo beach another with strong visitation can also be added to that as well as Leighton, Geographe bay, Quinns , Burns Beach, Yanchep and thats pretty much metro and there’s a whole lot of coastline in Oz that gets used that has never had a Shark Fatality.
You’re kidding, right?
They are all Perth Metro or SW beaches that are in close proximity to fatal attacks.
Sorry, but that does not constitute counter-vailing evidence for the position that where shark management programs have been put in place attack rates and overall attacks have decreased despite these areas being areas of very high human use.
In fact, you’d put SWWA as exhibit A of what happens when attack rates rise and there is no shark management put in place: more attacks, more deaths.
Dude none of those are within “close” proximity of Fatal attacks, you asked for examples there you have only a couple, not to mention the thousands of KM’s surfed on the South Coat of WA, SA, Vic Southern NSW and that have not had a fatality. You mention SW WA on that how many of the breaks frequented in the SW of WA have had fatal shark attacks? Also management is the key word WA trialed drum-lines and they filed dismally, been there done that, didn’t work, not a single Great White, plenty of other species that we didn’t mean to kill though.
Yes we most definitely, need to protect human life against the evil devil fish, but 80 year technology that kills more other species than target species is not the answer. The WA coast is long and straight for the most part, that alone restricts lines and nets in their efficacy.
Shark Mitigation Systems and other new technologies need to be developed further and used as a more reliable, more effective, more economically sustainable in the long term and more efficient solution
Dude clearly your taking the micky or never been to Perth, you asked for an example, I’ve given you a few of those that are highest visitation in WA without a single fatality not to mention the thousands of KM’s surfed on the South Coat of WA, SA, Vic Southern NSW and that have not had a fatality.
You mention SW WA on that how many of the breaks frequented in the SW of WA have had fatal shark attacks? Also management is the key word WA trialed drum-lines and they filed dismally, been there done that, didn’t work, not a single Great White, plenty of other species that we didn’t mean to kill though.
Yes we most definitely, need to protect human life against the evil devil fish, but 80 year technology that kills more other species than target species is not the answer. The WA coast is long and straight for the most part, that alone restricts lines and nets in their efficacy.
Shark Mitigation Systems and other new technologies need to be developed further and used as a more reliable, more effective, more economically sustainable in the long term and more efficient solution
Drum lines failed to catch a white because they set them at the wrong time of year when there were no whites to catch.
That was just an egregious error in timing. Fishing 101. You won’t catch your target species when they aren’t there.
Drum lines have been spectacularly successful at catching whites off the NSW and QLD coasts.
OK, I get it, you don’t want a shark killed. Fair enough, just don’t bother trying to dress that position up with any pseudo-scientific posturing.
You don’t have a pecuniary interest in this new tech do you, because it sure smells that way.
Otherwise go look at 80 years of data from shark management in NSW, South Africa and QLD. You’ll find the answers there.
Triggs and Scarborough are Perth metro beaches: if you don’t think that is in close proximity to Cott then you’ve got zero comprehension of white shark biology.
Your floundering a little dude, have read as much as i can and do get an informed understanding, one way or another, amazingly coming to very different conclusions than you, as it would appear the majority of those esteemed globally in the marine sciences, independent and Government.
Also, with what you suggest re:timing (which i find interesting) the Government are putting lines out to catch a species that wont even be present during that time frame, clearly demonstrates what a complete waste of time and tax payers money, not to mention a senseless and pointless act resulting in the capture of non- target species. This just strengthens the case the the relevant authorities have little to no understanding of how to actually implement the attempted control measures in the first place. Surely this highlights the requirement to put some effort into research and gathering more relevant and specific data to make some intelligent decisions that are going to protect people and sustain healthy ecosystems and complement biodiversity in our marine environment.
No preliminary interest in the SMS other than the fact i think that its a bloody good idea for governments, people and the environment.
I agree with WA drumline program was poorly executed, but the govt sought an extension, that was denied. So, it was political pressure, not fisheries science that determined that outcome.
There’s tons of data showing the efficacy of shark management programs. You say you’ve read it, but I highly doubt it. Start with the FAO fisheries and aquaculture division summation of the shark management programs in South Africa, NSW and QLD. This is their conclusion on QLD: 6.6 Success of the shark control programme
Shark control in Queensland was initiated in 1962 in response to public pressure over a number of fatalities caused by shark attack at popular swimming beaches. Since 1962 the QSCP has been spectacularly successful in meeting the needs of beach users in Queensland by reducing the number of fatalities due to shark attack at the controlled beaches to zero.”
They reach similar conclusions on programs in NSW and South Africa. All the data is available, and you can compare yourself.
Yes, methods for reducing risk from shark attack should evolve, but in a climate of increasing attacks at non-netted or drummed areas, those methods are PROVEN to work and may need to be employed in the interim.
I agree research should be ongoing, as it is. There’s shitloads happening in white shark research in Aus at the moment.
I, like many including the Goverment’s SME’s have read and dissected the information that is available and some of the review’s commissioned, There is nothing conclusive that states that Drum lining is any way the most effective measure providing protection and minimal impact on Bio diversity, In fact some of those reports, I’m sure you have read, there are also suggestions that other methods should be considered given the negative impacts on non target species. The very readily available information outline quite clearly the unacceptable number of non target species, which to me, we can an should improve the way we do business and that protection should be available to all regions and not just the City areas and a couple of well frequented surf spots, which in WA lines will not do. New nets trialed in WA show very positive results to date, so if they can work, well I’m all for it but even those have not been without their issues and wouldn’t be applicable for installation at surf breaks.
My wife is a Marine Biologist working in the Southern Ocean and Whites are a big topic of discussion, i wish there was shitloads of research, we need as much as we can to identify the best way forward. What ever that may be.
Agree totally, it is possible, id just like to see new technology embraced, like Shark Mitigation Systems and work towards a solution that doesn’t have negative impacts on non target species, which unfortunately is the reality at the moment with drum-lines.
Nets, well the current net systems that are available and in use in WA are a great, appear to be working well and have a low impact and in some cases are capable of creating habitat, problem is they’re not going to work for the majority of Surf Breaks, especially here in WA. The vast majority of attacks in WA have been outside of the Metro area so the logistics and cost associated with the drum-line option (which has failed dismally here when trialed, without a single GW caught) fails economic rationale in the long term if treasury were to forecast using cost benefit analysis. On the other hand, an alternative barrier such as something like Shark Mitigation Systems would not only provide protection to the ocean users but also provide a long term cost benefit that would be easier to swallow for the bean counters holding the government purse.
Something needs to happen, i just think we need to look forward and embrace new technology.
Whatever your feelings about Fred and Ms Devine, I think you’ll like this interview very much.
http://www.theaustralian.co…
Fred quotes Japanese officials who support his Cull campaign who also take the official stance that whale hunting should be fine also? What about the scientist held in high esteem? Be interesting to get their views on the subject.
Does this best Fred’s tweet? https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Seas, we don’t always get it right (for example Bruce Jenner is planning a nude photo shoot) but man gives meaning to the earth. Give them a break.
Matty, sometimes when I worry that I’m not burning enough fossil fuels when traveling for a surf, I leave my truck running on idle, just to piss off a greenie.
ha that’s why I love sharks , and don’t want them culled as they blokes like you scared shitless to surf hahaha!
You’re willing to be eaten, I’m not.
don’t surf , go in rivers in Africa /South America , and stay away fro Hannibal lecter
I’ll surf, and I’ll support the eradication of sharks from the lineup!
meanwhile you know you are calling for culling which won’t happen , so when you surf you know you are on the menu, quite simply you know the risk you are taking as all of us do , and it’s miniscule!
Humans aren’t that special?
“What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, in form and moving how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel, In apprehension, how like a god!”
“What a piece of work is a man” rings true, but perhaps not in the way it was intended
Don’t want to get eaten by a shark? Kill the fuckers.
or don’t go in the ocean!
Hmm I think comments below are valid both ways- no doubt appears to be more sharks. At least here in Australia. Surely that means there is more food for a larger shark population to be supported. Then we seem to be on the menu or at least tasted!!! So if you don’t like it don’t go in. We all know risks, and to an extent you can probably mitigate them in your actions if you surf.
On another angle we have reported previously the drum lines in QLD have seemed to work. there is a shitload of sharks 80km sth but they don’t seem to be attacking in QLD???
There is no doubt we are fucking up the planet, accelerating climate issues so these things are going to bite us for sure. It is all a complex scenario.
Answers – who knows?? They could try drum lines first – seems to work QLD.
Like to hear Nicks take on what Tom doing shark shield wise – if works could 1-2 guys with devices be enough to protect a break, or could you just float one out the back on a buoy?
Or attach a couple to nets on beaches – each end and middle etc.
Wave pool techs are rubbing their hands together – sharks plus sea level rises – its a win win that side
Me I don’t hit early as regularly, don’t go dusk as regularly, don’t surf solo as much, and listen to my gut a little more. If spooked get out!!
And all condolences to those affected personally by attacks.
You really wanna know what I think about Tom and the shark shield thing? I think his intentions are good, indeed I know they are, but I am skeptical as hell. If the device works over a long period I guess my skepticism will be reduced somewhat. It’s not up to being set on lines etc yet — it only supplies current to an area of two or three metres and the battery can’t sustain continual use without recharging etc. It seems to me like it’s just one thing and one thing is never enough on its own in situations like this.
Yeah thanks for reply. Interesting with bigger battery perhaps, as look what tesla doing with their batteries. I believe they work better when a big cable dragging behind divers etc.
Probably mix of things as you say -not one fix methinks
Your Coastalwatch piece with Barton and Richie was good too – maybe a shark one next!!
we did an in depth panel discussion involving a wide range of interested parties in Ballina late last year. go look it up on the site, it’s v informative. in fact it was watched by the NSW Premier, Mike Baird, who subsequently sat down and watched it with his primary industries minister, and then drove the decision to test meshing in the area. Don’t let anyone tell you that conversation doesn’t lead anywhere.
Fisheries management and aquaculture may have an effect upon predator behavior. I was reading that in the 70’s aquaculture/open sea pens supplied 3.9% of the supply of fish for the worldwide demand. Now its 47%. Aquaculture has become pretty popular in Australia. Imagine being an apex predator and getting frenzied by sea pen aquaculture. Large sharks must lose their shit with open sea pens. Prey size and sounds reminiscent of what that large shark experienced when the shark was a juvenile and hunting juvenile sized fish……..near shore.
Perhaps move the pens out further than 25km. Some studies suggest large adult white sharks swim upwards of 80km/day.
Wow that is interesting. I’m sure you are right about it influencing predator behaviour, but I dunno if you could tie it to attacks on people.
Despite Derek’s line above about “vey expensive research”, almost three fifths of fcuk all has been spent on serious research into large predatory shark behaviour, ever. Here in Oz, scientists like the CSIRO’s Barry Barnes have had to divert funding from other stuff in order to do the most retardedly simple things, like tagging and tracking. More recently they’ve been trying to use DNA family structure testing to figure out just how many white sharks there actually are. Since the Ballina attacks, more money has begun to flow toward shark mitigation research as well as actions. Given both the stakes and the huge amounts of money being generated by fisheries around Australia, most of which take a lot of shark flesh out of the water in the process of business as usual, a bit more investigation into the whole thing seems wise. After all it was largely statistical examination and behaviour tracking which led to the drastic reduction in the road toll in Australia from the late 70s onward.
A couple of mill is sweet bugger all for scientific research. I completely understand people demanding short-term action be taken now, but you can’t base long-term management decisions on what we currently know. Fishermen etc have valuable information to share, but they’re barely scratching the surface.
On a related arse-kissing note – liked your panel discussion on Coastalwatch (with transcript for those of us short on time), and the other videos you’ve done post-WCT Oz leg. Keep ’em coming.
You ever here of traffic laws moron.
First you lie about Hippos, now you dont know about traffic laws,
No Indos or Chinese in aus waters mate fishing for sharks prey items.
Here’s a statement from the latest scientific assessment of fish stocks in Australia. This concerns Australian salmon, an inshore species that is known to the be the favoured prey item for juvenile-sub-adult whites.
“Total commercial fishing effort directed towards Australian Salmon in Western Australia is currently very low compared with historical levels, and the reduction in effort accounts for most of the catch decline since 2004.”
Get that? They’ve cut right back on the fishing for them, and as a result salmon are now incredibly plentiful. over here too. There’s been a 75% reduction in commercial fishing in NSW in the last 15-20 years. Yes, we are altering the balance of nature…….very much in the positive. Hence more food for sharks. This isn’t Indo.
how’s the Tuna population?
which one? There are many species of tuna and many separate biological stocks.
Yellowfin tuna, for instance, has a separate Indian , Atlantic and Central and west pacific populations. Certain species of inshore tuna eg Longtail tuna (thunnus tonggol) aren;t even a commercial fishing target and are very abundant. Western/central pacific Yellowfin tuna stocks are in pretty good shape. Southern bluefin remains overfished but is in recovery.
But thats all kind of irrevelant because white sharks are not primarily pelagic tuna feeders. They prefer more inshore demersal fish like salmon and snapper when juveniles, transitioning to mammals are they mature.
ah love those optimistic fisherman facts how the ocean is fully recovering its fish stocks , and I thought GWS liked the odd seal or two , and the odd whale carcass , which are becoming more and more plentiful , how many attacks on the North coast in the last 6 mths , as I notice a lot of the tagged sharks ended up in Vic ,, no attacks , maybe its the smell of fear in the water on the Nth Coast that puts out a signal ?
there’s definitely a seasonal movement. But 2.5m white tagged here just last week. I just surfed before……I saw at least half a dozen tuna feeding frenzies within a k of the shoreline. I feed my family on the fish I catch….haven’t had to buy fish for years.
You seem confident we are overfishing and that is why sharks are eating us. Do you have idea about the status of the most common prey items- fish, pinniped and whales- in Australian waters? It’s all commonly researched and available info. All increasing in numbers strongly, due to protection and a very BIG reduction in commercial fishing effort. So, in fact , it’s the exact opposite of your assertion: we are seeing more sharks here because there is much more food for them. Thats just high school biology. You need food supplies for predators to exist.
ah fake news , sharks are not eating us , there are attacks , but how many bodies have not been recovered , because they were eaten? Juvenile sharks learning to hunt ,attack humans occasionally . Yes whales are back to more than 20K pa migrating north , better than the couple of hundred in 2000 , so yeah eco balance is being restored a bit , maybe a 100 years ago there was 10 x more whites and as there was no statistics then , well what is the real balance , so the question is do we have a massive culling program in the hope you can surf a bit safer?,
Brutus, have you ever swatted a mosquito? If so, why? In what way is a fucking shark any different?
ah one lives in the ocean is part of an eco system , and the other flys around , and is a bit smaller than a shark?
Er, asking about the moral distinctions, not the physiological ones.
ah one can give you dengue fever or malaria , and there are billions . the other is part of a very complex eco system and is an apex predator , and has relatively minute numbers compared to a mozzie , so I would swat a mozzie , and marvel at the GWS!
Ever seen a mosquito and a shark in the same place at the same time? Eh???
Australian Govt makes GWS protected species about 20 years ago
It takes about 20 years for whites to reach 3-4m juvenile. 3-4m juveniles have been responsible for most recent attacks and incidents. At 3-4m they start looking for larger prey
There are many reasons for the recent increased attacks. But geeeeeeezus
it’s never been in balance. It’s constantly in flux. Always has been. Always will be.
yeah but now humans are affecting natures balance big time , and this something we can control , we can’t control nature .
the whole shark thing is lacking major scientific knowledge , spent 40 hrs watching shark week the other mth , all shows were only up to 2 yrs old a lot of new amazing info …..did you see it?
Overtones of a discussion regarding the far more important impact nature has on the aspects of life … Owen’s receding hairline?
because we have feelings, emotions, form complex relationships with family and friends which endure through time and the shark is a dumb fish that does none of that.
If you really have to ask yourself that question……..
So anything dumb is on the potential cull program?
You could say the same of any number of species have feelings, form complex relationships with family and friends which have endured through , a lot longer than humans , which is about 15K years….
“So anything dumb is on the potential cull program?”
90% of surfers should be concerned by that statement. (But won’t be).
percentage could be higher among the postees here!
You’ve identified the things the things that make us different to Sharks …feelings, emotions, form complex relationships with family and friends which endure through time…..have these same things not been identified with Orca, Whales, Sea horse and Dolphins to name a few? I know its sounds very unlikely, but is this a possibility with Sharks as well? I mean we do know there are cases where GW’s an work together strategically to feed? Perhaps there is overwhelming proof that Sharks are a dumb fish? Perhaps they suffer genetic stupidity?
got any idea what nature is, what nature does?
There are lots of measures being undertaken for road safety … think RBTs, campaigns , new roads, speeding fines ? To try to minimise road deaths. Last I checked sharks weren’t getting fined for snacking on hoomans
sharks get finned. Not fined
Up voted for pun, down voted; irrelevant. Finning Not in response to shark attacks. People still kill people outside of say road tradgedies or shower falls
Interesting that this is bandied around a lot. It appears to me that people have become accepting and complacent about fatalities on or roads and only get vocal about those fatalities in the wild. …..”lots of measures being taken for road safety”… There has to be!
Hundreds are dying each year, but if you look at the fatality rates in regional Australia on our roads, they are almost always over represented in areas where extremely poor road conditions are evident. Per head of population the various Govt’s cant justify the expenditure to fix dangerous roads that are contributing to fatalities….so by given the outcomes v’s the mitigation,this is deemed acceptable loss.
So lets apply that theory to our ocean users particularly surfers. What is the investment v’s outcome level that is considered acceptable loss?
Lets look at technology to install effective solutions that are cost effective in the long term that can benefit all Australians because the nets and lines will only benefit those who are in highly .populated areas is the way I’m seeing it, same as the Roads