"What has become of our culture that human life is so undervalued?"

The dramatic deaths of two Aussies enjoying a refreshing swim in the summer heat is a tragic reminder of the ever-present risk of encountering a shark in the wild.

Having witnessed an attack, and been in close proximity to another, I feel sickened that these tragedies are allowed to continue. What has become of our culture that human life is so undervalued?

It’s not easy being pro-human in the shark debate currently roiling Australia. Eco-warriors think we not only hate sharks, but nature in general. Apart from being wrong, such religious zealotry probably indicates that they hate humans, and society in general. So, it is not surprising that people avoid the conversation — no doubt fearing retribution.

But, the Australian government ought not be swayed by this vocal minority.

I recently attended a public lecture by shark scientist Victor Peddemors, who works for the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI). He confessed that, while the purpose of their research is to find a solution to shark attacks, it is very difficult to identify risk factors when there are so few attacks.

For example, in research co-authored by Peddemors, El Niño was found to be a likely risk factor. However, two years later, a spate of attacks occurred during a mild La Niña.

It is foolish to expect that a solution will be found that does not involve reducing the population of sharks. That is why I have suggested targeting the most aggressive sharks with an electrified drumline that deters less aggressive sharks. It seems like a reasonable compromise. But, the government is afraid of the inevitable backlash from eco-warriors, who will continue to impose their values on society, disregarding the human cost, or outright celebrating it.

The problem with the debate is that it hinges on a false dichotomy pitting humans against nature. The anti-human sentiment has become so ingrained in progressive thought that the occasional shark attack is likely viewed as a necessary sacrifice. It is futile arguing with people who subscribe to this worldview.

But, there is hope, if we reframe the debate, so that it focuses on protecting all mammals in the wild, not just humans.

I have argued, for instance, that the added benefit of significantly reducing the rate of shark attacks is that it would set the stage for the removal of shark nets, which regrettably catch a lot of non-target species, including dolphins and whales. But, any reduction in shark attacks would apply to all potential prey, including dolphins and whales. So, the removal of aggressive sharks could have a profound effect on their welfare, too.

The only response I have received from the government has been a stock standard reply, outlining the current suite of shark mitigation measures, designed to balance the protection of sharks with the protection of people. Their letter made no reference to my proposal.

So, I requested a meeting, hoping to discuss the matter, but they didn’t reply. The reason I persist is that I don’t believe anyone in the know actually believes that lives will be saved.

For example, in research estimating the future rate of shark attacks, our most qualified shark scientists completely overlook the effect of the government’s shark mitigation programs. Of course, the numbers are buried under a mountain of obfuscation, fancifully modeled as the widespread adoption of shark shields.

But, it is clear that the base rate of shark attacks, i.e. without anyone using a Shark Shield, is projected to continue rising at the present rate, despite massive investment in other shark mitigation measures.

The government needs to ask the scientists at DPI if they actually believe the current suite of shark mitigation measures is saving lives. While it is certainly true that shark attacks are rare, the resulting trauma ripples much further through society than other tragedies. Dubbed The Jaws Effect, the horrific spectacle of shark attacks haunts ocean users, despite the risk of injury or death being less than it is for cycling. Even Dr Peddemors is reluctant to swim out too far.

(Dan Webber is the author of Surfism: the fluid foundation of consciousness.)

And simultaneously creates new sporting record for retirement announcements, his third official communiqué in four years.

Do you remember the first time Kelly Slater retired? You will if you old. 

It was  1998, a quarter of a century ago can y’believe, and the then six-time world champ had just-turned twenty-six. He’d compete sporadically over the next few years, winning Pipe in 1999 and the Eddie in 2002, before re-joining the tour to take on Andy Irons head-on, hinting at retirement every year thereafter. 

In 2018, and piggybacking Joel Parkinson’s retirement announcement at J-Bay, he said he’d officially quit by the end of the following year at age forty-seven. 

Last year, Slater told the wonderful MMA broadcaster Ariel Helwani, a thorn in the side of the UFC’s famously prickly Dana White, that he’d be done by 2022, and just before his fifty-first birthday. 

Now as Slater heads to fifty-two, he’s told left-wing firebrand blog The Guardian, he’ll defs be done after the Paris Olympic Games in July 2024, the surfing being held at Teahupoo in French Polynesia, an old favourite of the wily master. 

If he  gets in, and there’s waves, there’s as better than even chance Slater will win a gold medal, the one trinket that has eluded the Champ. 

“If I make the Olympics, I’ll retire at the Olympics,” Slater told the Guardian. “I’m really hoping to qualify for it, but I need to get my butt into gear. The qualification process is going to be tough, but if I can get into the Olympics, the location the event is at in Tahiti – that wave really suits my strengths. So if I can get there I think I have a really good chance of a medal, but I think the harder part is going to be getting there, to be honest.”

You’ll remember Slater was stiffed of the last slot in the US side at Tokyo by John John Florence, who competed despite being injured.

"Haoles should be banned from water. Everytime they around it something goes wrong. They steal it, pollute it, poison it and even drown in it."

Grave fears for one of the world’s best waves earlier this week when a ninety-four-foot super yacht ran aground at Honolua Bay, the one-time site of the WSL’s women’s tour finale. 

Videos on Instagram showed the four-bedroom, five-bath Nakoa high and dry on the rocks in front of where surfers paddle out to the world-famous righthand point. 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Hawaii News Report (@hawaiinewsreport)

The joint’s place in surf lore runs deep, as Matt Warshaw explains. 

“It’s sometimes thought of as the coming-out location for the short surfboard, as Australians Bob McTavish and Nat Young rode the break in late 1967 on their new vee-bottom boards; footage of the two Aussies climbing and dropping across the transparent Honolua walls was used for the mindblowing final sequence to The Hot Generation (1968), which introduced the shortboard to much of the surf world. Honolua then became a favorite testing ground for the ongoing shortboard revolution.”

The four-time world champ Mark Richards says Honolua is” the ultimate wave; the best wave in the world.”

Community reaction was, understandably, furious. 

“Thanks elites…Your dream life fucks up our only life. Send dis guy back. With massive fines that go back to restoring land and water in Hawai’i. Too many fuck ups over here. We cannot overlook anymore.Barred. No can ever return.”

And, even though the boat’s owner Jim Jones said Nakoa wasn’t leaking, well, he was wrong. 

Maui County Council member Tamara Paltin, who is president of the Save Honolua Coalition, said she watched local boats tried to pull the vessel off the reef, but “it just wasn’t budging at all.”

And, so, a salvage company is working like hell to remove the diesel and the boat. 

It’s a complex job.

The de-fuelling is going to happen on land, a chopper dropping off the gear at the bottom of the cliff and then flying the fuel drums out.

As for getting the boat off the reef, they’re either going to tow it out from sea or drag it in from land. 

After the boat’s gone, the Division of Aquatic Resources at the Department of Land and Natural Resources is gonna assess any damage caused to the reef by the boat and may hit the owner with “significant fines” and the cost of any repair measures.

“Haoles should be banned from water,” said one local. “Everytime they around it something goes wrong. They steal it, pollute it, poison it and even drown in it.”