"I can’t stand when people dismiss it and say 'You’re going into their territory'. They obviously don’t understand how deeply traumatic it can be."
In the wake of yet another fatal shark attack on the NSW Mid-North Coast, we are faced with the painful realisation that non-lethal shark mitigation measures are proving inadequate.
Some have suggested solving the problem through a tightly controlled program of targeted fishing.
So, we need to come to terms with shark nets, despite the problem of bycatch.
Unlike targeted fishing, the purpose of netting is to alter shark behaviour, so that they avoid the area.
Unfortunately, shark nets have been so demonised by The Humane Society that very few people have dared to sign my petition to extend the infamous program beyond the Metro regions, so it also protects coastal communities north of Newcastle, and south of Wollongong.
An angry mob of eco-warriors has roundly condemned the proposal, claiming that: “shark nets don’t work”; “not enough people die to justify killing innocent sea life”; and “we don’t have the right to kill sea creatures, just so that we can go surfing”.
The latter claim I dismiss on the grounds that it is a straw man argument, designed to trivialise my concerns, by ignoring the horror of shark attacks.
As for the efficacy of shark nets, I agree that sharks can swim around the nets. However, the number of Great White sharks is greatly reduced by the deployment of shark nets, when comparing netted regions with non-netted regions.
The other argument, claiming that not enough people die to justify killing innocent sea life, can be dismissed as a category error. If someone presents to a hospital with a rare disease, they are not sent home, so that more common diseases can be treated instead. Conscience should not be rationed, like government funding, as if the rationale for budgeting can be applied to moral duty. Every life should be valued equally.
Only about 10% of the comments on Ballina Shark Reports are in favour of expanding the shark net program. That is not so bad, considering the pressure to conform, and the risk of losing friends for refusing to support the preeminent theme of our age: the adoration of nature, and the concomitant shaming of mankind.
The shark debate is just the latest front in an endless war over the human spirit.
Three thousand years ago, Elijah battled against the nature worshippers. Just like today, those original eco-warriors were endorsed by the feminine spirit, in the form of Jezabel, a Phoenician Queen, whose name is used as a slur against wicked, morally unrestrained women.
The story of Elijah is the first time in the Bible that God is equated with conscience. Elijah drew his strength from a “still small voice”. Of course, eco-warriors constantly mimic having a conscience, when they display self-righteous indignation at the perceived maltreatment of voiceless victims of male energy.
However, they don’t love nature, so much as they hate mankind. Their motivation stems from resentment. They have no gratitude for the freedom and prosperity afforded them by male sacrifice. The West is condemned to riding a perpetual swing, which carries public sentiment from the feminine to the masculine, each side inevitably going too far, before the pendulum swings back the other way. The shark crisis is a perfect example of feminine vibes going too far.
It’s a fascinating predicament.
However, not many people listen to reason when formulating their opinions. That is why the environmental movement uses emotional imagery, combined with evocative music. But, when I suggested reflecting on the horror of shark attacks, the thought experiment was denounced as a “low act”.
THE HUMAN TRAGEDY OF SHARK ATTACKS
Clearly, these people don’t reflect on the human tragedy of shark attacks. They must block the thought to reduce cognitive dissonance.
In amongst all the flak, I received the following email (shared with permission):
“I just wanted to write and thank you for doing this. My family lives in Emerald Beach and on Father’s Day 2021 we were surfing at Shelly Beach when Timothy Thompson was fatally killed by a shark. My son was 10 years old and right next to him and saw it happen. My husband tried to save his life. I can’t stand when people dismiss it and say “you’re going into their territory”. They obviously don’t understand how deeply traumatic it can be. A wife lost her husband, a child lost their father. My son had nightmares for months. And our whole community was rattled. Thankfully my son still loves surfing. He surfs Shelly’s all the time still, but has had 3 shark encounters in the last month alone! At home and at Crescent Head. I’m really not sure what the answer is, but if we do nothing, the consequences are far too awful. Surfing and enjoying the ocean in various ways is so important to so many of us, and such a healthy thing. All my favourite memories are surfing together as a family. I would love to be able to do it with less fear.”
Please sign the petition to Parliament to extend the shark net program across regional NSW.