Study shows most Western Australians oppose killing sharks
Shark fever appears to have dissipated in Western Australia. The attacks have stopped (touch wood now!), the public debate has wound down, and with that the media reportage that fed off it has slowed.
But it hasn't stopped. The latest news comes from a pair of researchers who found that the majority of ocean-users in Western Australia oppose shark nets, drumlines and culling, and would rather see the state government fund research and education.
The researchers, Dr Leah Gibbs (pictured right) and Dr Andrew Warren from the University of Wollongong, recently had their work published in the journal Marine Policy. Dr Gibbs and Dr Warren interviewed a large cross section of ocean users in Western Australia – from surfers and surf life savers to fishers and divers – and found that killing sharks by drumlines, shark nets, culling or ‘catch and destroy’, is strongly opposed.
In particular, less than 16 per cent of respondents supported the use of baited drumlines – the method used between January-April 2014, as part of the state’s controversial ‘imminent threat policy’. Just 8 per cent of respondents said the state governments controversial shark policy gave them greater protection and confidence, and only 17 per cent thought it would reduce risk for ocean users.
In contrast, the most strongly supported strategies for reducing shark hazards were research and education, and encouraging people to understand and accept risks associated with using the ocean.
“It is time to move beyond kill-based strategies,” study leader Dr Leah Gibbs said.
“Current policies are based on decades-old thinking that killing sharks will reduce the risk to humans. This is simply unfounded.
“Our study showed that killing sharks does not make ocean users feel safer, but rather, they believe that the ocean is the sharks’ habitat, and people should be encouraged to understand risks associated with entering marine environments and adapt their behaviour accordingly.”
The study responses showed people are in favour of:
- Improved public education about sharks (87 per cent of respondents)
- Better strategies to encourage ocean users to understand and accept the risks of ocean use (82 per cent)
- Research and development of personal shark deterrents (67 per cent).
- Improved signage and information at beaches about shark risk (61 per cent)
During the aforementioned media frenzy some commentators pointed out the hypocrisy of people living on Australia's east coast protesting the Western Australia shark cull. Shark nets have been used in NSW since 1935 and drum lines in Queensland since 1962 (Queensland also uses nets).
Dr Gibbs and her team are now working on a project to evaluate shark nets in New South Wales, particularly looking at the Illawarra and Shoalhaven regions.
“I think there is a misconception among the general population about exactly what shark nets do. Many people think they are barriers that keep sharks away from popular swimming beaches. They aren’t barriers. They are nets specifically designed to catch and kill sharks.”
Dr Gibbs said policy makers are beginning to look to new shark hazard management strategies that do not harm marine life, and this should be encouraged. Examples of alternate strategies currently under trial include improved surveillance and warning systems, magnetic and electrical barriers, and personal electrical and chemical deterrents.
“These technologies are already in use or being trialled. If we can get them right, they really provide hope for effectively and ethically keeping people safe and protecting marine life.”
Comments
They are happy enough to sprout these figures but why don't they quote sample sizes. If the population surveyed was not statistically large enough then their figures don't mean a whole lot. Just stating "a large cross" section doesn't cut it.
I wondered the same thing about sample size so went to read the journal, however it's behind a paywall at the moment so I can't find out. Nevertheless, it's a science journal and will be scrutinised heavily by the relevant science community, therefore I'd assume the population size is statistically large enough otherwise the study would fall over at the first hurdle.
Ocean users?Your opinion is different depending on how much time you spend in the ocean.
Call me a cynic , but is this a study looking for a pre-determined result ?
I'm old enough to have been surfing 40 years in SW WA , and from my
own observations ,with the banning of a lot of shark fishing that the ocean
is out of balance with us now being part of the food chain of apex predators.
I support culling and I know a lot of fellow surfers who feel the same way.
I agree with you gcart.!
Let do a survey based on surfers, ab- drivers who are in the water probably the most.?
As I am a bit surprised as all the surfer I've spoken to would agree that the volume of large sharks in the waters around WA has increased dramatically over the last 3-5 years.
I personally think if a shark attracts a human then it should be hunted down and exterminated, not let to swim around for days afterwards until it eventually moves on.
We would all feel a little more comfortable if the shark was put down.
If there was a better way that would obtain the same result without killing then show us as the ocean is ours to share with all creatures.
Until we have more concrete evidence we have to put a human life 1st and would say to all the shark huggers that a shark attack is something I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemies.
I would say that the stats are probably a pretty accurate reflection of the view over here in terms of a higher percentage of people against culling/nets etc and in support of greater research/tagging etc. That said it would be interesting to know how many people that appose culling/nets etc are regular ocean users or even ocean users at all......
That's a good question gcart, and one that should be asked.
It all depends. Which journal is it in Stu? As Stu said, being published in a journal gives at least some confidence that their sampling size and protocols were relatively sound for this type of surveying. However, without reading the paper and scrutinising their design it is impossible to tell what kind of biases were potentially involved. If they wrote it up properly then I presume they would have recognised any flaws or biases in their data collection and taken these into account within their discussion. Often though, the figures are the easiest thing to report, so they get reported without important details, context and relevatn qualifying statements that may or may not be covered in the paper.
It is very very difficult to avoid some levels of bias in large scale surveys such as this. Even if their questions were well written and presented such that they did not manipulate responses, you already have biases involved just by the fact that certain types of people are more likely to either have the opportunity and/or take the time to respond to a survey such as this. And there may then be a correlation between the kinds of perspectives held most commonly amongst that cross-section of 'certain types of people' etc... this is unnavoidable...
It's important to read the whole thing if you want the full picture.
Even if there are biases though, the data still tells us a lot. You just have to understand the biases and take them into account i.e. work out how much salt you need to sprinkle on the 'impressive figures'.
on a personal note, these findings are encouraging... assuming they are accurate..ish...
I agree that it would be interesting to see how the questions were framed, as everything can be made to fit somehow. The bias that you guys are talking about.
If the question was 'Do you think education and research on shark behavoiur is important?'
Then obviously most people are going to answer 'yes'
next question 'would having 16 drum lines spaced along 3000km of West Australian coast make you feel at ease in the water?' Majority response would no doubt be no.
Report can write itself, most people surveyed think education and research are more important than drum lines.
I live in SW WA and the only people I know against lowering the shark population are people who don't use the ocean.
The research was published in a journal called 'Marine Policy'. My mistake, should've included it in the story.
Working in a chem firm some time ago, I was watching the chief scientist pore over some ICP-OES results. I asked him, "What do the results show?" He smiled at me and replied, "What do you want them to show?"
I worked on a crayboat off Bunbury WA in the late 90's and most crayboats at the time were catching up to 3+ sharks per day. 450 crayboats on the coast X Approx 200 plus fishing days = 270,000 sharks per year! Thats being conservative. Add to that , there were more dedicated shark boats as well. So I could estimate the number of sharks being caught per year off W.A. would be closer to 400,000 maybe more and the numbers never dropped. Same amount being caught each year until early 2000 (not sure which year) when the Fisheries Dept banned crayfishermen from using shark hooks on craypots. Every year since then, most crayfishermen have regularly seen more and more sharks in the water from the boats and noticing seeing bigger and bigger sharks. As getting back on the boats myself north of Perth, from 2005 to 2010 saw it first hand. If 400,000 sharks each year are not being caught, what are they doing??? Multiplying maybe??? A whale then gets washed up on our beach. 18 months later gets washed away from strong northwesterlies and where the carcass pieces and slick ended is exactly where a young Ben Linden lost his life to a Great White! I have surfed there plenty of times on my own over the last 30 years before and after the whale so I don't think education would have saved him or anyone else who lost their life during the spate of attacks we had over here. Most attacks happened very close to where whale carcasses were washed up and decomposed many years prior. While I'm at it, why don't the Govt dig up that fkn whale carcass they buried at North Cottesloe in the early 90's. Numerous people have died there too. Education. Who needs the education.......
A majority of west Australians don't surf