I’ve previously highlighted the growing scepticism and frustration of people in Western Australia to the growing number of fatal shark attacks and the failure of the government and government agencies like Fisheries WA to deal with the problem.
One of the big government initiative has been the ‘Shark Response Unit’ created within Fisheries WA. You can read the stated objectives of the unit and about its efforts in shark tagging and monitoring here:
Shark response unit
I’m not sure where their objectives came from, but it is obvious that the department’s basic philosophy is that protecting sharks is the priority and if a man eating shark is in the water people should stay out of the water or accept the risk of getting eaten. I believe this approach is built on the greeny ideology that the ocean is the shark’s domain and you enter at your own risk. The government echoed these sentiments for a number of years up until recently.
During that time the fatal shark attacks grew steadily until this last one which was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Each fatal attack took a big toll on the local community. People were becoming more enraged and outspoken by the lack of action. Colin Barnett came to understand the harsh reality of the greeny ideology he had quoted so glibly in the past and that protecting beach goers and human life was the priority.
But it seems that the Fisheries WA scientists continue to cling stubbornly to this ideology. The following interview took place in March last year with Rory McAuley, a principal research scientist at the department. Questions were raised in the interview about using satellite tracking to hunt down and kill tagged sharks that threatened the safety of the public. Here are his responses:
Mr McAuley says the shark tracking information is only supposed to be used for scientific and public safety purposes, but he acknowledges it could be used to catch and kill sharks. Invariably after a shark attack, or when a big shark comes close to a beach, there are people who say the shark should be destroyed.
Mr McAuley is worried about perverse outcomes from his research project—particularly the likelihood that tagged sharks would be easier to track and kill.
'The information we collect in real time on shark occurrences off beaches are only provided to authorities,' he says.
'The real-time information is intended for pre-emptive safety responses—not for targeting those sharks for retribution or elimination. But there is a risk that by highlighting these shark hazards when they present themselves that people will use that as an opportunity to catch those sharks and remove them.'
The whole issue of killing sharks that pose a threat is a very uncomfortable one for researchers and shark managers.
Although there is an argument that says that sharks that have attacked humans may need to be destroyed because they could remain in proximity to beaches and strike again, the ethics of using scientific research to carry out hunt and kill policies is fraught with complexity, Mr McAuley says.
Taming the sharks - Background Briefing - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
On the one hand Mr McAuley claims the tracking information is intended for the public’s safety. But he then goes on to say that using the data to track and kill animals that pose a safety risk is perverse. He says that the satellite tracking should only be used to warn the public of the presence of a shark.
The interviewer describes a scenario whereby a tagged man-eating shark has killed someone and is swimming in an area near other people. Would the authorities then use this satellite tracking to locate and destroy the offending shark?
In responding Mr McAuley argues that establishing the ethics of this course of action is complex.
Why you may well ask? What is the ethical dilemma that prevents destroying a man-eating shark that has just killed someone and say now is swimming in close proximity to other beach goers? This response shows his real motive. Because it might upset some of the other privately run organisations like the Rodney Fox Foundation with whom they are sharing tracking data.
This is confirmed in the comments of a researcher in that company:
'If that were to happen the likelihood is we would stop tagging,' she says. 'If it was going to occur that we were enabling people to hunt those sharks more easily then we would have to consider stopping that kind of tagging completely in order to protect the sharks.'
You can learn about the Rodney Fox business and company objectives here:
https://www.rodneyfox.com.au/index....rentDriven=2147259961¤tContent=45204997
Basically it is a company that offers shark tours and tags and tracks sharks. It seems to have a strong conservation focus. I wouldn’t call upsetting this company a complex ethical dilemma. It sounds more like a conflict of interest - for both parties.
Mr McAuley is paid by the public and holds his office primarily to serve the interests of the public. In this case public safety should be the priority. It is becoming increasingly apparent that culling white pointers is not a risk mitigating strategy that Mr McAuley and his department are prepared to consider. They may be ideologically opposed to the idea. That being the case, the real moral and ethical dilemma to address is whether they have any right to use public funds and public office to promote a personal ideology that compromises the safety of the beach going public.
This article goes on to highlight the practical difficulties of issuing warnings and closing beaches as suggested by Fisheries WA. Too many beach closures and families will rightly start to get edgy and annoyed - especially on a stinking hot Perth day in the middle of summer with all the kids in tow. It is understandable that people will ignore the warnings and enter the water or find beaches that are not patrolled. Then the risk of an attack is real.
The same applies to divers. In a recent case a dive instructor on a charter was ordered out of the water because a large white pointer had been seem in the area. The instructor eventually jumped back into the water and finished the course. A couple of the students had seen the white pointer come to within 15 m during the course. The warning system had worked as well as it could but divers' safety was still compromised.
---------- Post added February 16th, 2014 at 02:14 PM ----------
So in other words the whale population is rebounding from decades of severe hunting in the past and the ecosystem is beginning to re-establish its balance. Here seal and sea lion populations are rebounding from decades of hunting in the past and it is believed (although we have little scientific proof) that great white populations are increasing as some of their primary prey species increases.
Although I dive in waters where great whites are present, and have even had them pass close to me (as have friends), for some reason they don't seem too interested in us as potential food. I have a feeling spear fishing is not as popular here in SoCal as it is in Australia which may be a factor. I have nothing against responsible spear fishers, but they do add an element of additional risk to their diving.
There is an abundance of hump backs off our coast and the number continues to grow. Some would say there are too many.
I see there have been fatal white pointer attacks in Southern California but then your population density is much higher than here. Over here I'd consider any encounter with a white pointer to be potentially fatal and to be avoided but then again it's the ones you don't see that are the problem.
Maybe it is just that our whites are more aggressive.
Out of the 29 recorded fatal attacks here since 1866 one was a spear fisherman and that was back in 1967.
