Transforming shark hazard policy: Learning from ocean-users and shark encounter in Western Australia

Abstract

Killing sharks is a popular strategy for reducing risk for beach-goers and ocean-users. But the effectiveness of kill-based strategies is debated and the ecological and economic costs are high. In Western Australia the state government introduced new policy in 2012 in response to shark-related fatalities, to track, catch and destroy sharks deemed to pose an 'imminent threat' to beach-goers. This paper reports on a survey of Western Australia-based ocean-users, and pursues two aims: to develop an understanding of the experiences of oceanusers in encountering sharks; and to learn about the attitudes of ocean-users towards shark hazard management. The research finds that people encounter sharks often, without harm, and that most ocean-users adapt their practices in order to reduce personal risk. The majority of ocean-users oppose the kill-based elements of the new policy, and kill-based shark hazard management strategies more broadly. Rather, oceanusers strongly support further research and education focusing on shark behaviour and shark deterrents, and approaches that enable people to understand and accept risks associated with ocean use. These findings present opportunity to refocus debates about shark hazard management on non-lethal strategies in concert with better educating publics so they can make informed decisions about their ocean-based activities. This paper reports on a survey of Western Australia-based ocean-users, and pursues two aims: to develop an understanding of the experiences of ocean-users in encountering sharks; and to learn about the attitudes of ocean-users towards shark hazard management. The research finds that people encounter sharks often, without harm, and that most ocean-users adapt their practices in order to reduce personal risk. The majority of ocean-users oppose the kill-based elements of the new policy, and kill-based shark hazard management strategies more broadly. Rather, ocean-users strongly support further research and education focusing on shark behaviour and shark deterrents, and approaches that enable people to understand and accept risks associated with ocean use. These findings present opportunity to refocus debates about shark hazard management on non-lethal strategies in concert with better educating publics so they can make informed decisions about their ocean-based activities.

Effects and effectiveness of lethal shark hazard management: The Shark Meshing (Bather Protection) Program, NSW, Australia

“…d Carson (); United Nations (n.d.); World Commission on Environment and Development (). e Gibbs and Warren (, ); McPhee (); Meeuwig and Ferreira (); Pepin‐Neff and Wynter (); Simpfendorfer et al (). f Department of Primary Industries (n.d.‐b); Hazin and Afonso (); Huveneers et al (); McPhee and Blount (); O'Connell, Stroud, et al ()).…”

“…Scientific research is demonstrating unprecedented pressures on marine and coastal environments (Dulvy et al, ; IPCC, ; United Nations, ), and public awareness and sentiment has increased substantially in recent decades (Carson, ; United Nations n.d.; World Commission on Environment & Development, ). Concern for well‐being of species and individual animals of non‐target and target species has grown substantially since the Program's introduction 80 years ago, reducing public support for lethal strategies (Gibbs & Warren, , ; Gray & Gray, ; Pepin‐Neff & Wynter, ). Critiques of negative effects, effectiveness and appropriateness of lethal strategies are becoming more widespread (e.g.…”

“…They can be grouped into four broad categories: spatial deterrents; spatial observation; exclusion barriers; and personal deterrents (summarized in Figure ). Strategies that rely on killing targeted species are common (Gibbs & Warren, ), including long‐ and short‐term programs designed to control or reduce populations or kill individual animals. Such strategies have been adopted in Australia, South Africa, USA (Hawai‘i), France (La Réunion), Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Seychelles (Dudley, ; Gibbs & Warren, ; Neff & Yang, ; Wetherbee, Lowe, & Crow, ).…”

“…Strategies that rely on killing targeted species are common (Gibbs & Warren, ), including long‐ and short‐term programs designed to control or reduce populations or kill individual animals. Such strategies have been adopted in Australia, South Africa, USA (Hawai‘i), France (La Réunion), Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Seychelles (Dudley, ; Gibbs & Warren, ; Neff & Yang, ; Wetherbee, Lowe, & Crow, ). Growing criticism in recent years has seen innovation and development of non‐lethal methods across all categories – SMART drumlines (‘Shark Management Alert in Real Time’), tagging and satellite observation, new generation swimming enclosures and electrical deterrents.…”

“…c Department of Primary Industries (); Hazin and Afonso (). d Gibbs and Warren (); Wetherbee et al (). e Shark Spotters (n.d.).…”