This week, a 17 year old girl was killed by a Great White Shark while surfing off Esperance in Western Australia. An unspeakable tragedy, my heart goes out to her family and friends who are suffering from her loss, and nothing we can do or say will ease that. No-one would wish that heartache on any family. Fred Pawle has used this tragedy to write a highly biased, unbalanced article that in the first sentence hints as to what direction he is heading; Tabloid-style exploiting of a horrible situation. The opening paragraphs read:
"Our insane shark-conservation policies have cost another life, this time a 17-year-old girl who was attacked in front of her parents and siblings.
I would like to say that this incident will be the turning point in this debate, that our politicians will finally realise we need to reduce the increasing number of aggressive, lethal sharks in our waters, but this is unlikely."
I take issue with the notion that we "need" to get rid of sharks in "our" waters. What this boils down to is lack of understanding from the people who write these articles. Or even worse, total understanding that they are writing click-bait. Why is it "insane" to conserve a species that is vital to it's eco-system? I am glad to see the WA Government has (for now at least) said they won't deploy drum lines, because they don't work. Not only that but it is a complete stab in the dark and doesn't guarantee that the shark caught is the individual shark that attacked.
Next up from Fred Pawle, a direct attack on a common-sense approach:
"The forces against such action are deeply entrenched in all our major organisations. For example, Surf Life Saving Western Australia, where yesterday’s attack occurred, recommends six responses to sharks: research, education, surveillance, communication, preventive action (“shark barriers”, which can be built only in placid waters) and emergency response. It does not recommend the reduction of sharks, despite many fishermen in the state saying the size and abundance of large sharks, especially great whites, off WA are alarmingly high."
Most surfers are completely aware that the sea is the shark's home. I find it deplorable that people still support culling of sharks rather than support educating people of the dangers and how to avoid interacting with them. It's the same with Crocodiles in the NT and Queensland. There needs to be more of a push for educating people about sharks, snakes, crocodiles, spiders and the likes because most of the people spouting about culling any of the above animals don't have a damn clue about them.
Fred, your agenda is revealed thus:
"Researchers and academics whose careers depend upon continued funding into the behaviour and fragility of these “apex predators” long ago convinced politicians and large sections of the community that to reduce the number of sharks in our waters would be an ecological disaster."
Pawle: "So a teenage kid, doing what Aussie teenagers have done for more than a century, has died instead. She won’t be the last."
But sharks, doing what sharks have done for more than a million years, are secondary to our pursuit of recreation in their territory?
Pawle:"The Senate’s environment committee, chaired by Green Tasmanian Peter Whish-Wilson, will coincidentally hold public hearings into shark mitigation strategies in Perth on Thursday. If, when the hearings begin, the committee expresses sympathy for the latest victim’s family, it will be an act of breathtaking hypocrisy."
Yet if they don't express sympathy you would attack them as being heartless monsters, also an act of (tabloid-style) breathtaking hypocrisy. They would be absolutely right to express sympathy, and any suggestion that the sympathy wouldn't be heartfelt is shocking. It's basic human nature. Culling sharks will solve nothing. Of course it is reasonable to take actions to mitigate the risk of shark attack however drum lines and culling aren't the answer. Yet you criticise the very people whose research could lead to a manageable solution and dismiss them as doing nothing more than perpetuating their funding?!
The problem is the arrogance of the human species that we feel we are entitled to be anywhere we want to be regardless of what else is there, and at our convenience. I absolutely agree that residents of WA should feel safe while surfing, and I am not for a second suggesting that any shark attack victim is arrogant, but in order to meet your desired level of safety you will need to cull the whole population of White Sharks, Tiger Sharks, Bull Sharks etc. Lets not forget that state lines mean absolutely nothing in the animal kingdom. If you were to kill sharks in WA it wouldn't stop them coming from South Africa or South Australia or New Zealand or Guadalupe arriving in WA at some point. And then what? An animal goes extinct because "people want to surf?!" If that's not arrogance, what is it?
"As reported in The Australian this month, the committee has already reached a conclusion that its job is to help revive the number of sharks in our waters, downplay the dangers they pose, dismiss methods that have proven successful in Queensland and Sydney, and educate the public about these “wonderful” and “extraordinary” animals.
Its priority is the safety of sharks first, people second."
I think putting value on a human life above a shark's life, while not necessarily wrong, is what contributes to the mentality that sharks lives don't matter, or any other animal for that matter. At the end of the day humans are land creatures, we cannot live in the water. What right do we have to kill them in their own home just so we can play there?! I think we may have to agree to disagree because to me that is huge arrogance. We go there at our own risk, we don't have a "God given" right to play there and assume we will be safe. We don't have a right to annihilate any species to facilitate our desire to ride a wave.
Education leads to respect. Education can eradicate a fear or at least make it manageable. I was petrified of snakes as a child. When I came to Australia, I decided to educate myself about them and I have since completed two venomous snake handling courses, am awaiting the catch and release course, work at a Reptile Park (where my colleagues collect venom from snakes and spiders in order to create anti-venom and save lives) and try to educate the public about these beautiful creatures and their behaviour. Once you understand their natural behaviours you can adjust your behaviour accordingly so we can co-exist.Yes, it is us that has to adjust our behaviour. As the vastly more "intelligent" species we can adapt. Sharks are not domestic pets, you can't train them to not follow their instincts.
"Of the six people invited to the Perth hearings, two are conservationist academics (UWA professors Shaun Collin and Rebecca Meeuwig); one is selling an unreliable personal electronic deterrent (Shark Shield); one advocates the immediate abandonment of drumlins and nets in Queensland, the presence of which has coincided with an almost complete absence of fatal attacks for 50 years (Sea Shepherd); and another is SLSWA, whose timid six-point plan is outlined [in the article]"
There is not a problem with these invitations. And you are very clever in your wording... "almost complete absence of fatal attacks..." However, you are wrong. In December 2014 there was a fatal shark attack at Rudder Reef in QLD and according to sharkattackdata.com there have been five fatal attacks in Queensland since the year 2000. Do these five lives lost not register for you because they contradict your point that with drumlines and nets shark attacks are nullified? Even with these measures in place, five people lost their lives. Even with these measures in place there were 46 shark attacks in Queensland between 2000 and 2016.
The fact remains that humans are animals. We ARE part of the food chain but it is our vastly superior intellect that (most of the time) keeps us from being eaten. We are not food for sharks but unfortunately for humans a shark doesn't have hands to check what something is, it has rows and rows of razor sharp teeth that can be devastating if a human gets on the end of, potentially life ending. One nick of a major artery and you're dead in minutes but not because of a predation, but an investigatory bite. It's very rare a human is eaten by a shark.
"The committee’s hearing in Sydney last month repeatedly heard witnesses say that surfers and other ocean users must accept the risk of entering the water. Even surfers are spouting this line these days.
'Real surfers understand that sharks are extraordinary beasts and that we are in their environment' Surfrider Foundation representative Brendan Donohoe, from Sydney’s North Narrabeen beach, told the committee during its Sydney hearings last month."
Surfers are "spouting" these lines because they make sense. The moment sharks start coming up the beaches into territories they don't belong and begin attacking humans then I'll support a shark cull. It is absolutely ridiculous that to this day people still think animals have the capacity for human thought and reasoning. I wrote about this in my early blog entries in 2013, Animals Don't Think Like People, People.
"Mr Donohoe also told the committee that “there are a lot of morons around”, by which he meant there were many people who blamed governments for the shark crisis currently affecting Australia. “The idea that it is someone else’s fault is astounding to me. Everyone knows the risk, and the risk is not statistically lessened by anything we do.” "
Mr Donohue and I agree on something. There ARE a lot of morons around, but that isn't restricted to any particular debate. The definition of "moron" is "a stupid person." The definition of "stupid" is "having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense." Tell me, Mr Pawle, where a lack of intelligence comes from? Isn't it from a lack of education about a certain topic? How can extended research into sharks be a bad thing? How can it be a bad thing to increase our knowledge as much as possible in order to understand and reduce a potential threat?
"Researchers, including Bruce himself, last year conceded that such predictions are impossible. A report for the WA Department of Fisheries, co-authored by Bruce after conducting one of the biggest shark tagging and tracking projects in history, found that great white behaviour is “highly variable” and “not consistent”."
Well that's an easy one. They're wild animals, they aren't on rails or programmed to set routes. They'll follow their prey, which is predominantly fish or seals. Similarly, the fish and seals aren't restricted to any particular piece of ocean and occasionally our paths will cross as people enter the water. More research may be required into the numbers of fish in particular areas, why they are there, and what effect they have on the local population of sharks.
Mr Pawle, your article is irresponsible. Your article takes advantage of an inherent fear of being eaten that most humans possess, you play and prey on that with sensationalised headlines that are not backed up by the facts. It's an opinion piece, of which you are of course entitled to one. You are writing for the national broadsheet, The Australian and as such people rely on you and the media as a whole to provide accurate, fair articles. People's opinions are formed by what information they see in the media and you are in a position of responsibility. If people are to share the opinion of individuals like yourself and Vic Hislop, to go back to a medieval attitude of belligerence towards any animal that causes any danger, and to value it over the proven scientific research given to us by "researchers and academics" then the future is very bleak.
Mr Pawle I would very much welcome your response. I would very much like you to back up your opinion with evidence. I would welcome your input into what I have said, and if I am wrong about anything please let me know, I firmly believe in being as fully informed as possible. I would like to know what exactly has brought you to the opinion you now have, and I would like to know what you propose should be done to reduce and avoid shark attacks in future, and why.
Yours in anticipation,
C Carter.
With deepest condolences to the family and friends of Laeticia Brouwer. RIP.
(Edited 26/04/2017 to correct grammar and a typo.)
(Edited 26/04/2017 to correct grammar and a typo.)
