A policy for us and the sharks
An attempt at reason and at communicating opportunities
Emotions are high across Australia over the WA government’s aggressive and ill-advised set of policies in response to shark attacks within its state. The most controversial of which is the policy of culling sharks of a particular size and species.
Those in favour of the policies claim that sharks are a menace that must be dealt with by any means (scientifically proven or not) and that the reactions of some on the east coast is hypocritical (as there are nets on the east coast that kill more than just sharks). Those who are for the cull are right in pointing out the hypocrisy of those in the east, but that is no excuse to follow the same path to irrationality.
I don’t take sides on this issue, I just believe that if the scientists say that killing sharks randomly will be ineffective and only good for assuaging the psychological paranoia of the few, then I am with them. I see science as the solution to the issue and political manipulation and high emotions as the problem.
Being a student of politics and the environment, I thought I could offer an alternative policy that could attempt to solve the problem without the need for random acts of killing. If anyone can find holes in my policy I encourage you to point it out. The only condition I have is that those who poke holes are obliged to fill the hole constructively.
A policy for us and the sharks
In order to build a long-lasting policy that protects human life from shark attacks, policy-makers and the broader community need to first understand sharks better. In order to understand sharks better policy-makers need to have more detailed and better data on sharks. The more data there is on shark behaviour and location, the better chance of avoiding the loss of human life and the extinction of keystone species’.
In order to collect data on sharks, rather than paying fisherman to catch and shoot sharks, they should be paid to catch and tag sharks. Tagging sharks will add to the data needed in order to understand sharks better. Paying fisherman to tag sharks will provide them with a source of income that sees them engaging in the scientific research of the species (rather than their destruction), as well as providing a buffer for an industry that is often in economic stress. If the value of tagging sharks is higher than catching overfished species of fish, then we could also see a way to replenish fish stocks whilst keeping fishermen employed.
Tagging sharks will also enable information systems to be developed that can be used by surfers and swimmers to give them a better understanding of the prevalence of certain species’ of sharks in their local areas, and enable them to make better informed decisions about where and when they enter the water. For example, the location of sharks could be easily shared through an online mapping tool and be used by surfers, lifeguards and swimmers in real time to warn them of the proximity of dangerous sharks. Users will be able to see if their beach is currently the site of the United Nations of Great Whites Annual Meeting and make a good decision. As more sharks are tagged, the more data there is being added to the online tool, and the more effective it will become.
This same tool could be used by diving tourism operators to facilitate them in undertaking shark tourism ventures which bring increases in tourism income for the state as well as local small businesses. Having access to location specific data on rare species of shark such as the Great White will enable tourism operators to target the species easier and reduce the amount of fuel used in ‘looking’ for such species’. People are fascinated by the ‘wild’ and by tagging and tracking sharks we open up a vast resource for eco-tourism that is only going to increase in value. On top of this, an increased engagement with sharks as a tourism resource will help in diminishing their reputation as a threat, adding to a potential change in mentally and shift in cultural misunderstanding.
At the same time as data is collected, disseminated and used in a positive fashion, government money can be invested in partnership with wetsuit manufacturers to develop wetsuits that repel sharks, render surfers ‘invisible’ to sharks, or both. There have already been breakthroughs on this front, but people either do not trust the claims of scientists yet, or are dismissive of the science generally. With a concerted effort, a solution can be found that would provide surfers with the protection they feel that they need in the water. What is very much necessary on this front is the full support of the industry in communicating to surfers that they think this is a good idea and that they are working towards it with government research funding. It is also very important that surfers at the pinnacle of the sport voice their opinions of such policies as we are seeing enacted now around Australia, and that surf media communicates these opinions to their readership.
With the combined effects of tagging and tracking sharks, and the development of wearable technologies that repel sharks, trust in science may override the faith in culturally programmed solutions to threats (shooting things), and the human/shark relationship could change in a fundamental way. By seeking to understand the ‘threat’ through policy and technological development a cultural change could take place that sees us respecting the sharks whilst maintaining our freedom to use the shared resource of the ocean.
By resorting to barbarism we do ourselves and the environment a disservice. We as humans have the technology and the ingenuity to overcome this problem in a way that is sustainable and acceptable to both sides of the current debate. Losing a loved one to a shark attack and living with the fear of attack every time you enter the water must be psychologically draining, but it is not an excuse for barbaric responses.
Politicians and policy makers are elected to find solutions, playing on the fears of the vulnerable through the deployment of barbaric and scientifically unproven methods does them a disservice and holds human progress back.
